İngilizcenin Yabancı Dil Olarak Öğretildiği Bağlamda Çocukların Sesbilgisel Farkındalık Becerilerini Geliştirme

Yıl 2022, Sayı: 56, 314 - 335, 01.09.2022

İrem Ay Akca Çağla Atmaca

https://doi.org/10.9779/pauefd.1033281

Cited By: 1

Öz

Bu eylem araştırması, İngilizcenin yabancı dil olarak öğretildiği Türkiye bağlamında çocukların sesbilgisel farkındalıklarını geliştirmeyi amaçlamıştır. Bir devlet ortaokulunda 5., 6. ve 7. sınıflardan toplam 56 öğrenci çalışmaya katılmıştır. Öğrencilerin sesbilgisel farkındalık becerileri ön test, doğrudan son test ve gecikmeli son test tasarımında Sesbilgisel Farkındalık Becerileri Testi (SFBT) ile ölçülmüştür ve puanları istatistiksel yöntemlerle analiz edilmiştir. Ön test, doğrudan son test ve gecikmeli son test puan ortalamaları karşılaştırıldığında, doğrudan son test ve gecikmeli son test puanlarının arttığı görülmüştür. Tekrarlanan ölçümler arasındaki parametrik olmayan Friedman farklılıklar testi uygulanmış ve anlamlı ki-kare değeri elde edilmiştir. Buna göre katılımcıların sınıf içi etkinlikler öncesi, sınıf içi etkinlikler sonrası ve altı haftalık izlem sonrasında ölçülen test puanları arasında istatistiksel olarak anlamlı bir fark olduğu bulunmuştur. Bulgular, çocuk yaştaki öğrencilerin sesbilgisel farkındalığını artırmak için çeşitli etkinlikler kullanmanın önemini ortaya koymuştur. Çalışmanın eğitsel çıkarımları ayrıca tartışılmıştır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

sesbilgisel farkındalık, çocuklara İngilizce öğretimi, sesbilgisel farkındalık becerileri testi, yabancı dil olarak İngilizce, eylem araştırması

Destekleyen Kurum

Herhangi kurum desteklememiştir.

Proje Numarası

Herhangi proje kapsamında değildir.

Teşekkür

Herhangi kişi ya da kurumdan destek alınmamıştır.

Improving Phonological Awareness Skills of Young Learners of English in an EFL Context

Öz

This action research study aimed to improve the phonological awareness of young learners in the Turkish EFL context. In total, there were 56 students from the 5th, 6th, and 7th grades at a secondary state school. The students’ phonological awareness levels were measured via the Phonological Awareness Skills Test (P.A.S.T.) in the pre-test, immediate post-test, and delayed post-test design. Their scores were analysed through statistical procedures. When the mean scores of the pre-test, immediate post-test, and delayed post-test were compared, it was found that the scores in the immediate post-test and delayed post-test increased. A non-parametric Friedman test of differences among repeated measures was conducted and rendered a significant Chi-square value. Thus, it was revealed that there was a statistically significant difference among the P.A.S.T. scores of the participants measured before the in-class activities, after the in-class activities, and after a six-week follow-up. The findings displayed the importance of employing various activities to improve the phonological awareness of young learners. Educational implications are also discussed.

Anahtar Kelimeler

phonological awareness, young learners of English, phonological awareness skills test, English as a foreign language, action research

Proje Numarası

Herhangi proje kapsamında değildir.

