Etkileşimli Videoların İngilizce Öğrenimine Etkisi: Beşinci Sınıflarda Başarı ve Tutumsal Sonuçlar

Öz

Bu çalışma, etkileşimli videoların Türkiye'deki ortaokul öğrencilerinin İngilizce dil başarısı ve tutumları üzerinde etkililiğini incelemiştir. Etkileşimli videolar dil eğitiminde umut vaat etse de, ortaokul öğrencilerinin başarı ve tutumları üzerindeki etkilerine dair deneysel kanıtlar sınırlıdır. Yarı deneysel bir desen kullanılarak 80 beşinci sınıf öğrencisi deney (n=42) ve kontrol (n=38) gruplara ayrılmıştır. Deney grubu, çoktan seçmeli, boşluk doldurma, sürükle-bırak, doğru/yanlış ve açık uçlu sorular içeren etkileşimli videolarla öğretim almış; kontrol grubu ise geleneksel öğretim yöntemleriyle eğitim görmüştür. Veriler, akademik başarı için ön-test ve son-test ile İngilizce öğrenmeye yönelik tutum ölçeği kullanılarak toplanmıştır. Sonuçlar, deney grubunun kontrol grubuna kıyasla akademik başarıda istatistiksel olarak anlamlı bir artış gösterdiğini ortaya koymuştur. Bununla birlikte, gruplar içinde veya arasında İngilizce öğrenmeye yönelik tutumlarda anlamlı bir değişiklik gözlemlenmemiştir. Bu bulgular, etkileşimli videoların dinleme becerisi, kelime edinimi ve genel dil yeterliliğini desteklemedeki bilişsel faydalarını vurgularken; duyuşsal sonuçlar için daha uzun süreli müdahaleler veya ek öğretim stratejileri gerektirebileceğine işaret etmektedir. Bu çalışma, teknoloji destekli dil öğrenimi alanyazınına katkı sunmakta ve etkileşimli videoların İngilizce öğretimine entegrasyonu için pratik çıkarımlar sağlamaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• akademik başarı
• etkileşimli videolar
• İngilizce öğrenme
• ortaokul
• öğrenci tutumları

The Impact of Interactive Videos on English Language Learning: Achievement and Attitudinal Outcomes in Turkish Fifth-Grade Classrooms

Abstract

This study investigated the effectiveness of interactive videos on English language achievement and attitudes among Turkish secondary school students. While interactive videos have shown promise in language education, empirical evidence regarding their impact on secondary school students' achievement and attitudes remains limited. Using a quasi-experimental design, 80 fifth-grade students were divided into experimental (n=42) and control (n=38) groups. The experimental group received instruction through interactive videos incorporating multiple-choice, fill-in-the-blank, drag-and-drop, true/false, and open-ended questions, while the control group received traditional instruction. Data were collected using pre- and post-tests for academic achievement and an attitude scale for English language learning. Results revealed a significant improvement in academic achievement for the experimental group compared to the control group, with a large effect size. However, no significant changes were observed in students’ attitudes toward English language learning within or between groups. These findings highlight the cognitive benefits of interactive videos in fostering listening comprehension, vocabulary acquisition, and overall language proficiency, while suggesting that affective outcomes may require longer interventions or additional instructional strategies. This study contributes to the growing body of literature on technology-enhanced language learning and offers practical implications for integrating interactive videos into English language instruction.

Keywords

• academic achievement
• English language learning
• interactive videos
• secondary school
• student attitudes.

Kaynakça

1. Akram, M., Iqbal, M. W., Ashraf, M. U., Arif, E., Alsubhi, K., & Aljahdali, H. M. (2023). Optimization of interactive videos empowered the experience of learning management system. Computer Systems Science and Engineering, 46(1), 1021–1038. https://doi.org/10.32604/CSSE.2023.034085
2. Aydoğmuş, M. & Kurnaz, A. (2017). Ortaokul İngilizce dersi tutum ölçeğinin geçerlik ve güvenirliği. Eğitim, Bilim ve Teknoloji Araştırmaları Dergisi, 2(2), 14-24.
3. Bakla, A. (2017). Interactive videos in foreign language instruction: A new gadget in your toolbox* Yabancı dil eğitiminde etkileşimli videolar: Takım çantanızda yeni bir alet. Mersin University Journal of the Faculty of Education, 13(1), 124–137. https://doi.org/10.17860/mersinefd.305769
4. Bakla, A., & Demiröz, H. (2024). English language learners’ experiences of using interactive videos in EFL listening. The JALT CALL Journal, 20(2), 1–32. https://doi.org/10.29140/JALTCALL.V20N2.1247
5. Bakla, A., & Mehdiyev, E. (2022). A qualitative study of teacher-created interactive videos versus YouTube videos in flipped learning. E-Learning and Digital Media, 19(5), 495-514. https://doi.org/10.1177/20427530221107789
6. Cao, J., Bhuvaneswari, G., Arumugam, T., & Aravind, B. R. (2023). The digital edge: examining the relationship between digital competency and language learning outcomes. Frontiers in Psychology, 14, 1187909. https://doi.org/10.3389/FPSYG.2023.1187909/BIBTEX
7. Chatti, M. A., Marinov, M., Sabov, O., Laksono, R., Sofyan, Z., Fahmy Yousef, A. M., & Schroeder, U. (2016). Video annotation and analytics in CourseMapper. Smart Learning Environments, 3(1), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1186/S40561-016-0035-1/FIGURES/10
8. Chen, Y. T. (2013). A study of learning effects on e-learning with interactive thematic video. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 47(3), 279-292. https://doi.org/10.2190/EC.47.3.C

