“Edtech” dokunuşuyla etkileyici harmanlanmış öğrenme ortamları yaratmak

Öz

Mevcut teknolojik gelişmelerin dünyadaki bireylerin yaşamları üzerinde büyük bir etkiye sahip olduğu bilinmektedir. Bu gelişmeler kaçınılmaz olarak onların eğitimde kullanımlarını da beraberinde getirmiştir. İngilizce öğrenmenin ve öğretmenin yadsınamaz önemi göz önünde bulundurulduğunda, İngilizce eğitiminin en önemli sorunlarından biri, öğrenme ortamlarında etkileyici girdiler yaratmak olarak sayılabilir. Bu anlamda mobil teknolojilerin artan popülaritesi ve eğitim amaçlı teknoloji kullanımı, onların dil eğitimine yönelik çeşitli ortamlardaki etkilerinin sorgulanması açısından merak uyandırmıştır. Bu nedenle bu çalışma, Edmodo gibi Web 2.0 araçlarının harmanlanmış öğrenme ortamlarında etkileyici girdiler oluşturma yolunda İngilizce derslerini destekleyip desteklemeyeceğini ve lise öğrencilerinin genel akademik performansı ve özellikle konuşma performansı üzerinde bir etkisi olup olmayacağını araştırmaktadır. Veri toplamada karma yöntem araştırma deseni kullanılmıştır, bu nedenle veriler ihtiyaç analizi, Oxford Yerleştirme Testi (OPT), Key English Testi (KET) ve öğrenci izlem görüşmelerinden elde edilmiştir. Veriler, betimsel analiz teknikleri ve t-testi kullanılarak analiz edilmiştir. Çalışmanın sonuçları, müdahalenin sonunda genel sonuçları etkileyen olası diğer faktörlere rağmen, İngilizce eğitiminde etkileyici harmanlanmış öğrenme ortamları yaratmada Web 2.0 araçlarını kullanmanın yararlı olduğunun iddia edilebileceğini göstermektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Educational technology
• compelling input
• blended learning
• Web 2.0
• ELT

A touch of edtech to create “compelling” blended learning environments

Abstract

It is true that current technological advancement has a great influence on the lives of individuals in the world. This advancement inevitably brought their use to education. When the undeniable importance of learning and teaching English is taken into consideration, one of the most important concerns of English language education may be creating compelling input in learning environments. In this sense, the increasing popularity of mobile technologies as well as technology use for educational purposes has attracted serious attention in terms of questioning their effects in various settings for language education. Therefore, this study investigates whether Web 2.0 tools like Edmodo would support English classes in a way to form compelling input in blended learning environments and whether it would have an impact on high school students’ overall academic performance and most specifically speaking performance. The mixed methods research design was used to collect data so data came from a needs analysis, Oxford Placement Test (OPT), Key English Test (KET) and student follow-up interviews. The data were analysed by using descriptive analysis techniques and t-tests. The results of the study suggest that despite the possible other factors affecting the overall results at the end of the intervention, it is still possible to claim the benefits of using Web 2.0 tools in creating compelling blended learning environments in English language education.

Keywords

• Educational technology
• compelling input
• blended learning
• Web 2.0
• ELT

Kaynakça

1. Aji, M. P. P. (2017). English listening blended learning: The implementation of blended learning in teaching listening to university students. Kajian Linguistik dan Sastra, 2(1), 25-32.
2. Aşıksoy, G. (2018). ELT Students’ Attitudes and Awareness Towards the Use of Web 2.0 Technologies for Language Learning. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 14(2), 240-251.
3. Bahati, B. (2015). Extending student discussions beyond lecture room walls via Facebook. Journal of Education and Practice, 6(15), 160-171.
4. Barrot, J. S. (2021). Social media as a language learning environment: a systematic review of the literature (2008-2019). Computer Assisted Language Learning, 1-29.
5. Biçen, H. (2015). The role of social learning networks in mobile assisted language learning: Edmodo as a case study. Journal of Universal Computer Science, 21(10), 1297–1306.
6. Chapelle, C., & Sauro. S. (eds.). (2017). The handbook of technology in second language teaching and learning. Hoboken: Wiley-Blackwell
7. Chinnery G. (2006), Emerging Technologies. Going to the MALL: Mobile Assisted Language Learning. Language Learning & Technology, 10 (1), 9-16.
8. Chugh, R., & Ruhi, U. (2018). Social media in higher education: A literature review of Facebook. Education and Information Technologies, 23(2), 605-616. https://datareportal.com/global-digital overview#:~:text=A%20total%20of%205%20billion,12%20months%20to%20April%202022

