DERS NOTLARININ AKILLI TELEFON KULLANILARAK FOTOĞRAFLANMASI: KARŞILAŞTIRMALI ÇALIŞMA

Yıl 2021, , 308 - 337, 25.07.2021

Ilkay Gılanlıoglu , Zehra Ertay

https://doi.org/10.17943/etku.870513

Cited By: 2

Öz

Üniversite öğrencilerinin ders esnasında geleneksel (kalem-ve-kağıt yöntemi – el yazısı) bir biçimde not almak yerine beyaz/akıllı tahtadaki notların fotoğraflarını çekmeye eğilim gösterdiği gözlemlenmiştir. Bu çalışma yabancı dil olarak Özel Amaçlı İngilizce (ÖAİ) öğrenen üniversite öğrencilerinin ders notlarını akıllı telefonla foroğraflamayı (ATG) geleneksel not alma yöntemine (GNA) göre ne kadar tercih ettiğini, öğrencilerin bu notları akademik olarak kullanırken hangi stratejileri sergilediklerini ve ATG’nin öğrencilerin sınav performansı üzerinde etkisi olup olmadığını araştırmıştır. Çalışma iki evreden oluşmaktadır. Evre 1’de, keşfedici nitel yöntem kullanılarak 10 katılımcıyla özel tercihleri, kullandıkları stratejiler ve notlarını kullanım amaçları hakkında yarı-yapılandırılmış mülakat yapılmıştır. Evre 2’de yarı-deneysel desen uygulanmıştır. Dört hafta boyunca deney grubu (N=21) sadece ATG’yi kullanırken kontrol grubu da sadece GNA yöntemini kullanmıştır. İki grubun sınav sonuçları karşılaştırıldığında ATG grubunun anlamlı kazanımlar elde ettiği görülmüştür.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Not alma, akıllı telefon, geleneksel not alma (GNA), akıllı telefonla görüntüleme (fotoğraflama) (ATG)

TAKING IMAGES OF NOTES BY SMARTPHONE (TIN-S): A COMPARATIVE STUDY

Öz

It has been observed that rather than taking notes in a lecture traditionally (pen-and-paper method – longhand), university students tend to take a photo of the notes on the white/smart board. The purpose of this study is to investigate to what extent English for Specific Purposes (ESP) university students prefer taking images of notes by smartphone (TIN-S) to traditional note-taking (TNT), what strategies they employ in using these notes academically and whether the TIN-S has a positive effect on their test performance. The study includes two phases. In Phase 1, an exploratory qualitative approach was used, where ten participants were interviewed about their preferences, strategies and reasons for using their notes. In Phase 2, a quasi-experimental design was employed. The experimental group (N=21) used the TIN-S only while the control group (N=20) used the TNT only for a period of 4 weeks. The comparison of the test scores showed significant gains for the TIN-S group.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Note-taking, smartphone, traditional note-taking (TNT), taking images of notes by smartphone (TIN-S)

