fi2s*kisfi yniversftv gfl Stisdeats` Ій Partía! Fu

Transcription

T h e
Râtion
B e t ween
fi2s*kisfi yniversftv gfl Stisdeats’
T be!r Ä tt§taiia TöwSi-fd
l # l í - O l ^ e c t ^ í y&â^riLİsif
A i t arı d a n t a
Sdf-Accm
.i
•S
-І-л
o
S ijb j^ lt’éad '¿o V hé гас<і§?ѵ
A^íd T h b
'3ζζ^¥Ί·ι?^ΐΐε Λ η ύ
i.-0tta?
Sozial Зазэл
è/SJty
Ій Partía! Fu^Üment of T -.2
âa
^ ...■/,Л Ч О
re
f06S
.rs
£8S
193Í
ÙÏ
к Ш>-.-* ·4^v^» '
4^ ^
,
·
fv -ü-.^N'jf^.' '.‘JJ9^^
íiîAtífi/Ofilb
THE RELATION BETWEEN
TURKISH UNIVERSITY EFL STUDENTS' EDUCATIONAL AND
SOCIAL BACKGROUND AND THEIR ATTITUDE TOWARD
SELF-DIRECTED LEARNING AND THEIR ATTENDANCE AT
SELF-ACCESS CENTERS
A THESIS
SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF LETTERS
AND THE INSTITUTE OF ECONOMICS AND SOCIAL SCIENCES
OF BILKENT UNIVERSITY
IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS
FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS
IN THE TEACHING OF ENGLISH AS A FOREIGN LANGUAGE
BY
ZEYNEP ISKENDEROGLU
AUGUST 1992
PÉ
1^5
Ы1125
11
BILKENT UNIVERSITY
INSTITUTE OF ECONOMICS AND SOCIAL SCIENCES
MA THESIS EXAMINATION RESULT FORI^
August 31. 1992
The examining committee appointed by the
Institute of Economics and Social Sciences for the
thesis examination of the MA TEFL student
Zeynep·Iskehderoglu'
has read the thesis of the student.
The committee has decided that the thesis
of the student is satisfactory.
Thesis Title
The relation between Turkish
university EFL students'
educational and social
background and their attitude
toward self-directed learning
and their attendance at selfaccess centers
Thesis Advisor
Dr. Eileen Walter
Bilkent University, MA TEFL
Program
Committee Members
Dr. Lionel M. Kaufman
Program
Dr. James C. Stalker
Program
ail
We certify that we have read this thesis and that in
our combined opinion it is fully adequate, in scope
and in quality, as a thesis for the degree of
Master of Arts.
Eileen Walter
(Advisor)
Lionel M. Kaiifman
(Committee Member)
[James C. Stalker
Committee Member)
Approved for the
Institute of Economics and Social Sciences
Ali Karaosmanoglu
Director
Institute of Economics and Social Sciences
IV
то Ш
PARENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
List of Tables
CHAPTER ONE;
VI1
INTRODUCTION
1.1
Background and Goals of the Study
1
1.2
Statement of Research Question
3
1.2.1 Research Question
3
1.2.2 Definition of Terms
3
1.2.3 Limitations
6
Hypotheses
6
1.3.1 Experimental Hypotheses
6
1.3.2 Null Hypotheses
7
1.3.3 Identification of Variables
7
1.3.4 Definition of Moderator Variables
8
1.3.5 Expectations
9
1.3
Overview of Methodology
10
1.4.1 Setting
10
1.4.2 Design
10
1.5
Overview of Analytical Procedures
11
1.6
Organization of Thesis
12
1.4
CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF LITERATURE
2.1
Introduction
13
2.2
Individualization of Instruction
13
2.3
Description of Self-access Centers
16
2.4
Cultural Effects on Students’ Attitudes
20
2.5
Training Students for Self-directed
Learning
22
VI
CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY
3.1
Introduction
25
3.2
Subjects
27
3.3
Setting
30
3.4
Materials
32
3.5
Collection of Data
34
3.6
Analytical Procedures
35
CHAPTER FOUR: DATA ANALYSIS AND RESULTS
4.1
Introduction
37
4.2
Hypgtheses
38
4.3
Results
39
4.3.1 Attitude Scale
39
4.3.2 Attendance
41
Discussions of the Results
43
4.4
CHAPTER FIVE: CONCLUSIONS
5.1
Summary of the Study
45
5.2
Conclusions
46
5.3
Assessment of the Study
47
5.4
Pedagogical Implications
48
5.5
Implications for Further Research
50
BIBLIOGRAPHY
APPENDIX A:
APPENDIX B:
52
Preliminary Questionnaire
1. Turkish Version
56
2. English Version
57
Main Questionnaire
1. Turkish Version
58
2. English Version
64
VI 1
LIST OF TABLES
Table 3.1
Table 4.1
Table 4.2
Table 4.3
Table 4.4
Table 4.5
Number of Male and Female Subjects
According to Their Proficiency Levels
and Departments
29
Results of One-way Anova:
Attitudes of Four Departments
40
Means and Standard Deviations of the
Four Departments on the Attitude
Scale
40
Results of Scheffe Test;
Significant T-values for Departments
41
Cross-tabulation of Attendance at
Self-access Centers by Type of
High School
42
Results of Chi-square:
Attendance at Self-Access Centers
by Type of High School
43
vi i i
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I
would like
to thank
my thesis
advisor. Dr.
