Senkron Çevrimiçi İngilizce Öğretiminde Öğrencilere Öğrenme Desteği Sağlamanın Zorlukları

Öz

Bu çalışma eşzamanlı çevrimiçi İngilizce öğretimi sırasında gerçekleşen sınıf içi etkileşimi Walsh’ın (2006) sınıf içi etkileşimsel yeti çerçevesi etrafında incelemeyi amaçlamaktadır. Bu çalışmanın verisi bir devlet üniversitesi tarafından sunulan İngilizce hazırlık programı bünyesinde verilen bir yabancı dil olarak İngilizce dersi sınıfına ait, her biri 40 dakikalık 8 video kaydından oluşmaktadır. Veri seti aynı öğrenci grubu ve öğretmenin bulunduğu ders kayıtlarından elde edilmiştir. Ders kayıtları, 2019-2020 bahar döneminde, kullanımı ücretsiz bir video-konferans programı olan ZOOM üzerinden yapılmıştır. Veri analizi iki sebepten dolayı, öğretmenin öğrenme desteği sağlama girişimleri üzerinde, özellikli olarak yeniden formüle etme, uzatma ve modelleme girişimleri, yoğunlaşmıştır. İlk olarak, veri setinde bu kategoriye giren öğretmen konuşması örneklerinin yeteri kadar var olduğu gözlemlenmiştir. İkinci olarak ta, öğretmenin bazı öğrenme desteği sağlama girişimlerinin teknoloji nedenli problemlerden dolayı başarısız olduğu gözlemlenmiştir. Vücut dili kullanılamayışının öğretmen-öğrenci arasındaki diyaloğu olumsuz etkilediği ve yeniden formüle etme ve uzatma girişimlerinin bu yüzden istenen seviyede öğrenci üretimini getiremediği durumlar gözlenmiştir. Başarısız modelleme girişimlerinin ise öğretmenin not alma araçlarını etkin kullanamayışından kaynaklandığı gözlemlenmiştir. Sonuç olarak, çalışmanın bulguları yabancı dil öğretmenlerinin çevrimiçi öğretim sürecine adaptasyonu ve video-konferans araçlarını eğitimsel amaçlarla etkin şekilde kullanımlarına yönelik çıkarımlar sunmaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• sınıf içi etkileşimsel yeti; öğrenme desteği sağlama; öğretmen konuşması; çevrimiçi eğitim; yabancı dil olarak İngilizce

Challenges of Providing Learners with Scaffolding during Synchronous Online EFL Teaching

Abstract

This study employed Walsh’s (2006) concept of classroom interactional competence to investigate the classroom interaction happening during synchronous online English language teaching. The data of this study is comprised of 8 40-minute video recordings of an EFL class at a state university’s English preparatory program. The data belongs to the same group of learners who were taught by the same EFL instructor. The classes were held during spring semester of 2019-2020 Academic Year via ZOOM, a free videoconferencing program. The analysis focused on scaffolding moves of the teacher- specifically reformulation, extension and modelling moves- for two reasons. First, the data was abundant in terms of teacher talk samples falling into this category. Second, several scaffolding attempts of the teacher were observed to fail due to technology-related problems. There was evidence in the data that the lack of body-language harmed the dialogic nature of teacher-learner interaction and reformulation and extension moves could not bring about extended learner turns. Regarding the unsuccessful modelling, it was observed that the teacher’s failure to use annotation tools hindered the learners’ noticing of teacher-modelling. As a result, these findings have implications for foreign language teachers’ adaptation to online teaching and also for the optimization of videoconferencing tools to be developed for educational use.

Keywords

• classroom interactional competence
• scaffolding
• teacher talk
• online education
• English as a foreign language

Kaynakça

1. Adedoyin, O. B., & Soykan, E. (2020). Covid-19 pandemic and online learning: the challenges and opportunities. Interactive Learning Environments, 28, 1-13. doi: 10.1080/10494820.2020.1813180
2. Allen, L. Q. Q. (1999). Functions of nonverbal communication in teaching and learning a foreign language. French Review, 72, 469-480.
3. Alturise, F. (2020). Difficulties in teaching online with blackboard learn effects of the COVID-19 pandemic in the western branch colleges of Qassim University. (IJACSA) International Journal of Advanced Computer Science and Applications, 11(5), 74-81.
4. Antón, M. (1999). The discourse of a learner‐centered classroom: Sociocultural perspectives on teacher‐learner interaction in the second‐language classroom. The Modern Language Journal, 83(3), 303-318. doi: 10.1111/0026-7902.00024
5. Baran, E., & Correia, A. P. (2014). A professional development framework for online teaching. TechTrends, 58(5), 95-101.
6. Bozkurt, A. (2019). From Distance Education to Open and Distance Learning: A Holistic Evaluation of History, Definitions, and Theories. In S. Sisman-Ugur, & G. Kurubacak (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Learning in the Age of Transhumanism (pp. 252-273). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
7. Can Daşkın, N. (2015). Shaping learner contributions in an EFL classroom: Implications for L2 classroom interactional competence. Classroom Discourse, 6(1), 33-56. doi: 10.1080/19463014.2014.911699
8. Compton, L. K. (2009). Preparing language teachers to teach language online: A look at skills, roles, and responsibilities. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 22(1), 73-99. doi: 10.1080/09588220802613831