Kaynakça

• Akdal, D. (2018). The investigating of effectiveness of the SESFAR intervention program aimed supportıng at phonological awareness skills. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Institute of Educational Sciences, Ankara University, Ankara, Turkey.
• Algozzine, B., McQuiston, K., O'Shea, D., & McCollin, M. (2008). Improving phonological awareness and decoding skills of high school students from diverse backgrounds. Preventing School Failure: Alternative Education for Children and Youth, 52(2), 67- 72.
• Anthony, J. L., & Francis, D. J. (2005). Development of phonological awareness. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 14(5), 255-259.
• Avery, P., & Ehrlich, S. (2013). Teaching American English pronunciation- Oxford handbooks for language teachers. Oxford University Press.
• Babayiğit, S., & Stainthorp, R. (2007). Preliterate phonological awareness and early literacy skills in Turkish. Journal of Research in Reading, 30(4), 394-413.
• Bayraktaroğlu, S. (2008). Orthographic interference and the teaching of British pronunciation to Turkish learners. Dil ve Dilbilimi Çalışmaları Dergisi, 4(2), 1-36.
• Bentin, S., & Leshem, H. (1993). On the interaction between phonological awareness and reading acquisition: It’s a two-way street. Annals of Dyslexia, 43, 125–148.
• Bialystok, E., Majumder, S., & Martin, M. M. (2003). Developing phonological awareness: Is there a bilingual advantage? Applied Psycholinguistics, 24, 27–44. DOI: 10.1017.S014271640300002X.
• Bolduc, J. (2009). Effects of a music programme on kindergartners’ phonological awareness skills. International Journal of Music Education, 27(1), 37-47.
• Brown, H. D., & Lee, H. (2015). Teaching by principles: An interactive approach to language pedagogy. New York: Pearson.
• Davis, G. M. (2017). Songs in the young learner classroom: A critical review of evidence. ELT Journal, 71(4), 445-455.
• Darling-Hammond, L., & Youngs, P. (2002). Defining “highly qualified teachers”: What does “scientifically-based research” actually tell us? Educational Researcher, 31(9), 13-25.
• Deacon, S. H., & Kirby, J. R. (2004). Morphological awareness: Just “more phonological”? The roles of morphological and phonological awareness in reading development. Applied Psycholinguistics, 25, 223–238. DOI: 10.1017.S0124716404001117.
• Dixon, L. Q. (2011). Singaporean kindergartners' phonological awareness and English writing skills. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 32, 98–108.
• Durgunoğlu, A. Y., & Öney, B. A. (1999). A cross-linguistic comparison of phonological awareness and word recognition. Reading and Writing, 11, 281–299. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008093232622.
• Erdoğan, Ö. (2011). İlk okuma-yazma süreci için önemli bir beceri: Fonolojik farkındalık. Uludağ Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 24(1), 161-180.
• Eryilmaz, A. & Yesilyurt, Y. E. (2020). Foreign language writing as a developmental process (foundation, expansion, development, and completion): The FEDCom model. International Journal of Contemporary Educational Research, 7(2), 307-334. DOI: https://doi.org/10.33200/ijcer.768768.
• Gilakjani, A. P., & Sabouri, N. B. (2016). Learners' listening comprehension difficulties in English language learning: A literature review. English Language Teaching, 9(6), 123-133.
• Gökkuş, İ. (2016). The effect of phonological awareness program on development of early literacy skills. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Institute of Educational Sciences, Gazi University, Ankara, Turkey.
• Gut, U. (2009). Introduction to English phonetics and phonology. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.
• Gündüz, N. (2005). Computer assisted language learning (CALL). Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 1(2), 193-214.
• Hagevik, R., Aydeniz, M., & Rowell, C. G. (2012). Using action research in middle level teacher education to evaluate and deepen reflective practice. Teaching and Teacher Education, 28(5), 675-684.
• Haghighi, M., & Rahimy, R. (2017). The effect of L2 minimal pairs practice on Iranian intermediate EFL learners' pronunciation accuracy. International Journal of Research in English Education, 2(1), 42-48.
• Harmer, J. (2007). The practice of English language teaching. Harlow, England: Pearson Longman.
• Hine, G. S. (2013). The importance of action research in teacher education programs. Issues in Educational Research, 23(2), 151-163.
• Hişmanoğlu, M. (2006). Current perspectives on pronunciation learning and teaching. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 2(1), 101-110.
• Jull, D. (2013). Teaching pronunciation: An inventory of techniques. In P. Avery, & S. Ehrlich (Eds.), Teaching American English Pronunciation (pp. 207-214). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Kartal, G., & Terziyan, T. (2016). Development and evaluation of game-like phonological awareness software for kindergarteners. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 53(4), 519–539.
• Klimova, B. F. (2015). Games in the teaching of English. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 191, 1157-1160.
• Konza, D. (2011). Phonological awareness. Research into Practice, 1(1), 1-6.