Eileen Walter, who has
contributed to the writing of
this
invaluable ideas,
study
with
encouragement.
her
help,
and
I would also like to thank Dr. Lionel
M. Kaufman for his invaluable guidance on statistical
computation, as well
the writing
Dr.
James C.
as patience and
of the thesis.
Stalker
My
for his
support during
special thanks go to
initial guidance
on
forming the basis of this study.
I must express
and
students who
my gratitude
gave
me their
to the
colleagues
support while
the
research was being carried out.
My
colleague Oya Basaran deserve a special note
of thanks for giving me the sparkle for this study.
Finally, my
go
to
my family
throughout.
deepest appreciation
who
has
given
and gratitude
me their
support
The
school
study was carried out among university prep
students
who
Academic
purposes at
Turkey.
The
were
learning
Bilkent University
subjects were
including
an
attitude
attitudes
of
the
given a
scale.
subjects,
a
whether they
for
in Ankara.
questionnaire,
To
consisted of several situations
also asked
English
determine
rating scale
the
which
was used.
They were
attended each of
the self-
access centers at Bilkent University.
To measure
way Anova
was
attitude a t-test followed by a one
was run.
found
among
departments.
employed.
that
The
the
For
was
gi"aduates of
a
students
attendance
The results
there
only significant difference
a
of the data
significant
of
different
chi-square
was
analysis showed
difference
different high schools, but
between
not in the
expected direction.
An inconsistency in the students'
observed
said they
most
in the
results.
like the idea of
of them
did not
Suggestions were made
Nearly all
responses was
the students
being self-directed, but
use the
self-access centers.
for solving this
very problem
and for doina further research on this issue.
The Relation Between Turkish University Students’
Educational and Social Background and their Attitude
toward Self-directed Learning and their
Attendance at Self-access Centei's
Abstract
In the last decade the focus of EFL/ESL has been
on
the learner
learner.
direct
learning experience
Teaching learners how to learn
their
attention.
learn
and the
learning
In
other
vocabulary
has
been
rather
than
and how to
the
words, teaching
of the
focus
of
them how
to
teaching
lists
of
vocabulary words is more beneficial for the students.
It
not only
gives one
learning, but
helps one
experiences.
In
this
the responsibility
be aware of
.of o n e ’s
one's learning
framework, the
aim of
this
study was to see how Turkish university students felt
about
self-directed learning
self-access
centers.
attitudes and
groups of
The
study
the attendance rates
students regarding
graduated from
and whether
-
the
they used
compared
the
of two different
high school
private/Anatolian vs.
state
they
high
schools.
The study also focused on social background
factors,
such
length of
being
as
department,
time they
scholarship
proficiency
have been at
or
not,
the prep
parents'
level,
school,
level
of
education, and sex.
The starting
relation
background
subjects.
hypothesis was
between all
these
factors, and
that
there was
educational and
attitude and
a
social
attendance of
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
1.1
Background and Goals of the Study
Tiênds
in second language learning,
other branch
of education,
change depending on
changing needs of the world and society.
the pendulum has
(Brookes
result
this
"autonomy", of
goals"
1).
studying
(1988,
Vermont
as
648)
educational
oneself".
place
in
Vermont
(1988) even
and
activities
tasks
from
Van
classroom.
to
Rijswijk
oneself, taking
this
According
a question asked by
self-
learning as
teachers,
in
and
i*eferring
self-regulated
Individualization
the
Grundy, p.
self-regulated,
synonyms when
define
and
become the "ultimate
self-directed,
individually.
natural
"individualization"
(1986) use
independent,
"performing educational
over
the 80s
As a
classes (Brookes and
learning
p.
p. 1).
the learner have
Simons and
organized
1988,
tendency,
in language
autonomous,
In
the
swung toward "learner-centeredness"
and Grundy,
of
like in any
educating
sense takes
to
Allwright
students and errors
made by students can individualize the instruction in
the classroom.
However,
personalities,
just
as
they
students
have
have
different
different
learning
strategies, study habits and attitudes toward certain
activities
or systems.
Riley
(1988) claims
that
these attitudes are affected by cultural factors.
says there
might be some
cultures which are
He
not in
favor
of
self-direction,
centeredness.
which is
He
autonomy
defines
necessary to act
and
culture
in a
learner-
as "knowledge"
certain manner
and
says that as members of that society learn "how to do
things" they will learn them in the
are
found in
capacities"
present
that
is
again
controlled
to learn
by
the
these
measures
He defines learning
process which varies
nature of the
society" in which,
according to the
it takes place,
(p.
.
Cultural differences
cultures, but
as
"how
in the culture (p. 20).
as a "social
20 )
society;
way these things
well.
among the members of
There
differences.
geographical
are not only
are
various
Educational,
seen between
the same society
reasons
for
these
socio-economic,
and
factors are some of them.
This study attempted to find out whether Turkish
students
with
backgrounds
different
had
"individualized"
the
different
and
educational
attitudes
or "self-directed"
toward
learning.
