Teaching Writing Courses by Blending Online and Traditional Classroom Instruction for Underachieving Language Learners

Öz

Some studies (Grgurović, 2011; Banados, 2006; Chenoweth et al., 2006) have showed that blended instruction would enhance language learning. Similarly, some researchers (Picciano, 2009; Goertler, 2012; Neumeier, 2005) have defined blended instruction and recommended that educators try the best blend for their classes. Motivated by the findings of the relevant literature on blended instruction, the current study aims to find whether blended learning would make a difference in the writing scores of students compared to traditional face-to-face education and to establish the students’ perspective on the usage of technology at writing courses with quantitative and qualitative research methods. For the purpose of the study, one experimental and control groups were chosen from the School of Foreign Languages, Gaziantep University. The 13 students in the experimental groups are taught writing with blended learning, while 13 students are taught writing with traditional face-to-face education for one month. The students in both groups have the same schedule, age, English level, and classroom facilities. The results of the analysis done by SPSS show that the experimental group's writing scores are higher than the control group's writing scores. To learn the students’ perspectives in the experimental group, semi-structured interviews have been done after the experience. The results show that the students are not satisfied with the usage of current technology at writing courses. On the other hand, they reported they were satisfied with blended learning. The students also gave some suggestions about the implications of technology in and outside of the classes.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Blended learning
• academic achievement
• students’ perspectives
• underachieving language learners
• writing courses

Yazma Derslerinin Beklenenden Az Başarı Göstermiş Dil Öğrencileri için Uzaktan Eğitim ve Geleneksel Sınıf İçi Eğitimle Harmanlanarak Verilmesi

Öz

Bazı çalışmalar (Grgurović, 2011; Banados, 2006; Chenoweth ve ark., 2006) harmanlanmış eğitimin dil öğrenimini destekleyebileceğini göstermiştir. Benzer şekilde, bazı araştırmacılar (Picciano, 2009; Goertler, 2012; Neumeier, 2005) harmanlanmış eğitimini tanımlamış ve eğitimcilerin sınıfları için en iyi harmanı denemelerini önermişlerdir. Harmanlanmış çalışmaların sonuçlarından etkilenen mevcut çalışmanın amacı, harmanlanmış eğitimin, geleneksel yüz yüze eğitimle kıyasla yazma sınavının sonuçlarında bir fark yaratıp yaratmadığını bulmak ve öğrencilerin teknolojinin yazma derslerinde kullanılmasıyla ilgili tutumlarını nitel ve nicel araştırma metotlarıyla araştırmak. Bu çalışma için, Gaziantep Üniversitesi yabancı diller yüksekokulundan bir deney ve bir kontrol gurubu seçilmiştir. Deney gurubundaki 13 öğrenciye harmanlanmış öğrenmeyle yazma dersi öğretilirken, aynı anda kontrol gurubundaki başka 13 öğrenciye geleneksel yüz-yüze öğretimle yazma dersi verilmiştir. Her iki guruptaki öğrencilerin ders programı, yaşları, İngilizce seviyeleri ve sınıf olanakları aynıdır. SPSS ile analiz edilen sonuçlar, deney gurubunun yazma sınavındaki notları kontrol gurubuna göre daha yüksek çıktı. Deney gurubundaki öğrencilerin görüşlerini öğrenmek için, deneyden sonra yarı yapılandırılmış görüşme uygulandı. Sonuçlar, öğrencilerin derslerde mevcut kullanılan teknolojiden hoşnut olmadıklarını ama öte yandan harmanlanmış öğrenmeden hoşnut olduklarını gösterdi. Ayrıca, öğrenciler teknolojinin sınıf içinde ve dışında nasıl kullanılabileceğine dair bazı önerilerde bulundu.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Harmanlanmış öğrenme
• akademik başarı
• öğrencilerin görüşleri
• beklenenden daha az başarı göstermiş dil öğrenen öğrenciler

Kaynakça

1. Adas, D., & Bakir, A. (2013). Writing difficulties and new solutions: Blended learning as an approach to improve writing abilities. International journal of humanities and social science, 3(9), 254-266.
2. Al‐Jarf, R. S. (2004). The effects of Web‐Based learning on struggling EFL college writers. Foreign Language Annals, 37(1), 49-57. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1944-9720.2004.tb02172.x
3. Bañados, E. (2006). A blended-learning pedagogical model for teaching and learning EFL successfully through an online interactive multimedia environment. CALICO Journal, 23(3), 533-550.
4. Biggs, M. C., Homan, S. P., Dedrick, R., Minick, V., & Rasinski, T. (2008). Using an interactive singing software program: A comparative study of struggling middle school readers. Reading Psychology, 29(3), 195-213. https://doi.org/10.1080/02702710802073438
5. Brew, L. S. (2008). The role of student feedback in evaluating and revising a blended learning course. The Internet and Higher Education, 11(2), 98-105.
6. Chenoweth, N. A., Ushida, E., & Murday, K. (2006). Student learning in hybrid French and Spanish courses: An overview of language online. Calico Journal, 24 (1), 115-146.
7. Dowdall, C. B., & Colangelo, N. (1982). Underachieving gifted students: Review and implications. Gifted child quarterly, 26(4), 179-184. https://doi.org/10.1177/001698628202600406
8. Goertler, S. (2013). Theoretical and empirical foundations for blended language learning. AAUSC 2012 Volume--Issues in Language Program Direction: Hybrid Language Teaching and Learning: Exploring Theoretical, Pedagogical and Curricular Issues, 27(1), 27-50.

