Buradasınız

Anasayfa » Content

ÇALIŞMA PLANI OLARAK ÖDEVİN DEĞERİ VE DOĞRULUĞU: SINIF İÇİ UYGULAMA DEĞİŞKENLİĞİ

THE VALUE AND ACCURACY OF TASK AS A WORKPLAN: VARIABILITY IN CLASSROOM PRACTICE

Journal Name:

  • Eğitimde Kuram ve Uygulama Dergisi

Publication Year:

  • 2009

Key Words:

Keywords (Original Language):

Author NameUniversity of Author
Abstract (2. Language): 
This paper describes a case-study based project which focused on the development of a specially designed single task-based lesson in order to identify how materials design can be more closely aligned with and conducive to variability in classroom task enactment. A series of communicative micro-level tasks functioning within the boundary of a larger macro-level task were given to two university lecturers. The two lecturers then enacted these micro-level tasks within an EFL classroom environment. The two lecturers were interviewed prior to the lesson to elicit their attitudes toward the basic notion of task within an EFL context. They were also requested to submit a workplan outlining their intended use of the given task materials. Two 90-minute lessons were then observed and field notes were combined with post-lesson interviews. Detailed reports of each teacher’s enactment are presented and the need for further large-scale research looking at the variability between task design and task enactment is called for based on the outcome of the current project.
Bookmark/Search this post with
Abstract (Original Language): 
Bu arastırma ödev temelli dil ögretiminin sınıf içi uygulamalardaki degiskenligin materyal tasarımı kaynaklı sebeplerini daha yakından belirlemek için yürütülmüstür. Özel olarak tasarlanan ödev temelli dersin gelisimine odaklanmıs, örnek olay incelemesine dayalı bir projedir. Bir seri iletisimsel mikrodüzey ödev iki üniversite okutmanına verilmistir. Bu okutmanlar, yabancı dil (0ngilizce) sınıfı ortamında bu mikro-düzey ödevleri islemislerdir. 0ngilizce dili ögretimi baglamında bu iki okutmanla, ödevin temel yapısına iliskin tutumları hakkında bir ön görüsme yapılmıstır. Ayrıca, verilen ödev materyalini nasıl kullanacaklarını belirten bir çalısma planı sunmaları da istenmistir. Daha sonra 90 dakikalık ders gözlemlenmis ve alınan notlar ders sonrası görüsmelerden elde edilen verilerle birlestirilmistir. Her okutmanın isledigi dersin ayrıntılı raporları sunulmus, ödev dizaynı ve ödevin islenmesi arasındaki degiskenlige dayalı olarak daha genis ölçekli çalısmaların yapılması gerekliligi vurgulanmıstır.
FULL TEXT (PDF): 
PDF icon 26-473-1-pb.pdf
  • 2
227-243
  • English

REFERENCES

References: 

Breen, M. (1989). The evaluation cycle for language learning tasks. In R.K
Johnson (Eds.), The second language curriculum. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Brown, G., & Yule, G. (1983). Discourse analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Carless, D. (2004). Issues in teachers’ reinterpretation of a task-based innovation
in primary schools. TESOL Quarterly, 38(4), 639-662.
Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Foster, P. (1998). A classroom perspective on the negotiation of meaning.
Applied Linguistics, 19, 1-23.
Gass, S. M., & Varonis, E. (1985). Task variation and nonnative/nonnative
negotiation of meaning. In S. Gass & C. Maden (Eds.), Input in second
language acquisition (pp. 149-161). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Gernsbacher, M. A. (1990). Language comprehension as structure building.
Hillsdale, N.J: Erlbaum.
Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1983). Mental models. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Lam, W. S. E. (2004). Second language socialization in a bilingual chat room.
Language Learning & Technology, 8(3), 44-65.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral
participation. New York, N.Y: Cambridge University Press.
Long, M. H., & Crookes, G. (1992). Three approaches to task-based syllabus
design. TESOL Quarterly, 26(1), 27-56.
Mahenthiran, S., & Rouse, P. (2000). The impact of group selection on student
performance and satisfaction. The International Journal of Educational
Management, 14(6), 255-264.
Murphy, J. (2003). Task-based learning: The interaction between tasks and
learners. ELT Journal, 57(4), 352-359.
Newton, J. (1991). Negotiation: Negotiating what? Paper given at SEAMEO
Conference on Language Acquisition and the Second/Foreign Language
Classroom, RELC, Singapore.
Norman, D. A. (1988). The design of everyday things. New York, N.Y: Basic
Books.
Nunan, D. (1989). Designing tasks for the communicative classroom. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Nunan, D. (1991). Language teaching methodology: A textbook for teachers.
Hertfordshire: Prentice Hall International Ltd.
Richards, J. C. (1987). The dilemma of teacher education in TESOL. TESOL
Quarterly, 21, 209-226.
Seedhouse, P. (1999). Task-based interaction. ELT Journal, 53, 149-156.
Shavelson, R. J., & Stern, P. (1981). Research on teachers’ pedagogical thoughts,
judgments, decisions, and behavior. Review of Educational Research, 51,
455-498.
Skehan, P. (1996). A framework for the implementation of task-base instruction.
In J. Willis & D. Willis (Eds.), Challenge and change in language teaching.
Oxford: Heinemann.
Skehan, P. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Wartofsky, M. (1973). Models. Dordrecht: D. Reidel.
Wright, T. (1987). Instructional task and discoursal outcome in the L2 classroom.
In C. N. Candlin & D. Murphy (Eds.), Lancaster practical papers in
English language education: Language learning tasks (pp. 5-22).
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

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