For
situations in which they showed differences, the
reasons
behind
Knowledge
help in
which
social
their
of these
differences and
developing a
aims at
organize
attitudes
were
attitudes would
training program
giving
the students
their own studies
suitable for themselves.
analyzed.
for students
the ability
to
and develop study habits
1.2
Statement of Research Question
1.2.1 Research Question
This
study
analyzed
the
relation
between
students' attitudes toward self-directed learning and
their
educational
between
their
background;
attendance
at
and
the
relation
self-access
centers,
which are known to be places for self-directed study,
and
their educational
factors, such
background.
as sex,
parents'
Further, social
level
of education,
intended major, the length of time they have been
the preparatory program,
and
being
assumed
language proficiency level,
scholarship students
to
analyzed in
affect
in
or not,
educational
which are
background
terms of their relation
were
to attitude and
use of the self-access centers.
1.2.2 Definition of Terms
Self-direction, as Dickinson
(1987) defines it,
is "a particular attitude to the learning task, where
the
learner
accepts
decisions concerned
necessarily
decisions"
with his learning
undertake
(p. 11).
ones who are able to
learning.
responsibility
for
all
the
but does
not
the implementation
of
those
Self-directed learners are
the
make decisions about their
own
They can decide on how much time they need
to study, the time that is suitable for themselves to
study, whether
they need help from
how much help they need.
an authority and
In this study, the use of self-access centers by
students is
learning.
that
used as
an indication
Barnett
and Jordan
self-access
individual"
(1991) also
facilities
and they
of self-directed
"catei'·
foi·
stimulate learners
their own needs and pursue them"
mention
the
to "define
(p. 305).
St. John
(1988) defines self-access as:
...having a range of material available for
students to use at any time (within the
scheduled class time, or in the students’
own time,
or both), with the choice being
the ultimate responsibility of the student.
(p. 127)
What is meant by
the
students
is
the educational background
the
kind
of
high
school
of
they
graduated from, that is,
(1) private high schools or
Anatolian
in
High
Schools
instruction is a language
English, French,
such
as
some
Italian)
four
hours
medium
because
physics,
in which the
foreign
thei'e are
private high
schools were put
amount
(e.g.,
biology,
of general
between them,
the
of
some courses,
In this study, although
Anatolian high
category
for
(2) state high schools
slight differences
schools and
same
Gennan,
have only
language a week.
the
other than Turkish
chemistry, mathematics,
literature, and
students
which
of
in the
the foreign
language students are exposed to is approximately the
same.
The
major difference
is that,
some private
schools, although they provide 10-15 hours of foi'eign
language, do not have science and mathematics courses
in English.
Secondly,
in
private schools
students
have to
pay a fee to the
school, but Anatolian high
schools are free.
The
difference
state high schools
between
private/Anatolian
and
is not only the amount of foreign
language students are exposed to, but the size of the
classes.
There
are
fewer students
private and Anatolian
state
schools.
in classes
high schools when
Because there
are
in
compared to
fewer students,
teachers can devote more time to individual students,
and
as a
result of this
assignments,
especially
they assign
those
more homework
which
require
students to do research and experiments.
are
fewer students, they are
and
group work
both in
as a
teacher,
philosophy of
are also
in
and outside
the general
school
the classroom.
both as a
a day;
schools
however,
the
kinds of schools
different from one another.
7-8 hours
student
atmosphere and
education in the two
private/Anatolian high
Since there
more likely to do pair
From the researcher's experience,
and
the
For instance,
students
in
go
to
state schools
they go to schools 5 hours a day.
Van Rossum et al.
think
that
learning
transferred to
(1985) found that students who
is
in
the
them without any change
of a kind of education in
and regulate
taking
knowledge
are in favor
which other people arrange
everything for them.
If the students'
knowledge of how-to-learn is considered to be
by
the
culture, then
it
can be
assumed
shaped
that the
students
who
receive different
forms
of education
will have different notions of how-to-learn.
1.2.3 Limitations
There are
study
was
some limitations to this
carried
are
out
with
Turkish
English
university
who
language
in the preparatory school at Türkiye's only
medium university.
as
The
students
private English
learning
study.
a
second
Because
it is a
private university, the socio-economic status of most
of
the
students
therefore,
Turkish
do
is
very
high.
not represent
university
students
study for any subject.
showing a tendency
the
The
attitudes
toward
of all
self-directed
Furthermore, any study habit
of independence other
the self-access centers,
results,
than using
and individual differences,
such as field dependence/independence, are not within
the boundaries of this study.
1.3
Hypotheses
1.3.1 Experimental Hypotheses
It
is
hypothesized
that
private/Anatolian
high
positive attitude
toward self-directed
will have a higher
schools
have
a
more
learning and
high schools.
It is
that more positive attitudes and a
higher rate of attendance will be observed among
male subjects,
of
rate of attendance at self-access
centers than graduates of state
also hypothesized
will
graduates
subjects
education, subjects who
whose parents
have
have been at BUSEL
the
higher
(Bilkent
7
University School
a year
of English Language) for more than
and who are at a
subjects
who intend
Engineering,
section
lower level of proficiency,
to
study in
and subjects
1.3.5
for
with
the
Faculty
scholarships.
justifications
of
of
(See
these
expectations.)
1.3.2 Null Hypotheses
There
attitude
is
no
toward
relation
self-directed
educational background.
between
the
between
use of
of these
There
parents'
level
length
of time
program,
of
language
their
no relation
centers
and their
their attitudes and
not modified by
education,
they
and
is also
self-access
centers are
subjects'
learning
educational background. Further,
the use
the
intended
have been
in the
proficiency
level,
sex,
major, the
preparatory
and
being
scholarship students or not.
