The impact of e-portfolio on foreign language writing skills

Bu çalışma elektronik(e-) portfolyonun orta alt yabancı dil seviyesindeki hazırlık sınıfı öğrencilerinin yazma becerileri üzerindeki etkisini araştırmaktır. Bir grup lisans öğrencisi çevrim içi sınıf ortamında elektronik portfolyo oluştururken, diğer bir grup da yazılı dosya şeklinde portfolyo oluşturmuşlardır. “Öğrenme için Motivasyon Stratejileri Anketi” ve “Bilgisayar Tutum Anketi” ile “Bilgisayar Okuryazarlığı Anketi” aracılığıyla veri toplanmıştır. Çalışma ile teknoloji destekli yazma pratiği ile dosyada yazma pratiği karşılaştırmasıyla elektronik ortamın başarıya etkisi hakkında bilgi sunulmuştur. Çalışma sonuçlarına göre 1) Dijital ortam yabancı dil yazma becerilerine olumlu etki etmektedir. 2) Bilgisayar kullanım deneyimi ve bilgisayar sahibi olma bilgisayara karşı tutumu etkilemektedir. 3) Elektronik portfolyo yabancı dil öğretim müfredatında yer alabilir.

Elektronik portfolyonun yabancı dilde yazma becerileri üzerindeki etkisi

This study explores the effect of e-portfolio use on developing the writing skills of English language learners who are at the pre-intermediate language proficiency level. The experiment group (n=23), were asked to enroll in an online classroom to keep online portfolios whereas the control group (n=24) kept paper portfolios. `The Motivation Strategies for Learning Questionnaire` and `Computer Attitude Questionnaire `were used in addition to the `Computer Literacy Survey` to collect data. This study provides insights into using portfolio through online writing practice compared with paper-based practice in terms of achievement. The results suggest that 1) The digital environment contributes to language writing skills. 2) Factors of previous computer experience and computer ownership influence computer attitudes. 3) E-portfolio can be integrated into foreign language teaching curricula.