9. Clark, R. C., & Mayer, R. E. (2016). E‐learning and the science of instruction. In e‐learning and the science of instruction. Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119239086
10. Craik, F. I. M., & Lockhart, R. S. (1972). Levels of processing: A framework for memory research. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 11(6), 671–684. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5371(72)80001-X
11. Cummins, S., Beresford, A. R., & Rice, A. (2016). Investigating engagement with in-video quiz questions in a programming course. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies, 9(1), 57–66. https://doi.org/10.1109/TLT.2015.2444374
12. Guichon, N. & Cohen, C. (2016). Multimodality and call. In F. Farr, & L. Murray (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of language learning and technology (pp. 509-521). Routledge.
13. İpek, J., Kalay, A., & Ertaş, S. (2021). Examination of teacher candidates’ views on peer learning performed with interactive videos in the blended learning process. Education Quarterly Reviews, 4(2), 301–311. https://doi.org/10.31014/aior.1993.04.02.281
14. Kleftodimos, A., & Evangelidis, G. (2016). An interactive video-based learning environment supporting learning analytics: Insights obtained from analyzing learner activity data. In M. Y. Li, K. M. K. Chan, & S. K. C. Li (Eds.), State-of-the-art and future directions of smart learning (pp. 471–481). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-287-868-7_56
15. Kolås, L. (2015). Application of interactive videos in education. Paper presented at the 2015 International Conference on Information Technology Based Higher Education and Training (ITHET). https://doi.org/10.1109/ITHET.2015.7218037
16. Krashen, S. (1985). The input hypothesis: Issues and implications. Longman. Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy: An overview. Theory Into Practice, 41(4), 212–218. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4104_2
17. Lawson, T. J., Bodle, J. H., Houlette, M. A., & Haubner, R. R. (2006). Guiding questions enhance student learning from educational videos. Teaching of Psychology, 33(1), 31–33. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15328023TOP3301_7
18. Lin, Y., & Yu, Z. (2023). A meta-analysis evaluating the effectiveness of instructional video technologies. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 29(4), 2081–2115. https://doi.org/10.1007/S10758-023-09669-3
19. Mayer, R. E., & Pilegard, C. (2014). Principles for managing essential processing in multimedia learning: Segmenting, pre-training, and modality principles. In Richard E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (Second Edition) (pp. 316–344). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139547369.016
20. Nyland, R. (2017). A review of tools and techniques for data-enabled formative assessment. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 46(4), 505-526. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047239517748936
21. Palaigeorgiou, G., Papadopoulou, A., & Kazanidis, I. (2019). Interactive video for learning: A review of interaction types, commercial platforms, and design guidelines. In M. Tsitouridou, J. Diniz, & T. Mikropoulos (Eds.), Technology and innovation in learning, teaching and education. TECH-EDU 2018. Communications in computer and information science (Vol. 993, pp. 503–518). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-20954-4_38
22. Polat, H., & Taslibeyaz, E. (2024). Examining interactive videos in an online flipped course context. Education and Information Technologies, 29(5), 5833–5856. https://doi.org/10.1007/S10639-023-12048-1/FIGURES/4
23. Smithwick, E., Baxter, E., Kim, K., Edel-Malizia, S., Rocco, S., & Blackstock, D. (2018). Interactive videos enhance learning about socio-ecological systems. Journal of Geography, 117(1), 40–49. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221341.2017.1374433
24. Sweller, J. (2020). Cognitive load theory and educational technology. Educational Technology Research and Development, 68(1), 1-16. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-019-09701-3
25. Tseng, W. T., Dörnyei, Z., & Schmitt, N. (2006). A new approach to assessing strategic learning: The case of self-regulation in vocabulary acquisition. Applied Linguistics, 27(1), 78-102. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/ami046
26. Tweissi, A. (2016). The effects of embedded questions strategy in video among graduate students at a middle eastern university [Unpublished PhD Dissertation]. Ohio University.
27. Vural, O. F. (2013). The impact of a question-embedded video-based learning tool on e-learning. Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice, 13(2), 1315–1323.
28. Wachtler, J., Hubmann, M., Zöhrer, H., & Ebner, M. (2016). An analysis of the use and effect of questions in interactive learning-videos. Smart Learning Environments, 3(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1186/S40561-016-0033-3/TABLES/1
29. Xu, J., & Luo, K. (2024). Immersing learners in English listening classroom: Does self-regulated learning instruction make a difference? Applied Linguistics Review, 15(1), 219–240. https://doi.org/10.1515/applirev-2021-0171
30. Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Attaining self-regulation: A social cognitive perspective. In M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 13–39). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-012109890-2/50031-7
31. Zou, D., & Xie, H. (2019). Flipping an English writing class with technology-enhanced just-in-time teaching and peer instruction. Interactive Learning Environments, 27(8), 1127–1142. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2018.1495654