1.3.3 Identification of Variables
The
dependent variables in
the study
were the
subjects’ attitude toward
self-directed learning and
the
centers;
use
variable
of
self-access
was
their
moderator
variables
education,
intended
have
been
in
the
the
educational background.
were
sex,
major, the
parents'
length of
level
The
of
time they
preparatory program,language
proficiency level, and being scholarship
not.
independent
students or
8
1.3.4 Definition of Moderator Variables
What
is
meant
by
their
education is whether their
degree,
a
intended
high school
majors
at
parents’
or
will attend after
prep
The
boundaries
of
Engineering,
this
the Faculty of
Sciences,
and
study
to
the
they finish
the
the
the
the
of
Social
Business Administration,
Art, Design
time at the
and Architecture.
prep school is
concerned
or third year
preparatory program. The proficiency level of
students
is the
preparatory school
the study.
major
in
Faculty
with whether it is their first, second
in the
are
of Humanities and Letters,
Faculty of
Faculty of
The length of
refer
which
arè
Their
Economics, Administrative and
the
the
faculties
the Faculty
below.
university
departments they
program.
of
parents hold a university
diploma,
the
level
level
instruction at
the
they are taking at
the moment of
At the preparatory school
there are two
levels - elementary
are four
of
and intermediate.
sub-levels in both of the
There
levels.
The two
levels
at which this study was
carried out were the
second
(L2)
sub-levels
and
intermediate
whether
third
level.
they
have
university that is,
(L3)
The final
a
variable is
scholarship
if they
given
are one
of the
intelligent students of Turkiye who have
among
the
University
first
100
students
of
in
the
to see
by
the
highly
been placed
the
National
Entrance Exam and given this scholarship.
1.3.5
Expectations
It was
they
expected that
received
private
and
in
would
the education
the
high
school,
Anatolian
high
schools would
positive attitude
they
because of
attend
frequently.
the
(See
explanation.)
graduates
On
self-access
section
the other
hand,
have
a
learning and
centers
1.2.2
of
foi-
more
further
female students
were thought to be in favor of self-directed learning
less
than
centers
assumed
male students
less
than
that,
categories,
and
male
students, because
according
sex role
attending self-access
to
Hofstede's
division
maximizes masculinity,
and
in
positive attitude
and
society
would
be
Likewise, children of
parents with a higher degree were
more
was
(1983)
Turkish
therefore men
more self-directed than women.
it
a
expected to have a
higher frequency
of
attendance, because it was thought that well-educated
parents would affect their children's education
positive way.
It was
anticipated that
students and,
in relation
in a
scholarship
with that, students of the
Faculty of Engineering (as
they make up the majority
of scholarship
would have
more positive
a much higher frequency
of attendance
attitudes and
students)
because the two groups overlap and these students are
highly intelligent and did exceptionally well
National
manner,
University
Entrance
Exam.
In
on the
the same
students from lower level classes and second
10
year students
more
were expected to attend
positive attitudes.
general,
more and have
The reason
lower level students
is that,
in
have to work harder if
they want to finish the prep program in one year, and
second year students are in their second year of prep
program
and are
not likely
to want
to come
for a
third year.
1.4
Overview of Methodology
1.4.1 Setting
The study -was conducted-at
School of
English Language
(BUSED.
two year English preparatory
are not
which
language
consists
laboratory,
Laboratory
room.
There
(CALL),
BUSEL
academic study in
is a self-access center at
of
four units.
a Computer
They
Assisted
a self-study
room,
are
a
Language
and a
All of these units are for students'
Students go
gives a
program to students who
yet proficient enough for
their departments.
BUSEL
Bilkent University,
video
own use.
to these units whenever they want and do
any of the activities
available in the unit.
There
are guide-teachers present at each of the units, whom
the students consult if they wish.
1.4.2 Design
First, a preliminary
3.4) was
given to students who
access center
reasons
questionnaire
why
activities
units, asking
they
they
came
did in
(see section
frequented the self-
them to write
to those
those
centers
units.
down the
and
the
Afterwards,
11
using the answers of the students who used the
self-
access units, the main questionnaire was prepared.
The main questionnaire
(see section 3,4), which
asked for both information about the students' social
and educational background and their attitudes toward
self-access centers,
The
classes
were
was given in
all
second
intermediate
level
(L2 and
students
each
class
in
eight classrooms.
and
L3).
was
third
The
grade
number of the
approximately
equal.
There were about 20 students in each class.
the
students
are
departments at
classified
according
BUSEL, one class was
department on the basis of size,
number of
the
students in
of
Art, Design
Economics,
and
the Faculty
their
i.e., to make in the
equal.
The
study were t h e ’ Faculty
Architecture;
Administrative
to
chosen for each
each class
faculties considered in this
Because
the Faculty
and Social
of Business Administration
Sciences
of
and
(students of
these two faculties are placed in the same classes at
BUSEL); the
Faculty of Humanities
and Letters;
and
the Faculty of Engineering.
1.5
Overview of Analytical Procedures
In order
to find out
the relationship
between
attitudes and the educational background a t-test was
run.