Kaynakça

• Akinoglu, O., & Yasar, Z. (2007). The effects of note-taking in science education through the mind mapping technique on students’ attitudes, academic achievement and concept learning. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 6(3), 34-43.
• Baker, L., & Lombardi, B. R. (1985). Students’ lecture notes and their relation to test performance. Teaching of Psychology, 12, 28–32.
• Barnett, J. E., Di Vesta, F. J., & Rogozinski, J. T. (1981). What is learned in note-taking? Journal of Educational Psychology, 73(2), 181-192.
• Bisson, M. J., van Heuven, W. J. B., Conklin, K., & Tunney, R. J. (2014). The role of repeated exposure to multimodal input in incidental acquisition of foreign language vocabulary. Language Learning, 64(4), 855-877.
• Braun, V. & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3, 77-101. Brown, J. D. (2014). Mixed methods research for TESOL. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
• Bygate, M. (2001). Effects of task repetition on the structure and control of oral language. In M. Carrier, C. A., Williams, M. D., & Dalgaard, B. R. (1988). College students’ perceptions of notetaking and their relationship to selective learner characteristics and course achievement. Research in Higher Education, 28(3), 223-239. Cohen J. (1988). Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
• Craig, F. I. & Lockhart, R. S. (1972). Levels of processing: A framework for memory research. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 11, 671-684.
• Crawford, M.; Ducker, N.; MacGregor, L; Kojima, S., & Siegel, J. (2016). Perspectives on note taking in EFL listening. JALT Postconference Publication – JALT 2015. Tokyo: JALT, 277- 84.
• de Bot, K. (1996). The psycholinguistics of the output hypothesis. Language Learning, 46, 529-555.
• DiVesta, J. G., & Gray, S. G. (1972). Listening and note taking. Journal of Educational Psychology, 63(1), 8–14.
• Fried, C. B. (2008). In-class laptop use and its effects on student learning. Computers & Education, 50(3), 906–914. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2006.09.006
• Hartley, J., and Cameron, A. (1967). Some observations on the efficiency of lecturing. Educ. Rev. 20, 30–37. doi: 10.1080/0013191670200103
• Hartley, J., & Marshall, S. (1974). On notes and notetaking. University Quarterly, 28, 225- 235.
• Iwanka, T., & Takatsuka, S. (2006). Influences of attention and noticing on second language acquisition. Annual Review of English Language Education in Japan (ARELE), 17, 21-30.
• Jansen, R. S., Lakens, D., & IJsslesteijn, W. A. (2017). An integrative review of the cognitive costs and benefits of note-taking. Educational Research Review, 22, 223-233.
• Joe, A. (2010). The quality and frequency of encounters with vocabulary in an English for Academic Purposes programme. Reading in a Foreign Language, 22(1), 117-138.
• Larson-Hall, J. (2010). A guide to doing statistics in second language research using SPSS. New York: Routledge.
• Lauricella, S., & Kay, R. (2010). Assessing laptop use in higher education classrooms: The laptop effective- ness scale (LES). Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 26(2), 151- 163.
• Karjo, C. H. (2018). Comparing the effect of ICT and longhand note-taking instructions towards learners’ comprehension test results. Indonesian Journal of English Language Teaching, 13(1), 17-30. Kiewra, K. A. (1985). Investigating notetaking and review: A depth of processing alternative. Educational Psychologist, 20, 23–32.
• Kiewra, K.A., & Benton, S. L. (1988). The relationship between information-processing ability and note-taking. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 13, 33-44.
• Kim K, Turner SA, Perez-Quinones MA. (2009). Requirements for electronic note-taking systems: A field study of note-taking in university classrooms. Educ Inf Technol, 12, 255–283.
• McLeod, S. (2018). Simply psychology. Retreived July 19, 2019. https://www.simplypsychology.org/attention-models.html.
• Miller, G. A. (1956). The magical number seven, plus or minus two: some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychological Review, 63(2), 81-97.
• Miller, G. A., Galanter, E., & Pribram, K. H. (1960). Plans and the structure of behavior. New York, US: Henry Holt and Co.
• Mueller, P. A., & Oppenheimer, D. M. (2014). The pen is mightier than the keyboard: Advantages of Longhand over laptop notetaking. Psychological Science, 25(6), 1159– 1168.
• Nation, I. S. P. (2001). Learning vocabulary in another language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Peverly, S. T., Garner, J. K., & Vekaria, P. J. (2014). Both handwriting speed and selective attention are important to lecture note-taking. Springer, 27, 1-34.
• Reimer, Y., Brimhall, E., Cao, C., & O’Reilly, K. (2009). Empirical user studies inform the design of an e-notetaking and information assimilation system for students in higher education. Computers & Education, 52, 893-913.
• Ricci, V. (2005). Fitting distributions with R. https://cran.r-project.org/doc/contrib/Ricci-distributions-en.pdf. Retrieved July 17, 2019.
• Schmidt, R. (2001). Attention. In P. Robinson (Ed.). Cognition and second language instruction. Cambridge University Press.
• Sockett, G., & Kusyk, M. (2015). Online informal learning of English: Frequency effects in the uptake of chunks of language from participation in web-based activities. In S. W. Eskildsen, & T. Cadierno (Eds.), Usage-based perspectives on second language learning (pp. 153-178). Berlin: DeGruyter. Stacy, E. M., & Cain, J. (2015). Note-taking and handouts in the digital age. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 79(7), 1-9.
• Van der Meer, J. (2012). Students’ note-taking challenges in the twenty-first century: considerations for teachers and academic staff developers. Teaching in Higher Education, 17, 13-23.
• Williams JA, Pence HE. (2011). Smartphones, a powerful tool in the chemistry classroom. J Chem Educ, 88, 683–686.
• Yamamoto, K. (2007). Banning laptops in the classroom: Is it worth the hassle? Journal of Legal Education, 57, 477–520.