Temel İngilizce Derslerinin Öğretiminde Tersyüz Öğretim Tekniğinin Etkililiği

Yıl 2019, Cilt: 9 Sayı: 3, 279 - 289, 01.12.2019

Seema Arif İrfana Omar

https://doi.org/10.2399/yod.19.003

Cited By: 6

Öz

Tüm dünyadaki üniversiteler, amaçlı öğrenmeyi sağlamak için bildirimsel hızlandırılmış harmanlanmış öğrenme (declarative accelerated blended learning, DABL) ve tersyüz sınıflar gibi yenilikçi yöntem arayışları içindedir. Pakistan'ın yükseköğretim kurumlarında şu ana kadar böyle bir etkileşimli teknoloji kullanılmamıştır. Temel İngilizce derslerindeki öğrenme üzerinde DABL'nin etkisini ölçmek için özel bir üniversitenin sosyal bilimler fakültesinde bir pilot uygulama yürütüldü. Bu niceliksel çalışmanın amacı, lisans düzeyindeki öğrencilere temel İngilizce öğretiminde Şeffaf Çevrimiçi Dil (Transparent Language Online, TLO) programı kullanarak yenilikçi öğrenme tasarımının ve tersyüz sınıfların etkinliğini araştırmaktır. Evrensel, herkese uyan bir model benimsemek yerine, bilgisayarlı teknoloji ile tümleştirme yoluna gidilerek öğrencilerin bireysel eksikliklerine etkili bir şekilde cevap verebilecek ihtiyaca özgü bir öğrenme tasarımı hazırlandı. Standart bir değerlendirme görevi (İngilizce dilinde 12 yaygın hatanın tanımlanması ve düzeltilmesini içeren) uygulandı. Çalışma her bir bölümde 90 öğrenci olmak üzere ile 3 bölümden toplam 270 öğrenci ile yürütüldü. Her bir derse katılan öğrenci bölümlerinin seçimi için rasgele tabakalı örnekleme ve her bölümden öğrenci seçimi için nüfus sayımı örneklemesi kullanıldı. Sonuçlar, öğrenmeye olan ilginin ve motivasyonun arttığını ve bunun da akademik performansı arttırdığını göstermektedir. Bu çalışma, lisans öğrencilerine temel İngilizce öğretiminde ihtiyaç temelli öğrenme tasarımı ile teknolojinin bütünleştirilmesinin en iyi sonucu verdiğini göstermektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Bilgisayar aracılı teknoloji, bildirimsel hızlandırılmış harmanlanmış öğrenme (DABL), Şeffaf Çevrimiçi Dil (TLO), tersyüz sınıflar, yükseköğretimde öğretme ve öğrenme

Effectiveness of Flipped Classroom in Teaching Basic English Courses

Öz

Universities all over the world are in search of innovative methods to ensure purposeful learning such as. Declarative accelerated blended learning (DABL) and flipped classrooms. No such interactive technology has so far been used in the higher education institutions of Pakistan. A pilot was carried out in the social sciences faculty of a private university to measure the effect of DABL on student learning in the Basic English courses. The aim of this quantitative study is to explore the effectiveness of innovative learning design and use of flipped classroom by using Transparent Language Online (TLO) in teaching of basic English courses to undergraduate students. A needs-specific learning design was crafted integrating pedagogy with computer-mediated technology that can effectively cater to students' individual deficiencies rather than adopting a universal, one-size-fits-all model. A standard assessment task (involving the identification and correction of 12 common errors in English language) was implemented. The study was conducted with 270 students, composed of 90 students from each of three different sections. Random stratified sampling was used for the selection of the student sections of each course, and census sampling was used for the selection of students from each section. The results reflected heightened student interest and motivation in learning, resulting in improved academic performance. The study concludes that need-based learning design with integration of technology works best to teach basic English courses to undergraduate students.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Computer-mediated technology, declarative accelerated blended learning, flipped classrooms, teaching & learning at higher education, transparent language online (TLO)