Also the relationship between attitudes and the
social
backgrounds,
calculated
attitude
other
with t-tests.
and
than
The
department was
department,
were
relationship between
obtained by
a one-way
12
Anova, followed by a
between
the
Scheffe test.
subjects'
centers and the
The relationship
attendance
at
self-access
educational background was estimated
with a Chi-square test of probability.
1.6
Organization of Thesis
The
second
literature
Chapter
training
in
course
of data
4.
and
review
of
the
formation of
study
and discussions
future
of
and the
research procedures
In Chapter
for
a
learning
the students'
In Chapter 3
during ' the
Analysis
giyes
on self-directed
culture plays
habits.
chapter
are
are
5, suggestions
research
can
the
role
study
followed
described.
presented in
for learner
be
found.
Instruments used in the study are in the appendices.
CHAPTER TWO
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
2.1
Introduction
In
this
individualized
review
or
the
philosophy
self-directed education
presented together with the different
directed learning.
the
will
be
means of self-
The unconscious individualization
of instruction in
and
behind
the classroom,
students'
roles
in
and the
this
new
teachers'
trend,
of
education are also described.
The means
that students
can make use
of while
practicing self-directed learning, such as CALL labs,
language labs, etc., are
described and teachers' and
students' roles in individualization are also pointed
out.
In
the following
section the
cultural factors
that affect one's learning style and the
of
this effect
directed
on students' attitudes
learning
are
presented
reflections
toward selfwith
some
representative examples.
The
necessity
final
section
is
and applicability of
concerned
with
the
training students in
order to enable them become independent
learners who
can regulate their own studies.
2.2 Individualization of Instruction
Ever since the learner has become the main focus
of
the
classroom,
undergone some
the
changes.
mode
of
These
instruction
changes
has
require
14
giving more
voice, and
responsibility
points
out,
to
in
as
the
a result
learner.
As
role
in
components
subjects
decision-making
of
learning, so
need
subjects or
to
be
skills need
suitable time
to do
the learners
may be given a
process
that
given
(1980)
knowledge they want
At this point, students
the
more
Holec
are responsible for defining the
to acquire.
of this,
for
several
deciding on
what
emphasis,
what
more
more practice, what
these things, how
is the
long, where,
how (alone or with somebody else), etc. can partially
become the responsibility of
Bloor
(1988)
support
the learner.
the
idea
Bloor and
of
giving
responsibility to the learner: they call it "syllabus
negotiation"
only
the
(p. 73).
learners’
They
say this
awareness
of
improves not
"the
nature
of
language in use and the learning process", but "their
ability to formulate their learning goals and to take
control of their learning"
Evans
schools
et
where
al.
(p. 73).
(1990),
the
while
instruction
describing
is
"Individualized Education System”,
"make
choices and
being
involved
share
in
in
this
mention
Individualized
Corsini's four
Education
is
on
the
say that students
decision making",
process
and
makes
them
52).
Evans
principles on
which
"responsible and committed" learners
et al.
based
the
based
(p.
and
cite
his
15
definition of the first principle "responsibility":
... students are responsible for their own
education.
They make active choices about
how to learn - through classroom activity,
independent
study.
computer-based
instruction, and other options.
(p. 53)
His other three principles are "respect", which means
mutual respect
students
among the students,
and the
school;
to
control
the
"resourcefulness", which
requires students "to develop
ability
and between
and
an awareness of and an
direct"
the
resources
necessai~y -to achieve the. tasks,· and "responsiveness",·
which is
expected to be achieved as
first three
principles (Evans et a l ..
Students'
have
a result of the
directing their
to do so
1990, p. 53).
own learning
outside the classroom.
has his/her own way
do not
Each student
.of learning, such as independent
vs. dependent learning, that they bring to class with
them.
As each
of learning
learning
individual student brings his/her way
to class, they all
experiences, and as
go through different
Allwright
"different learners take away quite
from the same lesson" (p. 36).
is that no
What
(1988) says
different things
Allwright means
matter what teachers have in their agenda
as the main focus of the lesson,
they want to and
are able to.
students learn what
To illustrate this he
gives the example of a student asking the meaning of
a
seemingly
irrelevant
word
teaching "what" and "which"
when
(p. 36).
the teacher
is
16
Asking questions
or making
errors are not
only ways students individualize instruction.
the
A slow
learner that needs extra explanation from the teacher
inadvertently
understood
gives
the matter,
their own, on
slow
others,
who
have
the chance
whatever they want.
already
of working
Not only
on
is the
learnei' receiving individual attention from the
teacher in the way s/he needs and wants, but also the
others
are able
to individualize
their instruction
(Yanok, 1908).
Polloway, Cronin, and
also
individualized
refer
to
classroom.
gives
They talk about a
the kind
of
identifies and
learner.
At
this
the
of
replaces
traditional
teacher's
seating
and
(p.
work,
in
the
which
of
each
(1988) suggests
"rows
classroom
facing
This
an
which
toward the
arrangement
of
atmosphere suitable for group
which
are
as "self-instruction
described
by Dickinson
within the
the encouragement of the teacher"
2.3
demands
the
165).
can create an
pair
(1988)
desk"
instruction
unique
seating
in
way of teaching which
point Yanok
organization
the
instruction
personalized
meets
Patton (1986)
lesson with
(p. 48).
