PREFERENCES OF PRESERVICE TEACHERS OF ENGLISH IN TERMS OF CALL TOOLS

In parallel with the rapidly increasing use of computer assisted language learning (CALL) tools in educational settings, teachers are expected to use recent devices and Web 2.0 tools while teaching English. In this study, preservice teachers of English studying at a state-run university in Turkey were offered CALL course and they were asked to design lesson plans at the end of the semester. Within this framework, it was aimed to investigate the CALL tool preference of the ELT pre-service teachers in the lesson plans they prepared as a course requirement and in which stages specifically they chose to integrate the CALL tools to their lesson plans. The findings of the study revealed that highest frequency of the CALL tool use in the lesson plans of the participants was found at the while-stage and the most commonly preferred CALL tool was YouTube. In the light of this study, it can be suggested that this kind of training should be offered both for the preservice teachers and in-service teachers in order to diversify the range of CALL tools to be used for teaching English and to make them aware of the recent developments about CALL.

İNGİLİZCE ÖĞRETMEN ADAYLARININ CALL ARACI TERCİHLERİ

Eğitim ortamlarında bilgisayar destekli dil öğretimi (CALL) araçlarının kullanımının hızla artması sonucu, öğretmenlerin de derslerinde Web 2.0 araçlarını etkili bir şekilde kullanmaları beklenmektedir.Bu çalışmada, Abant İzzet Baysal Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Yabancı Diller Eğitimi Bölümü'nde öğrenim gören öğretmen adaylarına CALL dersi verilmiş ve dersin sonunda her öğrenciden 3 tane ders planı hazırlamaları istenmiştir.Bu çerçevede, öğretmen adaylarının dersin bir ödevi olarak hazırladıkları ders planlarındaki CALL aracı tercihlerinin ve dersin hangi aşamasında kullandıklarının belirlenmesi amaçlanmıştır.Çalışmanın sonucunda, katılımcıların en çok tercih ettikleri Web 2.0 aracının Youtube olduğu ve dersin aşaması olarak da ders esnasında kullanmayı tercih ettikleri bulunmuştur. Bu bulguların ışığında, öğretmenlere ve öğretmen adaylarına CALL araçlarının çeşitliliğini artırabilmek ve CALL alanındaki son gelişmelerden onları haberdar etmek adına eğitim verilmesinin uygun olacağı düşünülmüştür.

