İngilizce Hazırlık Öğrencilerinin İngilizce Düzeylerine ve VAK Öğrenme Biçemlerine Göre Öz Yeterlikleri: Hibrit Eğitim Bağlamında Bir Araştırma

Öz

Bu araştırma, üstbilişsel öz-düzenleme becerileri test puanları kontrol edildiğinde, İngilizce hazırlık okulu öğrencilerinin öz-yeterlik inançlarının İngilizce düzeylerine ve VAK öğrenme biçimlerine göre farklılaşıp farklılaşmadığını incelemektedir. Araştırma, İstanbul'da bulunan iki vakıf üniversitesinde İngilizce hazırlık sınıfında öğrenim gören 159 öğrenciden oluşan ilişkisel tarama deseninde tasarlanmıştır. Araştırmada veri toplama aracı olarak Öğrenmede Motivasyonel Stratejiler Ölçeği Türkçe uyarlaması Altun ve Erden (2006) tarafından yapılmış ve Şimşek (2002) tarafından geliştirilen BIG16 envanteri kullanılmıştır. Üstbilişsel öz düzenlemenin kontrol değişkeni olması ve bir bağımlı değişken ile iki bağımsız değişkenin olması nedeniyle veriler faktöriyel kovaryans analizi (ANCOVA) testi ile analiz edilmiştir. Araştırma sonucunda, üniversite İngilizce hazırlık sınıfı öğrencilerinin üstbilişsel öz-düzenleme becerileri testi puanları kontrol edildiğinde, İngilizce öz-yeterlik inançlarında İngilizce seviyelerine göre anlamlı bir farklılık olmadığı ortaya çıkmış; VAK öğrenme biçemlerine göre ise anlamlı bir farklılık olduğu tespit edilmiştir. İngilizce seviyeleri ve VAK öğrenme biçemlerinin ortak etkisine bağlı olarak anlamlı bir farklılık tespit edilmemiştir. VAK öğrenme biçemlerine göre hibrit eğitim bağlamında öz yeterlik inancı en yüksek grubun kinestetik öğrenenler, en düşük grubun ise görsel öğrenenler olduğu sonucuna varılmıştır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Öz-yeterlik
• Öz-düzenleme
• İngilizce hazırlık okulu
• Öğrenme biçemleri
• Hibrit eğitim

Self-Efficacy of English Preparatory Students According to Their English Levels and VAK Learning Modalities: A study in Hybrid Education Context

Abstract

This study examines whether English preparatory school students’ self-efficacy beliefs differ according to their English levels and VAK learning modalities when the metacognitive self-regulation skills test scores are controlled. The research was designed as a correlational survey design consisting of 159 students studying in English preparatory schools at two foundation universities in Istanbul. Motivational Strategies for Learning Scale Turkish adaptation was done by Altun and Erden (2006) and BIG16 inventory developed by Şimşek (2002), were used as data collection tools in the research. Since metacognitive self-regulation was the control variable and there was a dependent variable and two independent variables, the data were analyzed with the factorial covariance analysis (ANCOVA) test. As a result of the research, when the metacognitive self-regulation skills test scores of English preparatory school students were controlled, it was revealed there was no significant difference between their English level and self-efficacy beliefs. There was a significant difference in terms of VAK learning styles, and no significant difference was detected depending on the common effect of both. According to VAK learning styles, it was concluded that the group with the highest self-efficacy belief was kinesthetic learners, and the lowest group was visual learners in a hybrid education context.

Keywords

• Self-Efficacy
• Self-regulation
• English preparatory school
• Learning modalities
• Hybrid education

Kaynakça

1. Alzubaidi, E., Aldridge, J. M., & Khine, M. S. (2014). Learning English as a second language at the university level in Jordan: motivation, self-regulation and learning environment perceptions. Learning Environments Research, 19(1), 133–152. doi:10.1007/s10984-014-9169-7
2. Angel, H. (2019). Are these students strategic enough? The study of college students’ application of self-regulation strategy into task oriented English learning. International Journal of English and Literature, 10(1), 1–8. Doi:10.5897/ijel2016.1007
3. Aslan, R. & Şahin, M. (2020). ‘I feel like I go blank’: Identifying the factors affecting classroom participation in an oral communication course. TEFLIN Journal, 31(1), 19-43.
4. Bai, B., Nie, Y., & Lee, A. N. (2020). Academic self-efficacy, task importance and interest: relations with English language learning in an Asian context. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 1–14. doi:10.1080/01434632.2020.1746317
5. Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
6. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy in changing societies. New York: Cambridge University Press.
7. British Council & Turkey Economic Policies Research Foundation. (2014). Turkey national needs assessment of state school English language teaching. Ankara.
8. Bryman, A. (2016). Social research methods (4th ed.). Oxford University Press.

9. Büyüköztürk, Ş., Kılıç Çakmak, E., Akgün, Ö. E., Karadeniz, Ş. & Demirel, F. (2017). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemleri. (23. Bs.) Ankara: Pegem Akademi.
10. Nayman, H., & Bavlı, B. (2022). Online teaching of productive language skills (pls) during emergency remote teaching (ERT) in EFL classrooms: A phenomenological inquiry. International Journal of Education and Literacy Studies, 10(1), 179-187. http://dx.doi.org/10.7575/aiac.ijels.v.10n.1p.179
11. Nilson, L.B. (2013). Creating self-regulated learners: Strategies to strengthen students’ self-awareness and learning skills. Stylus Publishing.
12. Pintrich, P.R. & De Groot, E. V. (1990). Motivational and self-regulated learning components of classroom academic performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 33-40.
13. Prabhu, N.S. (1987). Second Language Pedagogy. Oxford: Oxford University Press
14. Raes, A., Detienne, L., Windey, I., & Depaepe, F. (2020). A systematic literature review on synchronous hybrid learning: gaps identified. Learning Environments Research, 23(3), 269-290.
15. Richards, J. C., & Rodgers, T.S. (1986). Approaches and methods in language teaching. Oxford: Cambridge University Press.
16. Savignon, S. J. (2002). Interpreting communicative language teaching. London: Yale University Press.
17. Slavin, R. E. (2006). Educational psychology: Theory and practice (8th ed.) Boston: Pearson
18. Schunk, H. D. (2012). Learning theories: An educational perspective (6th ed.). Boston: Pearson.
19. Şendoğan, K. (2020). Foreign language education during covid-19 pandemic: an evaluation from the perspectives of preparatory class students. Milli Eğitim Dergisi, 49(1), 1079-1090.
20. Tabachnick, B.G. & Fidell, L.S. (2014). Using multivariate statistics (6th ed). Essex: Pearson.
21. Thompson, B. (2006). Foundations of behavioral statistics. New York: Guilford Press.
22. Tılfarlıoğlu, F. Y. ve Cinkara, E. (2009). Self-efficacy in EFL: differences among proficiency groups and relationship with success. Novitas-ROYAL, 3(2), 129- 142.
23. Vaishnav, R. S., & Chirayu, K. C. (2013). Learning style and academic achievement of secondary school students. Voice of research, 1(4), 1-4.
24. Woolfolk, A. 82016). Educational psychology. (13th ed.). Boston: Pearson.
25. Yurtseven, N., Altun, S., & Aydın, H. (2015). An analysis on motivational beliefs of preparatory class students about learning English. International Journal of Educational Researchers, 6(1), 13-30.
26. Zimmerman, B. J., Bonner, S., & Kovach, R. (1996). Developing self-regulated learners: Beyond achievement to self-efficacy. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.