Description of Self-Access Centers
The first
students
centers.
can
place that comes to
study
St. John
on
their
(1988)
one's mind where
own
is
self-access
in one
of
her several
definitions of a self-access center refers to it as a
"resource
system” that
has
various materials
from
17
which each student "makes their own selection" and on
which
they "work
on at their
Self-access centers
own pace"
may consist of
(p.
126).
different units.
The language laboratory, CALL laboratory, and the use
of video are described in the literature.
A typical
defines
laboratory, as Strevens (1977, p. 163)
it, has recording facilities and a listening
facility in order for the student to be able to "hear
his own
efforts, or a
students,
program in common
and convei'se
Brookes and Grundy
audio labs
well in
directly with
"popular with learners"
(p.
9).
labs’ providing
is
that
out its being
Another point that
a form of
the
of
that it "works
self-study mode" and pointing
instruction
the teacher".
(1988) explain the importance
for self-access by saying
shows the
with other
individualized
students
are
able
to
"interrupt, speed up, or replay portions of a tape at
will"
(Habowsky et a l ., 1990, p. 232).
Computer
Assisted Language
Learning (CALL)
is
the use of computers
to monitor student progress and
to
into
direct
students
materials.
(Richards
Fischer
reported
(1988)
by
comprehended
and Weber,
CALL
the
appropriate
is
effective
teachers
grammar
points
through
tutorials and drills
(1990),
on the
other
1985).
that
that
lessons
According to
because
it
students
caused
and practice.
is
have
problems
landoli
hand, mentions- material
vocabulary practice through
and
CALL programs. Ahmad
and
et
18
al.
(1985) state
that
students
enjoy
working
on
computers, and it helps increase their attention span
and
makes learning
Slavin
quicker
and more
concentrated.
(1986), when talking about characteristics of
computer assisted instruction (CAI), mentions that it
"lets students work at their own pace"
(p. 344).
It
is worth pointing out that this characteristic of CAI
matches
the
aims
Slavin emphasizes
of
self-directed
instruction.
the effectiveness of CAI
"when it
is used in addition to regular classroom instruction"
(p. 349).
Rezeau (1991) carried
learners
about their attitudes
that the
majority of students
relaxing,
helped
and different.
them
memorize.
learn
out research among
toward CALL, and saw
found it
They also
more
easily,
the learners'
Using video
fashion recently.
(1990) say
it
and
It is also a
them
the
communication",
it
with
in
students'
"quickens interest",
as
been
part of self-access
not only increases
to
see
"gestures,
dress and surroundings"
communication in
has
Stempleski and Tomalin
opportunity
such
CALL as
(p. 34).
language classes
that video
motivation because
agrees
in
foi" several reasons.
posture,
practice,
perception of
"an overwhelmingly positive picture"
gives
said that
When he evaluated the results of the study
he interpreted
centers
motivating,
but
it
"non-verbal
expression,
which are
part of
real life (pp. 3-4). - Allan (1985)
Stempleski
and
Tomalin
in
video's
19
motivating
verbal
learners and
providing
communication.
accommodates
environment"
"a
She
richerand
them
with
also
more
non
thinks
varied
it
language
(Allan, p. 49).
St. John (1988) also differentiates
roles of the teachers
access centers.
between the
and the learners in the
self-
She describes the teachers' role:
to organize
the material and the access to
it;
to provide answer sheets;
to provide
guidance,
explanations,
help
at
the
students' request;
(p. 127)
and the students' role:
to select suitable activities according to
their
own needs;
to
carry out
the
activities;
to record andevaluate;
to
consult or suggest,
(p. 127)
Dickinson (1987, p.
students'
activities
role in
above,
106) in his
self-access centers
but
adds
"knowing
particular
activities, what to do
as
However,
well.
students
want, the
may get
description of
I
according
help
whole point
from a
to
includes the
how
to
do
first, and next"
him,
although
tutor whenever
of self-access is
they
working on
various tasks without taking direct supervision.
Houghton, Long
hand, make
and Fanning (1988), on the other
a comparison
supervisor when they talk
in
self-directed
between a counsellor
and a
about the role of a
tutor
learning.
For
them
"the
more
dependent the learner is, the tutor is more likely to
resemble a counsellor" and "the
more· autonomous the
20
learner is. the more the role of the tutor
the role of a supervisor"
2.4
resembles
(p. 76).
Cultural Effects on Students' Attitudes
Culture and learning are two inseparable aspects
of
human
life.
Social
anthropologists
have
identified some cultural and social factors that play
a role in one's learning process.
Hofstede
(1983)
in
distributed and analyzed
fifty
different
sixteen
years,
research team
and
he
conducted
116,000 questionnaires from
cultures.
The
at the
study took
ênd
of
was able to identify
of National Culture".
1.
2.
3.
4.
research
nearly
the study
the
"Four Dimensions
These are;
individualism vs. collectivism
large or small power distance
strong or weak uncertainty avoidance
masculinity vs. femininity.
The first one is concerned with the relations between
the
members
"have large
of a
amount of freedom" or
individuals are
second
society; whether
very tight"
the individuals
"the ties between
(Hofstede, p.
79).