PDF

___

Akayoglu, S., & Yesilbursa, A. A. (2016).Türkiye’de yabancı dil eğitiminde teknoloji kullanımı.In S. Akcan & Y. Bayyurt (Eds.).Türkiye’de Yabancı Dil Eğitimi Üzerine Görüs ve Düsünceler (pp. 60–71).
Aslan, A., & Zhu, C. (2015).Pre-Service teachers’ perceptions of ICT integration inteacher education in Turkey.The Turkish Online Journal of EducationalTechnology, 14(3),97- 110.
Aydın, S. (2013). Teachers' perceptions about the use of computers in EFL teaching andlearning: the case of Turkey, Computer Assisted Language Learning, 26(3), 214- 233, DOI: 10.1080/09588221.2012.654495
Blankenship, M. (2011). How social media can and should impact higher education.Education Digest: Essential Readings Condensed for Quick Review, 76(7), 39–42.
Boon, S., & Sinclair, C. (2009). A world I don’t inhabit: Disquiet and identity in second life and Facebook. Educational Media International, 46(2), 99–110.
Cephe, P. T., & Balçıkanlı, C. (2012). Web 2.0 tools in language teaching: What do student teachers think? International Journal on New Trends in Education and Their Implications, 3(1), 1-12.,
Chapelle, C. (2006). Foreword.In P. Hubbard & M. Levy (Eds.), Teacher education in CALL. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi:10.1075/lllt.14.01cha
Cirit, N. C. (2014). Perceptions of ELT pre-service teachers toward alternative assessment viaweb 2.0 tools: A case study at a Turkish state university. (Master’sThesis).Middle East Technical University.
Cirit, N. C. (2015). Assessing ELT pre-service teachers via Web 2.0 tools: Perceptions toward traditional, online and alternative assessment. TOJET: The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology,14(3), 9–19.
Couros, A. (2008). Safety and social networking: How can we maximize the learning power of participatory web sites while ensuring students are protected and behave responsibly? Technology and Learning, 28(7), 20.
Çakır , R., Yükseltürk, E., & Top, E. (2015). Pre-service and in-service teachers’perceptionsabout using web 2.0 in education. Participatory Educational Research, 2(2), 70-83.
Drent, M. & Meelissen, M. (2008) Which factors obstruct or stimulate teacher educators touse ICT innovatively? Computers and Education, 51 (1), p187-199.
Egbert, J., Paulus, T. M. & Nakamichi, Y. (2002). The impact of CALL instruction onclassroom computer use: A foundation for rethinking technology in teacher education. Language Learning & Technology, 6(3), 108-126.
Gall, M. D., Gall, J. P., & Borg, W. R. (2003).Educational Research: An Introduction (7thed.). Boston, MA: A & B Publications.
Golonka, E. M., Bowles, A. R., Frank, V. M., Richardson, D. L.,& Freynik, S. (2014) Technologies for foreign language learning: a review of technology types and their effectiveness, Computer Assisted Language Learning, 27(1), 70-105, DOI: 10.1080/09588221.2012.700315
Göktürk Sağlam, A. L. & Sert, S. (2012). Perceptions of in-service teachers regardingtechnology integrated English language teaching. Turkish Online Journal ofQualitative Inquiry, 3(3), 1-14.
Gray, K., Waycott, J., Clerehan, R., et al. (2012) Worth it? Findings from a study of how academics assess students’ Web 2.0 activities. Research in Learning Technology, 20: 1-15.
Kern, R. (2006). Perspectives on technology in learning and teaching languages.TESOL Quarterly, 40 (1), 183-210.
Kessler, G. (2006). Assessing CALL teacher training: What are we doing and what could wedo better? In P. Hubbard & M. Levy (Eds.), Teacher education in CALL (pp. 23- 42).Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Kessler, G. & Plakans, L. (2008). Does Teachers' Confidence with CALL Equal Innovativeand Integrated Use?.Computer Assisted Language Learning, 21(3), 269-282.
Kılıçkaya, F., & Seferoğlu, G. (2013).The impact of CALL instruction on English language teachers’ use of technology in language teaching.Journal of Second and MultipleLanguage Acquisition, 1(1), 20-38.
Kim, M. K., S. M. Kim, O. Khera, and J. Getman. (2014). The experience of three flipped classrooms in an urban university: An exploration of design principles. Internet and Higher Education22: 37–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2014.04.003
Kuure, L., Molin-Juustila,T., Keisanen, T., Riekki, M., Iivari, N., & Kinnula, M. (2016) Switching perspectives: from a language teacher to a designer of language learningwith new technologies.Computer Assisted Language Learning, 29(5), 925- 941, DOI: 10.1080/09588221.2015.1068815
Liu, M. H., & Kleinsasser, R. C. (2015).Exploring EFL teachers’ CALL knowledge andcompetencies: In-service program perspectives. Language Learning &Technology, 19(1), 119–138.
Merç, A. (2015). Using technology in the classroom: A study with Turkish pre-serviceEFL teachers.The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 14(2),229-240.
O’Flaherty, J., and C. Phillips. (2015). The use of flipped classrooms in higher education: A scoping review.Internet and Higher Education 25: 85–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2015.02.002
Oliver, K. (2007). Leveraging web 2.0 in the redesign of a graduate-level technology integration course. TechTrends, 51 (5), 55-61.
Orús, C., Barlés, M. J., Belanche, D., Casaló, L., Fraj, E., & Gurrea, R. (2016).The effects of learner-generated videos for YouTube on learning outcomes and satisfaction. Computers and Education, 95, 254–269. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2016.01.007
Pelgrum, W. J.&Anderson, R. E. (2001).ICT and the Emerging Paradigm for Lifelong Learning. Amsterdam: IEA.
Pilus, Z. (1995). Teachers' interest in CALL and their levels of computer literacy: some implications. ON-CALL, 9(3), 8-11.
Prensky, M. (2000).Digital Game-Based Learning. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Rakıcıoglu-Söylemez, A. & Akayoğlu, S. (2016). Prospective EFL Teachers’ Perceptions of Using CALL in the Classroom.In K. Dikilitaş (Ed.).Innovative Professional Development Methods and Strategies for STEM Education, USA: IGI Global Publishing.
Rhoades, E. B., Irani, T., Telg, R., & Myers, B. E. (2008). Internet as information source: Attitudes and usage of students enrolled in a college of agriculture course. Journal ofAgricultural Education, 49(2), 108–117.
Rizza, M. G. (2000). Perspectives on preservice teachers’ attitudes toward technology.The Teacher Educator, 36(2), 132-147.
Robb, T. (2006).Helping teachers to help themselves. In P. Hubbard & M. Levy (Eds.), Teacher Education in CALL (pp. 335-347). Amsterdam: John Benjamins
Sadaf, A., Newby, T. J., & Ertmer, P. A. (2012).Exploring pre-service teachers’ beliefsaboutusing Web 2.0 technologies in K-12 classroom.Computers & Education 59,937–945.
Sadaf, A., Nexby, T. J., & Ertmer, P. A. (2016).An investigation of the factors thatinfluence preservice teachers’ intentions and integration of Web 2.0 tools.Education TechResearch Dev, 64, 37–64.
Savas, P. (2014). Tablet PCs as instructional tools in English as a foreign languageeducation.The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 13, 217-222.
Shahrokni, S. A., & Sadeqjoola, L. (2015). Iranian EFL teachers’ perception, familiarityanduse of web 2.0 tools in TEFL. Teaching English with Technology, 15(3), 31-46.
Son, J.-B., & Robb, T., & Charismiadji, I. (2011). Computer literacy and competency: Asurvey of Indonesian teachers of English as a foreign language. CALL-EJ, 12(1), 26–42.
Stockwell, G. (2009). Teacher education in CALL: teaching teachers to educate themselves.International Journal of Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 3(1), 99-112.
Suvorov, R. and Hegelheimer, V. (2014).Computer-assisted language testing. In A. J.Kunnan (Eds.), The companion to language assessment (p.594-613) Chichester, West Sussex: Wiley -Blackwell.
Şad, S. N. & Göktaş, Ö. (2013).Preservice teachers’ perceptions about using mobilephones and laptops in education as mobile learning tools.British Journal ofEducationalTechnology, 45(4), 606–618.
Volman, M. (2005).A variety of roles for a new type of teacher.Educational technology and the teaching profession.Teaching and Teacher Education, 21 (1), 15-31.
Warschauer, M. (2002).A developmental perspective on technology in language education.TESOL Quarterly, 36, 453–475.
Williams, P., Wray, J., Farrall, H., & Aspland, J. (2014). Fit for purpose: traditional assessment is failing undergraduates with learning difficulties. Might e-Assessment help?International Journal of Inclusive Education, 18 (6), 614- 625.