Kaynakça

• Alvarez, B. (2011). Flipping the Classroom: Homework in Class, Lessons at Home. Accessed through <http://www.learningfirst.org/success-story/ flipping-classroom-homework-class-lessons-home> on 6th April, 2017.
• Anderson, L. W., Krathwohl, D. R., & Bloom, B. S. (2005). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing. New York, NY: Longman.
• Bergmann, J., Overmyer, J., & Wilie, B. (2013). The flipped class: Myths versus reality. The Daily Riff, July 9.
• Bergmann, J., & Sams, A. (2012). Before you flip, consider this. Phi Delta Kappan, 94(02), 1–25.
• Bingimlas, K. A. (2009). Barriers to the successful integration of ICT in teaching and learning environments: A review of the literature. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 5(3), 235–245.
• Bitner, N., & Bitner, J. (2002). Integrating technology into the classroom: Eight keys to success. Journal of Technology & Teacher Education, 10(1), 95–100.
• Blin, F., & Munro, M. (2008). Why hasn’t technology disrupted academics’ teaching practices? Understanding resistance to change through the lens of activity theory. Computers & Education, 50(2), 475–490.
• Bloom, B. S., Engelhart, M. D., Furst, E. J., Hill, W. H., & Krathwohi, D. R. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals. Handbook 1: Cognitive domain. New York, NY: Longman.
• Bonk, C. J., & Graham, C. R. (2006). Blended learning systems: Definition, current trends, and future directions. In C. J. Bonk, & C. R. Graham (Eds.), The handbook of blended learning: Global perspectives, local designs. San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer.
• Boulton, H. (2017). Exploring the effectiveness of new technologies: Improving literacy and engaging learners at risk of social exclusion in the UK. Teaching and Teacher Education, 63, 73–81.
• Brun, M., & Hinostroza, J. (2014). Learning to become a teacher in the 21st century: ICT integration in initial teacher education in Chile. Educational Technology and Society, 17(3), 222–238.
• Chai, C. S., Koh, J. H., & Tsai, C. (2010). Facilitating preservice teachers’ development of technological, pedagogical, and content knowledge (TPACK). Educational Technology and Society, 13, 63–73.
• Costello, A. B., & Osborne, J. W. (2005). Best practices in exploratory factor analysis: Four recommendations for getting the most from your analysis. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 10(7), 1–9.
• Cuban, L. (2002). Oversold and underused: Computers in the classroom. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 11(1), 111–112.
• Davies, R. S., Dean, D. L., & Ball, N. (2013). Flipping the classroom and instructional technology integration in a college-level information systems spreadsheet course. Educational Technology Research and Development, 61(4), 563–580.
• Doering, A., Koseoglu, S., Scharber, C., Henrickson, J., & Lanegran, D. (2014). Technology integration in K-12 geography. Journal of Geography, 113(6), 223–237.
• Draeger, J. D., & Price, L. (2011). Which way to SoTL utopia? International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 5(1), 1–13.
• Ertmer, P. A. (2005). Teacher pedagogical beliefs: The final frontier in our quest for. Educational Technology Research and Development, 53(4), 25–39.
• Ertmer, P. A., & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. (2010). Teacher technology change: How knowledge, confidence, beliefs, and culture intersect. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 42(3), 255–284.
• Ertmer, P. A., & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. (2013). Removing obstacles to the pedagogical changes required by Jonassens vision of authentic technology-enabled learning. Computers & Education, 64, 175–182.
• Fava, J. L., & Velicer, W. F. (1996). The effects of underextraction in factor and component analyses. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 56(6), 907–929.
• Friedman, H. H., & Friedman, L. W. (2011). Crises in education: Online learning as a solution. Creative Education, 2(3), 156–163.
• Fu, J. S. (2013). ICT in education: A critical literature review and its implications. International Journal of Education and Development using Information and Communication Technology, 9(1), 112–125.
• Fulton, K. P. (2012). 10 reasons to flip. Phi Delta Kappan, 94(2), 20–24.
• Garrison, D., & Kanuka, H. (2004). Blended learning: Uncovering its transformative potential in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 7(5), 95–105.
• Habermas, J. (1972). Knowledge and human interests. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
• Herreid, C., & Schiller, N. (2013). Case studies and the flipped classroom. Journal of College Science Teaching, 42, 62–66.
• Hughes, H. (2012). Proceedings from world conference on educational multimedia, hypermedia and telecommunications 2012. In T. Amiel, & B. Wilson (Eds.), Introduction to flipping the college classroom (pp. 2434–2438). New York, NY: Chesapeake.
• Kali, Y., Markauskaite, L., Goodyear, P., & Ward, M. H. (2011). Bridging multiple expertise in collaborative. In Proceedings of the Computer Supported Collaborative (pp. 831–835). Hong Kong: ISLS.
• Kim, C., Kim, M. K., Lee, C., & Spector, J. M. (2013). Teacher beliefs and technology integration. Teaching and Teacher Education, 29, 76–85.