___

  • Al Kahtani, S. (1999). Electronic portfolios in ESL writing: An alternative approach. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 12 (3), 261-268.
  • Aşkar, P., & Umay, A. (2001). İlköğretim Matematik Öğretmenliği öğrencilerinin bilgisayarla ilgili öz-yeterlik algısı. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 21, 1-8.
  • Avraamidou, L., & Zembal-Saul, C. (2002). Making the case for the use of web-based portfolios in support of learning to teach. The Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 1 (2).
  • Aydın, S. (2006). The effect of computers on the test and inter-rater reliability of writing tests of ESL learners. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 5 (1).
  • Brown, D. H. (2001). Teaching by Principles: An Interactive Approach to Language Pedagogy. NY: Pearson Education.
  • Bryant, S. L., & Timmins, A.A. (2002). Portfolio Assessment: Instructional Guide: Second Edition. Hong Kong: Hong Kong Institute of Education. (Available: http://libdr1.ied.edu.hk/pubdata/img00/arch00/link/archive/1/instarh/1921_image.pdf)
  • Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2006). Veri Analizi El Kitabı. Ankara: Pegem Yayıncılık.
  • Büyüköztürk, Ş., Akgün, O. E., Özkahveci, O., & Demirel, F. (2004). The validity and reliability study of the Turkish version of the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Bilimleri/ Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 4 (2), 231-239.
  • Chang, Y., Wu, C., & Ku, H. (2004). The introduction of electronic portfolios to teach and assess English as a foreign language in Taiwan. TechTrends, 49 (1).
  • Dunkel, P. (1991). The effectiveness research on computer-assisted instruction and computer assisted language learning. In P. Dunkel (Ed.), Computer Assisted Language Learning and Testing: Research Issues and Practice. USA: Newbury House.
  • Gathercoal, P., Love, D., Bryde, B., & McKean, G. (2002). On Implementing Web-based electronic portfolios. Educause Quarterly, 7 (2).
  • Gülbahar, Y., & Köse, F. (2006). Öğretmen Adaylarının Değerlendirme için Elektronik Portfolyo Kullanımına İlişkin Görüşleri. Ankara Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Fakültesi Dergisi, 39(2), 75-93.
  • Gürcan-Namlu, A., & Ceyhan, E. (2003). Bilgisayar Kaygısı: Ögretmen adayları üzerinde çok yönlü bir inceleme. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Bilimleri/ Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 2, 401-432.
  • Jenkins, C. B. (1996). Inside the Writing Portfolio: What we need to know to assess children’s writing. NH: Heinemann.
  • Knezek, G., Christensen, R., Gilmore, E., Kim, H., Morales, C., Voogt, J., & Moonen, B. (1999)
  • Teacher & Student Attitudes toward Information Technology in Four Nations. Panel presented at Society of Information Technology & Teacher Education (SITE)'s 10th International Conference, San Antonio, TX, March 2, 1999.
  • Kuriloff, P. 2005. Breaking the Barriers of Time and Space: More Effective Teaching Using e-Pedagogy. Innovate, 2 (1). http://www.innovateonline.info/index.php?view=article&id=64
  • Li, Y. (2000). Linguistic Characteristics of ESL Writing in Task-based E-mail Activities. System, 28 (2), 229-245.
  • Lohr, L., Ross, S. M., & Morrison, G. R. (1996). Using a Hypertext Environment for Teaching Process Writing: An Evaluation Study of Three Student Groups. Proceedings of Selected Research and Development Presentations at the 1996 National Convention of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology.
  • O’Malley, J. M., & Valdez-Pierce, L. (1996). Authentic Assessment for English Language Learners. USA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.
  • Pintrich, P. R., & De Groot, E.V. (1990). Motivational and self-regulated learning components of classroom academic performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 33-40.
  • Reed, M. (1990). The Effect of Computer-and-Writing Instruction on Prospective English Teachers’ Attitudes toward and Perceived Uses of Computers in Writing Instruction. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 23 (1), 3-27.
  • Sanalan, A., &Altun, A. (2002). Bir veri tabanı uygulaması olarak elektronik portfolyo kullanımı. Erzincan Egitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 4 (1), 10-20.
  • Shores, E. F., & Grace, C. (1998). The Portfolio Book: A Step-by-Step Guide for Teachers. USA: Gryphon House, Inc.
  • Soloway, E., Norris, C., Knezek, G., Becker, H., Riel, M., & Means, B. (1999). The Relationship of Teachers and Technology: Survey Findings and Reflections. Panel presented at Society of Information Technology & Teacher Education (SITE)'s 10th International Conference, San Antonio, TX, March 3, 1999.
  • Stansberry, S. L., & Kymes, A. D. (2007). Transformative Learning through “Teaching with Technology” Electronic Portfolios. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 50 (6), 488-496.
  • Tamar, L., & W. Rivka (2006). Teachers' Beliefs and Practices in Technology-Based Classrooms: A Developmental View. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, (39)2, 157- 181.
  • Tekinarslan, E. (2007). Computer anxiety: A cross-cultural comparative study of Dutch and Turkish university students. Computers in Human Behavior, doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2007.05.011.
  • Tezci, E., & Dikici, A. (2006). The effects of digital portfolio assessment process on students’ writing and drawing performances. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 5 (2).
  • Tierney, R.J., Carter, M.A., & Desai, L.E. (1991). Portfolio Assessment in the Reading-writing Classroom. Norwood, MA: Christopher Gordon Publishers. Van Waes, L. (2004). Collaborative Writing in a Digital Environmental. Information Design Journal & Document Design, 12(1), 73–80.
  • White, R. (1987). Approaches to writing. In M. H. Long & J. C. Richards (Eds.). Methodology in TESOL Book of Readings. USA: Heinle & Heinle Publishers.
  • Warschauer, M. (2007). Technology and writing. In C. Davison & J. Cummins (Eds.), The International Handbook of English Language Teaching (pp. 907-912). Norwell, MA: Springer.
  • Warschauer, M., L. Turbee & B. Roberts (1996). Computer Learning Networks and Student Empowerment. System 24 (1), 1–14.
  • Williams, M. & Burden, R.L. (1997). Psychology for Language Teachers. UK: Cambridge University Press.
  • Woodward, H. & Nanlohy, P. (2004). Digital portfolio: Fact or fashion? Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 29 (2), 227-238.