LANGUAGE TEACHING THROUGH WEB 2.0 TOOLS: ATTITUDES OF PRE-SERVICE TEACHERS OF ENGLISH

Yıl 2023, , 639 - 649, 31.03.2023

Mehmet Tunaz

https://doi.org/10.30783/nevsosbilen.1231618

Öz

The purpose of this research was to investigate how gender, socioeconomic status, and year of study influenced the perspectives of prospective language teachers on the use of Web 2.0 technologies in language teaching. This research is an example of descriptive survey model. The participants consisted of 1st and 4th grade pre-service ELT teachers from a state university in Turkey. The data was gathered using an adapted version of the "Web 2.0 Attitude Scale" by Hartshorne and Ajjan (2009). The findings showed that although there were no statistically significant differences between the groups with respect to gender or family income, there were disparities in the outcomes related to the students' academic year of enrolment. As a consequence, neither gender nor socioeconomic status had any impact on how students felt about adopting Web 2.0 technologies in foreign language instruction, but that students' attitudes towards this trend changed for the better throughout the course of their academic careers. It was suggested that Web 2.0 technologies be introduced into the classroom at earlier stages of university education.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Pre-service, ELT, Web 2.0, Attitude

WEB 2.0 ARAÇLARI YOLUYLA DİL ÖĞRETİMİ: İNGİLİZCE ÖĞRETMEN ADAYLARININ TUTUMLARI

Öz

Bu araştırma, yabancı dil öğretmeni adaylarının dil öğretim sürecinde Web 2.0 araçlarını kullanmaya yönelik tutumlarını cinsiyet, aile gelir düzeyleri ve sınıflar açısından incelemeyi amaçlamıştır. Kullanılan araştırma araçları ve veriler yönünden, araştırma betimsel tarama modeline bir örnektir. Katılımcılar Türkiye’deki devlet üniversitelerinde okuyan 1. sınıf ve 4. sınıf İngilizce Öğretmenliğinde okuyan öğretmen adaylarından oluşmaktadır. Veri toplama aracı olarak Hartshorne ve Ajjan (2009) tarafından geliştirilen “Web 2.0 Araçları Tutum Ölçeğinin” uyarlanmış hali kullanılmıştır. Veri toplama sürecinde ölçek toplam 60 öğrenciye uygulanmıştır. Bulgular, gruplar arasında cinsiyet veya aile geliri açısından istatistiksel olarak anlamlı bir fark olmamasına rağmen, öğrencilerin kayıt oldukları akademik yılla ilgili sonuçlarda eşitsizlikler olduğunu göstermiştir. Sonuç olarak, öğrencilerin yabancı dil öğretiminde Web 2.0 teknolojilerini benimseme konusunda ne hissettikleri üzerinde hem cinsiyetin hem de sosyoekonomik durumun herhangi bir etkisi olmadığı, ancak öğrencilerin bu eğilime yönelik tutumlarının akademik kariyerleri boyunca daha iyi yönde değiştiği gözlemlenmiştir. Bu nedenle, Web 2.0 teknolojilerinin üniversite eğitiminin erken aşamalarında sınıflara tanıtılması önerildi.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Hizmet Öncesi, İngilizce Öğretmenliği, Web 2.0, Tutum