The
dimension is "the degree of centralisation of
authority and the degree of autocratic leadership" as
defined
countries
tolerate
by
Hofstede
(p.
which have
radical
relationship,
81).
high power
changes
in
since it would
the socio-political status-quo"
avoidance
is concerned
Riley (1988)
distance will
the
says
not
teacher-learner
imply "a
challenge to
(p. 22)-,
Uncertainty
with the degree
of people's
21
openness to changes.
According to Hofstede societies
which are tolerant of behavior and opinions different
from
their
own
have
Strong uncertainty
levels
avoidance.
have "higher
aggressiveness and
intolerance"
The final dimension deals with the role
division between
maximise or
Hofstede
uncertainty
avoidance societies
of anxiety,
(pp. 81-82).
weak
sexes.
Some
minimise the
calls the
societies
"try
social sex division".
ones with
a maximized
to
and
sex role
division "masculine", and the opposite "feminine"
(p.
83) .
Tarone
from China,
and Yu lie
I
(1989) observed
Japan, and
speak in their English
I
of
their
and use
Korea had been
They
this kind
concluded
of approach
of second language may
p.
14)
compares
the
groups in
to "learning
attitudes
an activity which
the Danes
easily "sorted
sub-groups" and
said
they
difficulty
in
"getting
understanding the
The Moroccans,
that
kind of
of
Danes,
involved getting
He observed
themselves out
did not ask for help.
liked
Riley
He worked with
into groups and working in those groups.
that
that
(p. 54).
Americans, Moroccans, and Vietnamese.
those
from
result from ti'aining
procedures in their native countries"
(1988,
reluctant to
courses unless they were sure
answers.
experience that
that students
The Americans
activity.
themselves
into
but
had
organized
and
overall purpose" of- the activity.
however, could
not
get into
groups
22
and, time after time,
individuals asked a teacher to
assign a group for them:
they also mentioned that it
was “impossible for them to do similar work back home
... as
teachers".
“said nothing
The final group.
and
did nothing",
the Vietnamese
and moreover
they
refused to "know".
2.5
Training Students for Self-directed Learning
Since learners
come from
different backgrounds
and as a result of this have different opinions about
what learning is and
how it should take place,
may
attitudes
have
negative
toward
some
innovative
approaches,
such as self-directed learning.
On the
other hand,
some may be open to changes, but
may not
know how to adopt and how to apply them.
At this point, Dickinson (1988, p.
training learners to
the
nature
of
communication,
learning".
“heighten their awareness about
language,
and of
Another
about
the
of
nature
also
of
oflanguage
training
of the additional
in language learning of acquiring
He
the
nature
aspect
encourage “the adoption
strategies".
46) suggests
is
to
objective
effective learning
suggests
teaching
the
techniques used by teachers so that learners can take
“a much more important part in directing their own
learning".
According to Dickinson
learner training
is:
Training
in
all
those
(potentially
conscious)
self-instructional
processes,
strategies,
and activities which may be
used in autonomous
learning or in
a
conventional
classroom;
and instruction
aimed to heighten the
learner's awareness
of language and of the process of
language
learning.
(p. 49)
Slavin (1986) also argues that it is possible to
train students so that they can "monitor and regulate
their own behaviors"
(p.
34)
it
ai'gues
independent
that
136).
is
work without
Waterhouse
impossible
successful
groups,
tutorial
which
opportunity to
time".
alter
can
to
having "skillful
and reviewing in the tutorial",
achieve
briefing
and he claims that a
be
also provides
(1969, p.
obtained
with
the students
"work on their
own for
small
with the
part of
He also mentions individual differences
the amount
includes
"age,
of support
the students
experience, personal
the
that
need; he
attitudes
and
motivation" to illustrate these variables.
Dickinson's
(1988)
suggestion is
training
implementation"
programs"
(p. 52).
into
Sturtridge
building "the
"language
teaching
(1987, p. 9) gives
an
e.xample of training students to direct their learning
while learning the language in a language class.
She
gives
the
the
example of
question "What
for
job.
i.e,,
the
answer to
job?" by changing
After the students
"taxi-driver",
teacher can
is his
drilling
"He
show a picture
is
the prompt
give the answer for a
a
taxi-driver",
of a bus
and a tram
order to get "bus-driver" and "tram-driver" from
students.
Later,
before the
teacher asks
the
in
the
for the
24
word "pilot",
tricky
s/he indicates that the next
one, so
that learners
"plane-driver" will
not be
will understand
acceptable.
exercise the students not only
one is a
In
that
such an
learn new vocabulary,
but learn how to make correct guesses.
Moreover, by
showing them the "plane-driver" would not be cori'ect,
the teacher shows them
the dangers of "carrying such
experiments too far".
The latest trend in learning is chat individuals
have the command of their learning.
cultures
teachers are
However,
"expected to
very closely" and learners
in many
direct learning
would "feel lost" if they
did not get that direction (Sturtridge, 1987, p. 13).
Riley (1988)
learner
says for
independence
cultures
it
is
which cannot
useless
establish such a system.
However,
are
it can be
tolerant to changes
starting
point
(Dickinson,
1988).
directing their
self-access
John, 1988).
can
try
to
for cultures which
applied,
and the
be
training
the
learners
Once
learners
get
used
learning, they can
centers to
to
adopt
work in
support their
to
various
learning (St.
