İngilizce öğretiminde eleştirel pedagoji ve eleştirel teknoloji kuramı

Yıl 2020, Sayı: 21, 750 - 763, 21.12.2020

Eser Ordem

https://doi.org/10.29000/rumelide.843340

Öz

Eleştirel pedagoji ve teknoloji üzerine yapılan çalışmalar son yıllarda artış göstermektedir. Bununla birlikte, eleştirel pedagoji ve eleştirel teknoloji teorisini bir araya getirmek, İngilizce öğretiminde (ELT) ve ikinci dil olarak İngilizce'de (ESL) neredeyse hiç çalışılmamıştır. Bu çalışma, katılımcı eylem araştırması (KEA) kullanarak araştırmacı ve öğrencilerin iki farklı teknolojiyi karşılaştırmalarını sağlamayı amaçlamaktadır. Katılımcılara (n = 35) bir anket ve yarı yapılandırılmış görüşme formundan oluşan iki veri toplama aracı verildi. Araştırmacı ve öğrenciler, çevrimiçi müfredat hazırlığının her aşamasında birbirleriyle işbirliği yaptılar. Bulgular, öğrencilerin etkileşimli olmayan Versant İngilizce Testine (VET) ve ders kitabı yayıncıları tarafından sağlanan çevrimiçi platforma karşı olumsuz tutumlar geliştirdiklerini göstermektedir. Bununla birlikte, öğrenciler, sosyopolitik konuları eleştirel pedagoji çerçevesinde tartışabildikleri etkileşimli çevrimiçi Google tartışma platformunun kullanımına karşı olumlu tutumlar geliştirdiler. Ek olarak, bulgular, öğrenenlere eleştirel pedagoji ve eleştirel teknoloji kuramının tanıtılmasının çevrimiçi platformlar aracılığıyla özgün düşünebilmelerin, aktif olmalarını, eleştirel düşünebileceklerini, eylem ve pratiği destekleyebileceğini de göstermektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Eleştirel pedagoji, eleştirek teknoloji kuramı, ikinci dil öğretimi,, katılımcı eylem araştırması

Critical pedagogy and critical theory of technology in English language teaching: views from Turkey

Öz

Studies on critical pedagogy and technology have been on the rise in recent decades. However, bringing critical pedagogy and critical theory of technology together has been hardly studied in English language teaching (ELT) and English as a second language (ESL). This study aims to enable the researcher and learners to compare two different technologies by using participatory action research (PAR). The participants (n=35) were given two data collection tools composed of a questionnaire and semi-structured interview form. The researcher and the learners collaborated with each other in each stage of the online syllabus preparation. The findings show that the learners developed negative attitudes towards the non-interactive Versant English Test (VET) and the online platform provided by the textbook publishers. However, the learners developed positive attitudes towards the use of the interactive online Google discussion platform where they were able to debate sociopolitical issues within the framework of critical pedagogy. In addition, the findings also imply that familiarizing learners with critical pedagogy and critical theory of technology can endorse authenticity, agency, reflection, action and praxis via online platforms.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Critical pedagogy,, critical theory of technology,, second language teaching,, participatory action research