Kaynakça

• Alkaromah, A. H., Fauziati, E., & Asib, A. (2020). Students’ perception on the Information and Communication Technology (ICT) tools in English language teaching. ELS Journal on Interdisciplinary Studies in Humanities, 3(1), 122-129.
• Al-Kathiri, F. (2015). Beyond the Classroom Walls: Edmodo in Saudi Secondary School EFL Instruction, Attitudes and Challenges. English Language Teaching, 8(1), 189-204.
• Ariew, R., & Ercetin, G. (2004). Exploring the potential of hypermedia annotations for second language reading. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 17(2), 237-259.
• Chen, B., & Bryer, T. (2012). Investigating Instructional Strategies for Using Social Median Formal and Informal Learning. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning (IRRODL), 13(1).
• Chun, D., Kern, R., & Smith, B. (2016). Technology in language use, language teaching, and language learning. The Modern Language Journal, 100(S1), 64-80.
• Craig, D. V. & Patten, K. B. (2007). E‐literacy and literacy iPods, popular culture and language learning. International Journal of the Book, 4(1), 69‐74.
• Çeliköz, N., & Çetin, F. (2004). Anadolu öğretmen lisesi öğrencilerinin öğretmenlik mesleğine yönelik tutumlarını etkileyen etmenler. Milli Eğitim Dergisi, (162).
• Dara-Tafazoli, M., Parra, E. G., & Abril, C. A. H. (2019). Attitude towards Computer-Assisted Language Learning: Do Gender, Age and Educational Level Matter? Teaching English with Technology, 19(3), 22-39.
• Egbert, J., Paulus, T. and Nakamichi, Y. (2002). The impact of CALL instruction on classroom computer use: A foundation for rethinking technology in teacher education. Language Learning and Technology, 6(3): 108–126
• Fabry, D. L., & Higgs, J. R. (1997). Barriers to the effective use of technology in education: Current status. Journal of educational computing research, 17(4), 385-395.
• Ferdig, R. E. (2007). Examining social software in teacher education. Journal of Technology and teacher education, 15(1), 5-10.
• Goldie, J. G. S. (2016). Connectivism: A knowledge learning theory for the digital age? Medical teacher, 38(10), 1064-1069.
• Guillén-Gámez, F. D., Lugones, A., & Mayorga-Fernández, M. J. (2019). ICT use by pre-service foreign languages teachers according to gender, age and motivation. Cogent Education, 6(1), 1574693.
• Hartshorne, R., & Ajjan, H. (2009). Examining student decisions to adopt Web 2.0 technologies: theory and empirical tests. Journal of computing in higher education, 21(3), 183-198.
• Haygood, E., Garner, R., & Johnson, S. (2012). Blended learning: Using web 2.0 S to enhance classroom instruction. Interlink Alliance. Retrieved from http://www.cehs.ohio.edu.
• Healey, D., Hanson-Smith, E., Hubbard, P., Iannou-Georgiou, S., Kessler, G. and Ware, P. (2011). TESOL Technology Standards: Description, Implementation, Integration. TESOL Publications.
• Hegelheimer, V. (2006). When the technology course is required. In P. Hubbard and M. Levy (Eds), Teacher Education in CALL (pp. 117-133). John Benjamins.
• Hilao, M. P., & Wichadee, S. (2017). Gender differences in mobile phone usage for language learning, attitude, and performance. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 18(2), 68-79.
• Hong, W. (1997). Multimedia Computer‐Assisted Reading in Business Chinese. Foreign Language Annals, 30(3), 335-344.
• Hubbard, P. (2008). CALL and the future of language teacher education. CALICO Journal, 25(2): 175–188.
• Kessler, G. (2006). Assessing CALL teacher training: What are we doing and what could we do better? In P. Hubbard and M. Levy (Eds), Teacher Education in CALL (pp. 23-42). John Benjamins.
• Larsen-Freeman, D., & Anderson, M. (2013). Techniques and principles in language teaching 3rd Edition-Oxford handbooks for language teachers. Oxford University Press.
• Muyskens, J. A. (1999). New Ways of Learning and Teaching: Focus on Technology and Foreign Language Education. Issues in Language Program Direction: A Series of Annual Volumes. Heinle & Heinle Publishers.
• Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1978). Psychometric theory. The role of university in the development of entrepreneurial vocations: A Spanish study, 387-405.
• Okan, Z., & Taraf, H. U. (2013). The use of blogs in second language teacher education. Procedia-Social and Behavioural Sciences, 83, 282-289.
• O’Reilly, T. (2005). Web 2.0: compact definition. Retrieved from: www.academia.edu
• Oz, H. (2015). Assessing Pre-Service English as a Foreign Language Teachers’ Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge. International Education Studies, 8(5), 119-130.
• Önem, E. E. (2014). A Study of Income and Test Anxiety among Turkish University Students. Journal of Language and Literature Education, 10, 14-23.
• Prensky, M., & Berry, B. D. (2001). Do they really think differently? On the horizon, 9(6), 1-9.
• Salaberry, M. R. (2001). The use of technology for second language learning and teaching: A retrospective. The modern language journal, 85(1), 39-56.
• Şimşek, H. (2005). Ortaöğretim alan öğretmenliği tezsiz yüksek lisans programına devam eden öğrencilerin öğretmenlik mesleğine yönelik tutumları. Van YYÜ Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 2(1). Retrieved from https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/yyuefd/issue/13719/166063
• Taşçı, S. (2022). The challenges in integrating technology into language teaching. In M. Tunaz & B. A. Ataç (Eds.). Challenging issues in language teaching and learning (pp. 121-134). Eğiten Publishing.
• Thurlow, C. (2006). From statistical panic to moral panic: The metadiscursive construction and popular exaggeration of new media language in the print media. Journal of computer-mediated communication, 11(3), 667-701.
• Tomlinson, B. (2009). Materials development in language teaching. Cambridge University Press.
• Turkmen, H. G. (2012). Using social networking in EFL classroom in higher education. In The International Scientific Conference eLearning and Software for Education (Vol. 1, p. 350). " Carol I" National Defence University.
• Wallen, N. E., & Fraenkel, J. R. (2013). Educational research: A guide to the process. Routledge.
• Williams, C., & Beam, S. (2019). Technology and writing: Review of research. Computers & education, 128, 227-242. Retrieved from: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0360131518302690
• Wolfe, A. M. (2007). Student attitudes towards social networks and learning modalities. In Proceedings of the Marketing Management Association (MMA) Spring Conference (pp. 1221-1232).