9. Creswell, J. W., & Clark, V. L. P. (2017). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Sage publications.
10. Durak, G. (2017). Using social learning networks (SLNs) in higher education: Edmodo through the lenses of academics. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 18(1), 84-109.
11. Garrison, D. R., & Kanuka, H. (2004). Blended learning: Uncovering its transformative potential in higher education. internet High. Educ, 7(2), 95-105.
12. Gay, E., & Sofyan, N. (2017). The effectiveness of using Edmodo in enhancing students’ outcomes in advance writing course of the fifth semester at FIP-UMMU. Journal of English Education, 2(1), 1-11.
13. Godwin-Jones, R. (2019). In a World of SMART Technology, Why Learn Another Language? Educational Technology &Society, 22 (2), 4–13.
14. Graham, C. R. (2006). Blended learning systems. The handbook of blended learning: Global perspectives, local designs, 1, 3-21.
15. Grant, S. (2016). Peer review process completion rates and subsequent student perceptions within completely online versus blended modes of study. System, 62(1), 93-101.
16. Greenhow, C., & Askari, E. (2017). Learning and teaching with social network sites: A decade of research in K-12 related education. Education and information technologies, 22(2), 623-645.
17. Guarda, M. (2012). Computer-mediated-communication and foreign language education. Journal of e-Learning and Knowledge Society, 8(3), 15-27.
18. Ikbal, Z. (2017). The Dative Case for Comprehension-Based Grammar Teaching.
19. Isik, A. 2014. A test of the effect of interesting and relevant subject matter on second language acquisition. The International Journal of Language Teaching.
20. Kramsch C., Andersen R.W. (1999), Teaching Text and Context Through Multimedia, Language learning & Technology, 2 (2), 31-42.
21. Krashen, S. 1994. The input hypothesis and its rivals. In N. Ellis (Ed.) Implicit and Explicit Learning of Languages. London: Academic Press. pp. 45-77.
22. Krashen, S. 2003. Explorations in Language Acquisition and Language Use; The Taipei Lectures. Portsmouth: Heinemann.
23. Krashen, S. 2004. The power of reading. Westport: Libraries Unlimited. Second Edition.
24. Lichtman, K., & VanPatten, B. (2021). Was Krashen right? Forty years later. Foreign Language Annals, 54(2), 283-305.
25. Labus, A., Despotović‐Zrakić, M., Radenković, B., Bogdanović, Z., & Radenković, M. (2015). Enhancing formal e‐learning with edutainment on social networks. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 31(6), 592–605. doi:10.1111/jcal.12108
26. Lin, L. F. (2018). Integrating the problem-based learning approach into a web-based English Reading course. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 56(1), 105-133.
27. Ma, Q. (2017). A multi-case study of university students’ language-learning experience mediated by mobile technologies: a socio-cultural perspective. Computer assisted language learning, 30(3-4), 183-203
28. Mason, B. (2011). Impressive gains on the TOEIC after one year of comprehensible input with no output or grammar study. The International Journal of Foreign Language Teaching (IJFLT), 7(1).
29. McQuillan, J. (2019). Where do we get our academic vocabulary? Comparing the efficiency of direct instruction and free voluntary reading. The Reading Matrix: An International Online Journal, 19(1), 129-138.
30. Ockert, D. (2015). Skype-based English activities: A case for compelling input? Correlational changes before and after Skype exchanges. Teaching English with Technology, 15(3), 47-60.
31. Okan, Z. (2003). Edutainment: Is learning at risk?British Journal of Educational Technology, 34(3), 255–264. doi:10.1111/1467-8535.00325
32. O’Reilly, T. (2007). What is web 2.0: Design patterns and business models for the next generations software, September 2005.
33. Pardede, P. (2019). Pre-Service EFL Teachers' Perception of Blended Learning. Journal of English Teaching, 5(1), 1-14.
34. Peltier-Davis, C. (2009). Web 2.0, library 2.0, library user 2.0, librarian user 2.0: Innovative services for sustainable libraries, Computers in Libraries, November/December, 16-21
35. Salaberry R.M. (1996), A theoretical foundation for the development of pedagogical tasks in computer-mediated communication, CALICO Journal, 14 (1), 5-34.
36. Schmidt, T., & Strasser, T. (2018). Media-Assisted Foreign Language Learning—Concepts and Functions. In Teaching English as a Foreign Language (pp. 211-231). JB Metzler, Stuttgart.
37. Tawil, H. (2018). The blended learning approach and its application in language teaching. International Journal of Language & Linguistics, 5(4), 47–58. https://doi.org/10.30845/ijll.v5n4p6.
38. Zheng, B., Yim, S., & Warschauer, M. (2018). Social media in the writing classroom and beyond. The TESOL Encyclopedia of English Language Teaching, 1-5