• Leong, L.-M., & Ahmadi, S. M. (2017). An analysis of factors influencing learners’ English speaking skill. International Journal of Research in English Education, 2(1), 34-41.
• Li, Y., & Chen, S. (2016). Relative effectiveness of phonological and morphological awareness training on L2 word reading in EFL children. System, 60, 93-104.
• Linse, C. T., & Nunan, D. (2005). Practical English language teaching: Young learners. New York: McGraw Hill.
• López, L. M. (2012). Assessing the phonological skills of bilingual children from preschool through kindergarten: Developmental progression and cross-language transfer. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 26(4), 371-391. DOI: 10.1080/02568543.2012.711800.
• López, L. M., & Greenfield, D. B. (2004). The cross-language transfer of phonological skills of Hispanic head start children. Bilingual Research Journal, 28(1), 1-18. DOI: 10.1080/15235882.2004.10162609.
• Mackey, A., & Gass, S. M. (2005). Second language research: Methodology and design. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
• Mahripah, S. (2013). EFL learners' attitudes towards the improvement of their English speaking performance. LITERA, 12(2), 287-299.
• Martinelli, V., & Brincat, B. (2020). The similarity of phonological skills underpinning reading ability in shallow and deep orthographies: A bilingual perspective. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism. DOI: 10.1080/13670050.2020.1854167.
• MoNE. (2018). İngilizce dersi öğretim programı (ilkokul ve ortaokul 2,3,4,5,6,7 ve 8. sınıflar). Ankara.
• Moritz, C., Papadelis, G., Thomson, J., Wolf, M., & Yampolsky, S. (2013). Links between early rhythm skills, musical training, and phonological awareness. Reading and Writing, 26(5), 739-769.
• Morrow, A., Goldstein, B. A., Gilhool, A., & Paradis, J. (2014). Phonological skills in English language learners. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 45, 26-39.
• Ng, S.-W. C. (2006). The effects of direct instruction in phonological skills on L2 reading performance of Chinese learners of English. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Institute of Education, University of London, London, U.K.
• Özdemir, F. (2008). The development of reading in early bilingualism: Evidence from Turkish-child L2 learners of English. Unpublished MA thesis, Boğaziçi University Institute of Social Sciences, İstanbul.
• Pullen, P. C., & Justice, L. M. (2003). Enhancing phonological awareness, print awareness, and oral language skills in preschool children. Intervention in School and Clinic, 39(2), 87–98.
• Reid, E. (2014). Internet pronunciation activities as an attractive way of teaching pronunciation. ETEFL Proceedings from the International Scientific Conference (pp. 47-51). UKF Nitra: Nitra: UKF Nitra.
• Rule, A. C., Dockstader, C. J., & Stewart, R. A. (2006). Hands-on and kinesthetic activities for teaching phonological awareness. Early Childhood Education Journal, 34(3), 195-201.
• Saiegh-Haddad, E. (2019). What is phonological awareness in L2? Journal of Neurolinguistics, 50, 17–27.
• Soğancı, S. (2017). Investigation on the relationship between phonological awareness skills and word reading skills: A longıtudınal study. Unpublished master thesis, Institute of Educational Sciences, Ankara University, Ankara, Turkey.
• Souto-Manning, M. (2012). Teacher as researcher: Teacher action research in teacher education. Childhood Education, 88(1), 54-56.
• Sözen, E. (2019). Contribution of L2 morphological awareness and L2 phonological awareness to L2 listening comprehension of Turkish EFL learners. Unpublished MA thesis, Institute of Educational Sciences, Anadolu University, Eskişehir, Turkey.
• Sürgen, D. (2019). Examination of phonological awareness, rapid naming, and working memory skills in students with and without spesific learning disabilities. Unpublished master thesis, Cerrahpasa Institute of Graduate Studies, İstanbul University, İstanbul, Turkey.
• Swanson, H. L., Trainin, G., Necoechea, D. M., & Hammill, D. D. (2003). Rapid naming, phonological awareness, and reading. A meta-analysis of the correlational evidence. Review of Educational Research, 73(4), 407–440.
• Şevik, M. (2012b). First step to effective listening: “Listen and show” songs. International Journal of English and Education, 1(1), 9-19.
• Thornbury, S. (2005). How to teach speaking. London: Longman.
• Wasik, B. A. (2001). Phonemic awareness and young children. Childhood Education, 77(3), 128-133.
• Yopp, H. K. (1992). Developing phonemic awareness in young children. The Reading Teacher, 45(9), 696-703.
• Yopp, H. K. (1995). A test for assessing phonemic awareness in young children. The Reading Teacher, 49(1), 20-29.
• Yuan, R., & Burns, A. (2016). Teacher identity development through action research: A Chinese experience. Teachers and Teaching, 23(6), 1-21.
• Zgonc, Y. (2000). Sounds in action: Phonological awareness activities & assessment. Peterborough: Crystal Springs Books.
• Zgonc, Y. (2010). Interventions for all: Phonological awareness. Portsmouth, NH: Stenhouse Publishers, a division of SDE, Inc.
• Zhang, H., & Roberts, L. (2019). The role of phonological awareness and phonetic radical awareness in acquiring Chinese literacy skills in learners of Chinese as a second language. System, 81, 163-178.