Kaynakça

• Althusser, L. (1971).Ideology and ideological state apparatuses in L. Althusser Lenin and Philosophy and Other Essays. London: New Left Review.
• Au, W., & Apple, M. W. (2009). Rethinking reproduction: Neo-Marxism in critical education theory. IN In Apple, M. W., Au, W., & Gandin, L. A. (Eds.).The Routledge international handbook of critical education (pp. 93-105). London: Routledge
• Bertrand, M. (2016). Youth participatory action research and educational transformation: The potential of intertextuality as a methodological tool. The Urban Review, 48(1), 15-31.
• Boyd, D. (2016). What would Paulo Freire think of Blackboard: Critical pedagogy in an age of online learning. The International Journal of Critical Pedagogy, 7(1), 165-186.
• Carroll-Miranda, J. (2011). Emancipatory technologies. In C. Mallott & B. Porfilio (Eds.), Critical pedagogy in the twenty-first century: A new generation of scholars (pp. 521-539). Charlotte, NC: Infor¬mation Age Publishing.
• Chun, C. W. (2006). An analysis of a language test for employment: The authenticity of the Phone-Pass test. Language Assessment Quarterly, 3(3), 295–306.
• Chun, C. W. (2008). Comments on “Evaluation of the usefulness of the Versant for English test: A response”: The author responds. Language Assessment Quarterly, 5(2), 168-172.
• Daniel, M. C., Schumacher, G., Stelter, N., & Riley, C. (2016). Student perception of online learning in ESL bilingual teacher preparation. Universal Journal of Educational Research, 4(3), 561-569.
• Downey, R., Farhady, H., Present-Thomas, R., Suzuki, M., & Van Moere, A. (2008). Evaluation of the usefulness of the Versant for English test: A response. Language Assessment Quarterly, 5(2), 160-167.
• Fairclough, N. (1992) Discourse and Social Change. Cambridge: Polity Press.
• Feenberg. A. (2009). Critical theory of technology. In J. Olsen, S. Ped¬erson, & V. Hendricks (Eds.), A Companion to the philosophy of technology (pp. 146-153). Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.
• Freire, P. (2000). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Continuum Press.
• Gitlin, A. D., & Ingerski, J. (2018). Rewriting critical pedagogy for public schools: Technological possibilities. The International Journal of Critical Pedagogy, 9(1), 7-28. Giroux, H. A. (2020). On critical pedagogy. London: Bloomsbury Publishing.
• Gomez, M.V. (2009). Emanuel Levinas & Paul Freire: The ethics of responsibility for the face-to-face interaction in the virtual world. International Journal of Instruction, 2(1), 27-58.
• Harvey, D. (2007). Neoliberalism as creative destruction. The annals of the American academy of political and social science, 610(1), 21-44.
• Inceçay, V., & Koçoğlu, Z. (2017). Investigating the effects of multimedia input modality on L2 listening skills of Turkish EFL learners. Education and Information Technologies, 22(3), 901-916.
• Kashi, S. & Dessinger, J.C. (2010). Paulo Freire’s Relevance to Online Instruction and Performance Improvement. Performance Improve¬ment 49(2), 17-21.
• Kemmis, S., & McTaggart, R. 2005. Participatory action research: Communicative action in the public sphere. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.). The Sage handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed.) (pp. 559-603). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE
• Kennedy, S & Don S. (2013). Technology-driven innovations for teaching English learners. VA: Lexington Institute
• Köksal, D., & Ulum, O. G. (2018). Evaluating the Versant English Test: Success or failure. Second International Symposium of Educational and Social Sciences, 2-4 November, Çanakkale, Turkey.
• Koksal, D. (2004). To kill the blackboard? Technology in language teaching and learning.Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 3(3) 62-72.
• Lewkowicz, J. A. (2000). Authenticity in language testing: some outstanding questions. Language Testing 17(1), 43–64.
• Lumley, T., & Brown, A. (1998). Authenticity of discourse in a specific purpose test. In E. Li & G.James (Eds.), Testing and evaluation in second language education (pp. 22–33). Hong Kong: Language Centre, Hong Kong University of Science and Technology.
• McLaren, P. (2016). Revolutionary critical pedagogy: Staking a claim against the macrostructural unconscious. Critical pedagogy, 7 (8), 1-42.
• Park, P. 2001. Knowledge and participatory research. In P. Reason & H. Bradbury (Eds.). Handbook of action research: Participative inquiry and practice (pp. 81-90). London: SAGE.
• Pennycook, A. (1990). Critical pedagogy and second language education. System, 18(3), 303-314.
• Pennycook, A. (2002). English and the discourses of colonialism. London: Routledge.
• Pennycook, A. (2017). The cultural politics of English as an international language. London : Routledge.
• Phillipson, R. (1992). Linguistic imperialism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Phillipson, R. (2017). Myths and realities of global English. Language Policy, 16(3), 313-331.
• Piller, I., & Cho, J. (2013). Neoliberalism as language policy. Language in society, 42(1), 23-44
• Pun, M. (2013). The use of multimedia technology in English language teaching: A global perspective. Crossing the Border: International Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies, 1(1), 29-38.
• Rothman, T., Romeo, L., Brennan, M., & Mitchell, D. (2011). Criteria for assessing student satisfaction with online courses. International Journal for e-Learning Security (IJeLS), 1, 27-32.
• Shachar, M. & Neumann, Y. (2010). Twenty years of research on the academic performance of differences between traditional and distance learning: Summative meta-analysis and trend examination, MERLOT, Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 6 (2), 318-334.
• Ulum, Ö. G. (2020) A critical deconstruction of computer-based test application in Turkish State University. Education and Information Technologies, 25 (3), 20-32.
• Zhen, Z. (2016). The use of multimedia in English teaching. US-China Foreign Language, 14(3), 182-189.