• Kirkwood, L. A., & Price, L. (2005). Learners and learning in the twenty-first century: What do we know about students’ attitudes towards and experiences of information and communication technologies that will help us design courses? Studies in Higher Education, 30(3), 257– 274.
• Kirkwood, L. A., & Price, L. (2008). Technology in the United Kingdom’s higher education context. In: S. Scott, & K. C. Dixon (Eds.), The globalised university: Trends and challenges (pp. 83–113). Perth, WA: Black Swan Press.
• Koh, J. H., Chai, C. S., & Tay, L. Y. (2014). TPACK-in-action: Unpacking the contextual influences of teachers construction of technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK). Computers & Education, 78, 20–29.
• Levin, T., & Wadmany, R. (2006). Teachers’ beliefs and practices in technology-based classrooms: A developmental view. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 39, 417–441.
• Lopata, C., Miller, K. A., & Miller, R. H. (2003). Survey of actual and preferred use of cooperative learning among exemplar teachers. The Journal of Educational Research, 96(4), 232–239.
• Mckenney, S., Kali, Y., Markauskaite, L., & Voogt, J. (2015). Teacher design knowledge for technology enhanced. Instructional Science, 43(2), 181–202.
• McLaughlin, J. E., Roth, M. T., Glatt, D. M. Gharkholonarehe, N., Davidson, C. A., Griffin L.M., … Mumper, R. J. (2014). The flipped classroom: A course redesign to foster learning and engagement in a health professions school. Academic Medicine, 89(2), 236–243.
• Mcmahon, G. (2009). Critical thinking and ICT integration in a Western Australian secondary school. Educational Technology and Society, 12, 269–281.
• Mezirow, J. (1991). Transformative dimensions of adult learning. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
• Moravec, M., Williams, A., Aguilar-Roca, N., & Odowd, D. K. (2010). Learn before lecture: A strategy that improves learning outcomes in a large introductory biology class. Cell Biology Education, 9(4), 473–481.
• Mouza, C., & Karchmer-Klein, R. (2013). Promoting and assessing pre-service teachers’ technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) in the context of case development. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 48(2), 127–152.
• Novak, G. M. (2011). Just-in-time teaching. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 2011(128), 63–73.
• Ozdamli, F., & Asiksoy, G. (2016). Flipped classroom approach. World Journal on Educational Technology: Current Issues, 8(2), 98–105.
• Patterson, G. A. (2012). An interview with Michael Horn blending education for high-octane motivation. Phi Delta Kappan, 94(2), 14–18.
• Piaget, J. (1971). Genetic epistemology. New York, NY: W.W. Norton.
• Prestridge, S. (2017). Examining the shaping of teachers’ pedagogical orientation for the use of technology. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 1(9), 1–15.
• Price, J. (2012). Textbook bling: An evaluation of textbook quality and usability in open educational resources versus traditionally published textbooks. Unpublished MSc thesis, Brigham Young University, Provo, UT, USA.
• Price, L., & Kirkwood, A. (2013). Using technology for teaching and learning in higher education: A critical review of the role of evidence in informing practice. Higher Education Research & Development, 33(3), 549–564.
• Roblyer, M. D. (2016). Integrating educational technology into teaching (6 ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
• Roblyer, M. D., & Doering, A. H. (2013). Integrating educational technology into teaching. Harlow: Pearson.
• 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(3), 937–945.
• Shamir-Inbal, T., Dayan, J., & Kali, Y. (2009). Assimilating online technologies into school culture. Interdisciplinary Journal of E-Learning and Learning Objects, 5, 207–334.
• Strayer, J. F. (2012). How learning in an inverted classroom influences cooperation, innovation and task orientation. Learning Environments Research, 15(2), 171–193.
• Talbert, R. (2012). Inverted classroom. Colleagues, 9(1), 18–19, Article 7.
• Tømte, C., Enochsson, A.-B., Buskqvist, U., & Kårstein, A. (2015). Educating online student teachers to master professional digital competence: The TPACK-framework goes online. Computers & Education, 84, 26–35.
• Tondeur, J., Kershaw, L. H., Vanderlinde, R. R., & Braak, J. V. (2013). Getting inside the black box of technology integration in education: Teachers stimulated recall of classroom observations. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 29(3), 434–449.
• Tondeur, J., Van, J. V., Siddiq, F., & Scherer, R. (2016). Time for a new approach to prepare future teachers for educational technology use: Its meaning and measurement. Computers & Education, 94, 134–150.
• Tucker, B. (2012). The flipped classroom. Education Next, 12(1), 82–83.
• Wang, Y. S. (2003). Assessment of learner satisfaction with asynchronous electronic learning systems. Information & Management, 41, 75–86.
• Woolf, B. P. (2010). A roadmap for education technology. Accessed through <http://www.coe.uga.edu/itt/files/2010/12/educ-tech-roadmap-nsf.pdf> on 4th June, 2017.
• Zhao, Y., & Frank, K. A. (2003). Factors affecting technology uses in schools: An ecological perspective. American Educational Research Journal, 40(4), 807–840.
• Zhu, C. (2013). Organisational culture and technology-enhanced innovation in higher education. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 24(1), 65–79.