You are here

Home » Content

TÜRK ÖĞRENCİLERİNİN İNTERAKTİF VE TEKNOLOJİ DESTEKLİ INGİLİZCE’NİN YABANCI DİL OLARAK ÖĞRETİLDİĞİ MÜFREDAT HAKKINDAKI GÖRÜŞLERİ

TURKISH STUDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS ON THE CURRICULUM FOR INTERACTIVE AND TECHNOLOGY ENHANCED ENGLISH AS A FOREGIN LANGUAGE

Journal Name:

  • Pamukkale Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi

Publication Year:

  • 2011

Key Words:

Keywords (Original Language):

Author NameUniversity of AuthorFaculty of Author
Abstract (2. Language): 
Thanks to the communicative language teaching, interaction in English rather than teaching grammar rules has become the main goal of English classes. Technological equipment and the Internet have been widely benefited to reinforce interaction through the authentic materials they provided. This study investigated English as a foreign language students’ perceptions towards the use of communicative approach and technological resources at a state university in Turkey. Turkish EFL students’ perceptions towards communicative activities were analyzed with questionnaires comparing the statistical data based on their gender and proficiency. Statistically significant differences were found in terms of the gender and proficiency level of the students.
Bookmark/Search this post with
Abstract (Original Language): 
İletişimsel yöntemin kullanılması ile İngilizce sınıflarında sadece dilbilgisi kurallarını öğretmekten çok İngilizce iletişim kurmak esas amaç haline gelmiştir. İletişimi pekiştirmek için teknolojik araçlardan ve internetten sağladıkları gerçek materyallerden büyük ölçüde faydalanılmaktadır. Bu çalışma Türkiye’de bir devlet üniversitesindeki İngilizce’yi yabancı dil olarak öğrenen öğrencilerin iletişimsel yaklaşıma ve teknoloji kullanımına yönelik algılarını incelemiştir. İngilizce’yi yabancı dil olarak öğrenen Türk öğrencilerin görüşleri istatistiksel verilerin cinsiyet ve dil seviyelerine göre kıyaslama yapılmasıyla analiz edildi. Analiz sonucunda öğrencilerin cinsiyetleri ve dil seviyeleri açısından istatistiksel olarak önemli farklılıklar bulundu.
FULL TEXT (PDF): 
PDF icon arastirmax-turk-ogrencilerinin-interaktif-teknoloji-destekli-ingilizcenin-yabanci-dil-olarak-ogretildigi-mufredat-hakkindaki-gorusleri.pdf
  • 1
57-75
  • Turkish

REFERENCES

References: 

Aljaafreh, A. and Alntolf, L. (1994). Negative Feedback as Regulation and Second Language Learning
in the Zone of Proximal Development. The Modern Language Journal, 87 (4) 465-483.
Aydın, S. (2007). Attitudes of EFL learners towards the Internet. The Turkish Online Journal of
Educational Technology, 6/3 pp: 18-26.
Bejarano, Y., Levine, T., Olshtain, E., and Steiner, J. (1997). The skilled use of interaction strategies:
Creating a framework for improved small-group communicative interaction in the language
classroom. System, 25/2, pp: 203-214.
Brown, H. D. (2001). Teaching by Principles: An Interactive Approach to Language Pedagogy:
Longman, New York.
Chung, I-Fang and Huang, Yi-Cheng .(2009). The implementation of Communicative Language
Teaching: An investigation of Students’ Viewpoints. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher
18 pp: 67-78.
Ellis, R. (1997). Second Language Acquisition. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Gelabert, S. B., Gisbert, D. D., Thurston, A. and Topping, K. (2008). International online peer tutoring
to promote modern language development in primary schools. Presented at the
IAE-IASCE Conference “Cooperative Learning In Multicultural Societies: Critical Reflections”,
Turin, Italy.
Johnson, K. (1995). Understanding Communication in Second Language Classrooms. Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge.
Kaya, O. (2007). Students’ and teachers’ perceptions of interaction types. (Unpublished master
thesis), Bilkent University.
Kung S-C and Chuo T-W. (2002). Students’ Perceptions of English Learning through ESL/EFL Websites.
TEJL-EJ 6/1.
Kuo, M.M. (2008). Learner to Teacher: EFL Student Teachers’ Perceptions on Internet-Assisted
Language Learning and Teaching, ED502217.
Larsen-Freeman, D. (1986). Techniques and Principles in Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Leki, I. (1992). Understanding ESL writers: A guide for teachers. Portsmouth, NH:Boynton/Cook.
Liu J. and Sadler, R.W. (2003). The Effect and Affect of Peer Review in Electronic Versus Traditional
Modes On L2 Writing. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 2 pp. 193-227.
McDonough, K. (2004). Learner-learner interaction during pair and small group activities in a Thai
EFL context. System, 32, 207-224.
Myers, L. L. (2000). Task Interpretation and Task Effectiveness: A Vygotskian analysis of a French L2
Classroom Task. Proceedings for the Texas Foreign Language Education Conference, 5,
9-21.
Perez, J. L. (2003). Foreign Language Productivity in Synchronous Versus Asynchronous Computer-
Mediated Communication. CALICO Journal, 21/1, pp: 89-104.
Pica, T. (1994). Research on Negotiation: What Does It Reveal About Second-Language Learning
Conditions, Processes, and Outcomes? Language Learning 44 pp: 493-527.
Rao, Z. (2002). Chinese Students’ Perceptions of Communicative and Non-Communicative
Activities in EFL Classroom. System, 30, pp: 85-105.
Richards, J. C., and Rodgers, T. S. (1986). Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Rivers, W. M. (1987). Interaction as the Key to Teaching Language for Communication. In Rivers
(Ed: W. M. Rivers), Interactive Language Teaching, (pp. 3-16). Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge.
Savignon, S. (1991). Communicative Language Teaching: State of the Art. TESOL Quarterly, 25/2.
pp. 261-277.
Savignon, J., and Wang, C. (2003). Communicative Language Teaching in EFL Contexts: Learners’
Attitudes and Perceptions. IRAL, 41, pp: 223-249.

Thank you for copying data from http://www.arastirmax.com