9. Cullen, R. (2002). Supportive teacher talk: The importance of the F-move. ELT Journal, 56(2), 117-127. doi: 10.1093/elt/56.2.117
10. Cutri, R. M., Mena, J., & Whiting, E. F. (2020). Faculty readiness for online crisis teaching: transitioning to online teaching during the COVID-19 pandemic. European Journal of Teacher Education, 43(4), 523-541. doi: 10.1080/02619768.2020.1815702
11. Girgin, U., & Brandt, A. (2020). Creating space for learning through ‘Mm hm’ in a L2 classroom: Implications for L2 classroom interactional competence. Classroom Discourse, 11(1), 61-79. doi: 10.1080/19463014.2019.1603115
12. Guichon, N. (2009). Training future language teachers to develop online tutors' competence through reflective analysis. ReCALL, 21(2), 166-185. doi: 10.1017/S0958344009000214
13. Hampel, R., & Stickler, U. (2012). The use of videoconferencing to support multimodal interaction in an online language classroom. ReCALL, 24(2), 116-137. doi: 10.1017/S095834401200002X
14. Huth, T. (2011). Conversation analysis and language classroom discourse. Language and Linguistics Compass, 5(5), 297-309. doi: 10.1111/j.1749-818X.2011.00277.x
15. Kopp, M. , Gröblinger, O. , & Adams, S. (2019, March). Five common assumptions that prevent digital transformation at higher education institutions. Paper presented at INTED2019, Spain. Paper retrieved from https://doi.org/10.21125/inted.2019
16. Mahmood, S. (2021). Instructional strategies for online teaching in COVID‐19 pandemic. Human Behavior and Emerging Technologies, 3(1), 199-203. doi: 10.1002/hbe2.218
17. Moore, M. G. (1991). Editorial: Distance education theory. The American Journal of Distance Education, 5(3), 1-6. doi: 10.1080/08923649109526758
18. Moore, M. G. (1993). Theory of transactional distance. Theoretical Principles of Distance Education, 1, 22-38.
19. Moorehouse, B. J. (2020). Adaptations to a face-to-face initial teacher education course ‘forced’ online due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of Education for Teaching, 46(4), 609-611. doi: 10.1080/02607476.2020.1755205
20. Murphy, L. M., Shelley, M. A., White, C. J., & Baumann, U. (2011). Tutor and student perceptions of what makes an effective distance language teacher. Distance Education, 32(3), 397-419. doi: 10.1080/01587919.2011.610290
21. Nassaji, H. (2007). Elicitation and reformulation and their relationship with learner repair in dyadic interaction. Language Learning, 57(4), 511-548. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9922.2007.00427.x
22. Ni, S. F., & Aust, R. (2008). Examining teacher verbal immediacy and sense of classroom community in online classes. International Journal on E-learning, 7(3), 477-498.
23. Palvia, S., Aeron, P., Gupta, P., Mahapatra, D., Parida, R., Rosner, R., & Sindhi, S. (2018). Online education: Worldwide status, challenges, trends, and implications. Journal of Global Information Technology, 21(4), 233-241. doi: 10.1080/1097198X.2018.1542262
24. Peachey, N. (2017). Synchronous Online Teaching. In M.Carrier, R. M.Damerow, and K. M.Bailey (Eds.), Digital Language Learning and Teaching, (143–155). New York: Routledge.
25. Putri, D. S. (2015). The analysis of teacher talk and the characteristic of classroom interaction in English as a foreign language classroom. Journal of English and Education, 3(2), 16-27.
26. Quezada, R. L., Talbot, C., & Quezada-Parker, K. B. (2020). From Bricks and Mortar to Remote Teaching: A Teacher Education Program‘s Response to COVID-19. Journal of Education for Teaching, 46(4), 472-483. doi: 10.1080/02607476.2020.1801330
27. Reddington, E. (2018). Managing participation in the adult ESL classroom: engagement and exit practices, Classroom Discourse, 9(2), 132-149. doi: 10.1080/19463014.2018.1433051
28. Seedhouse, P. (2005). Conversation analysis and language learning. Language Teaching, 38, 165-187. doi: 10.1017/S0261444805003010
29. Sert, O. (2015). Social interaction and L2 classroom discourse. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
30. Sert, O. (2017). Creating opportunities for L2 learning in a prediction activity. System, 70, 14-25. doi: 10.1016/j.system.2017.08.008
31. Sert, O., & Walsh, S. (2013). The interactional management of claims of insufficient knowledge in English language classrooms. Language and Education, 27(6), 542-565. doi: 10.1080/09500782.2012.739174
32. Spoel, I., Noroozi, O., Schuurink, E., & Ginkel, S. (2020) Teachers’ online teaching expectations and experiences during the Covid19- pandemic in the Netherlands, European Journal of Teacher Education, 43:4, 623-638, doi: 10.1080/02619768.2020.1821185
33. Strielkowski, W. COVID-19 Pandemic and the Digital Revolution in Academia and Higher Education. Preprints 2020. doi: 10.20944/preprints202004.0290.v1
34. Stewart, D. (2008). Classroom management in the online environment. Journal of online learning and teaching, 4(3), 371-374.
35. Thornbury, S. (1997). Reformulation and reconstruction: Tasks that promote ‘noticing’. ELT Journal, 51(4), 326-335. doi: 0.1093/elt/51.4.326
36. Walsh, S. (2002). Construction or obstruction: Teacher talk and learner involvement in the EFL classroom. Language Teaching Research, 6(1), 3–23. doi: 10.1191/1362168802lr095oa
37. Walsh, S. (2006). Investigating classroom discourse. Oxon: Routledge.
38. Walsh, S., & Li, L. (2013). Conversations as space for learning. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 23(2), 247-266.
39. Walsh, S. (2011). Exploring classroom discourse: Language in action. Oxon: Routledge.
40. Wood, D., Bruner, J. S., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 17, 89-100. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-7610.1976.tb00381.x
41. Zhang, H. (2013). Pedagogical challenges of spoken English learning in the Second Life virtual world: A case study. British Journal of Educational Technology, 44(2), 243-254. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8535.2012.01312.x