9. Graham, C. R., Woodfield, W., & Harrison, J. B. (2013). A framework for institutional adoption and implementation of blended learning in higher education. The internet and higher education, 18, 4-14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2012.09.003
10. Grgurovic, M. (2010). Technology-enhanced blended language learning in an ESL class: A description of a model and an application of the Diffusion of Innovations theory (Unpublished Graduate Thesis). Iowa State University. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2010.09.004
11. Grgurović, M. (2011). Blended learning in an ESL class: A case study. Calico Journal, 29(1), 100-117.
12. Kirkgoz, Y. (2011). A Blended Learning Study on Implementing Video Recorded Speaking Tasks in Task-Based Classroom Instruction. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology-TOJET, 10(4), 1-13.
13. Larsen, L. J. E. (2012). Teacher and student perspectives on a blended learning intensive English program writing course (Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis). Iowa State University. https://doi.org/10.31274/etd-180810-1937
14. Limniou, M., & Smith, M. (2010). Teachers’ and students’ perspectives on teaching and learning through virtual learning environments. European Journal of Engineering Education, 35(6), 645-653. https://doi.org/10.1080/03043797.2010.505279
15. Luo, Y. (2009). The effect of using e-learning web sites as a remedial teaching aid on English underachievers at universities of science and technology. National Kaohsiung University of Applied Sciences Institutional Repository, 6(2), 182-195.
16. MacArthur, C. A. (2009). Reflections on research on writing and technology for struggling writers. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 24(2), 93-103. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5826.2009.00283.x
17. Macedo-Rouet, M., Ney, M., Charles, S., & Lallich-Boidin, G. (2009). Students’ performance and satisfaction with Web vs. paper-based practice quizzes and lecture notes. Computers & Education, 53(2), 375-384. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2009.02.013
18. Margaryan, A., Littlejohn, A., & Vojt, G. (2011). Are digital natives a myth or reality? University students’ use of digital technologies. Computers & education, 56(2), 429-440.
19. Miyazoe, T., & Anderson, T. (2010). Learning outcomes and students' perceptions of online writing: Simultaneous implementation of a forum, blog, and wiki in an EFL blended learning setting. System, 38(2), 185-199. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2010.03.006
20. Murday, K., Ushida, E., & Ann Chenoweth, N. (2008). Learners' and teachers' perspectives on language online. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 21(2), 125-142. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588220801943718
21. Neumeier, P. (2005). A closer look at blended learning--parameters for designing a blended learning environment for language teaching and learning. ReCALL: the Journal of EUROCALL, 17(2), 163. DOI: 10.1017/S0958344005000224
22. Orhan, F. (2008).Redesigning a course for blended learning environment. Online Submission, 9(1), 54-66.
23. Özkan, M. (2011). Effects of social constructivist virtual learning environments on the speaking skills from the perspective of university students (Unpublished Graduate Thesis). Çukurova University.
24. Picciano, A. G. (2009). Blending with purpose: The multimodal model. Journal of asynchronous learning networks, 13(1), 7-18.
25. Pierce, T. (2009). Social anxiety and technology: Face-to-face communication versus technological communication among teens. Computers in Human Behavior, 25(6), 1367-1372. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2009.06.003
26. Pregot, M. V. (2013). The Case for Blended Instruction: Is It a Proven Better Way to Teach?. Online Submission, 3(5), 320-324.
27. Schank, R. C., & Jona, M. Y. (1991). Empowering the student: New perspectives on the design of teaching systems. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 1(1), 7-35. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls0101_2
28. Scida, E. E., & Saury, R. E. (2006). Hybrid courses and their impact on student and classroom performance: A case study at the University of Virginia. CALICO journal,23(3), 517-531.
29. Shih, R. (2011). Can web 2.0 technology assist college students in learning English writing? Integrating facebook and peer assessment with blended learning. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 27(5), 829-845.
30. Sparks, R., & Ganschow, L. (2001). Aptitude for learning a foreign language. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 21(1), 90. DOI:10.1017/S026719050100006X
31. Stracke, E. (2007). A road to understanding: A qualitative study into why learners drop out of a blended language learning (BLL) environment. ReCALL: the Journal of EUROCALL, 19(1), 57. DOI: 10.1017/S0958344007000511
32. Whitmore, J. R. (1980). Giftedness, conflict, and underachievement. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.