CHAPTER THREE
METHODOLOGY
3.1 Introduction
The
aim
relation
of this
between
background
was
learners'
and their
learning, and
study
to determine
social
educational
attitude toward
in I'elation to that,
the
self-directed
the frequency of
their use of self-access centers.
As
mentioned in
previous chapters
has become the main focus of the
beginning of the last decade.
that
learners are
classroom since the
It has been emphasized
individuals
"needs, styles, and interests"
who
have
replaced
by
learners
more
Taking
the
over
expression
responsibility
self-directed.
learners
in
is
used
been
which give
their
who are
Self-directed
The
teaching has
approaches
responsibility
for
1989, p. 4).
learning and
innovative
different
which should be taken
into account by educators (Sheerin,
traditional idea of
the learner
as
learning.
the
considered
key
to be
learning is defined by
Dickinson (1987) as possessing responsibility for all
necessary aspects to
the same
manage one's
time seeking help
learning, but
and advice of
at
an expert
for many of these aspects.
As a natural
of
the
classroom,
instructors
some changes
changes
result of the change
the
roles
have changed.
even in
Stevick points
the
out
of
Stevick
late 70s.
are the
in the focus
learners
and
(1976) observed
Some
of
the
change in
the
paternal
and
fraternal
become
assertive
and
the
teacher
permissive.
resource
independence.
The
has
teacher
person
The learner,
who
and
become
has
also
trainer
for
on the other
hand, has
become more active and involved in decision making.
The ability to self-direct one's learning can be
gained in the classroom with the
and can
help of the teacher
be used outside the class
self-access centers
(Dickinson.
in places such as
1968).
Self-access
centers also give students the opportunity to develop
their ability
they
self-direct their
learning
are places where learners learn
at the pace
very
to
they prefer (Sheei'in,
reason, self-access centers
since
in the way and
1969) .
For
this
are an inseparable
part of self-directed learning.
As it has
been mentioned earlier,
ways of learning
educated
in
cultural
are shaped by the culture
(Riley,
differences
differences
individuals'
1986).
and
on individuals
cultures
in which
virtue.
She also reports
When
the
talking
effect
of
Sheerin (1969)
independence is not
acquired
directed
exposed
these
mentions
some religions in which a
to be held
(p. 7).
In oi'der to
have
about
considered a
teacher is regarded as a "mystical figure
in awe"
they are
determine whether Turkish
certain
learning due
to, this
perspectives
to
toward
the education
research attempted to
students
they
selfwere
compare the
attitudes and use of
learners with
social
self-access centers of
different educational
factors.
Since
there
Turkiye:
the
some courses
instruction for
other than Turkish, and
only have four hours
it is worth seeing
in
the
backgrounds and
are
secondary schools in
two
types
(1) private,
is in
(2) state,
Turkish
in
of
which
a language
in which students
of foreign language in general,
if there are attitude differences
students
entering
the
university
from
different educational and social backgrounds, so that
an orientation program can
needs
of
the
students
be designed to fulfil the
and
to
help
them
become
this study
were
students
autonomous learners.
3.2
Subjects
The subjects
of
Bilkent
University,
(BUSED,
in
School
of
Ankara, Turkiye.
English
The
of
Language
subjects were all
preparatory school students who were leai'ning English
for Academic
cope
Purposes
with the
following years.
(EAP) in
courses in
order to be
their depai'tments
year
All
questionnaire were future
departments from
Faculty of
in the
The subjects were selected based on
department and proficiency levels.
took ehe
able to
subjects who
students of four
the following
faculties: the
Art, Design and Architecture; the Faculty
of Economics, Administrative and Social Sciences;
Faculty
of Business
Humanities
and
Administration; the
Letters;
and
the
the
Faculty of
Faculty
of
28
Engineering.
The
subjects
were from
L2
and
L3
classes, which means they were intermediate and upper
intermediate students.
At the beginning of the year,
the students are placed in levels by a placement test
designed by the institution.
time they
Then,
in
the course of
are promoted to higher levels based on the
grades they get on progress tests.
Students
Computer
of
two-year
Technology and
Management,
and
Management,
namely
Programming, Tourism
Secretarial
and
students were
departments,
Training
elementally
and
not included in this
Hotel
and
Bureau
advanced
level
study because of
I
their
potential
differences.
motivational
From
and
the researcher's
BUSEL, the students of
attitudinal
experience
at
two-year departments tend
to
think that because their programs are two years long,
they
can
easily spend
Elementary level
two
years
students tend
almost impossible for them
in one year, since BUSEL
(officially 2 years)
at prep
school.
to think that
to finish the prep school
offers a three year program
for the ones who cannot pass the
proficiency exam at the end of the second year.
advanced students.
on the other hand,
that they are proficient
departments
it is
and that
tend to think
enough to be sent to
they
waste time
The
at the
their
prep
school.
At BUSEL students are grouped according to their
departments, so it was not difficult to find subjects
from
each faculty.
Since there
was more
than one
class for almost all faculties at the same level, the
classes were
have
selected according to size
an
equal
department.
The only
literature
class
students of the
Letters
of
subjects
at
the
L2
level,
Faculty of Arts
in one
3 for
the
each
the art and
because
the
and the Faculty
class, and
class for these departments
Table
from
exception was in
were together
only one
See
number
in order to
numbers of
of
there was
at this level.
subjects
in each
department and level.
TABLE 3.1
Number of Male and Female Subjects
According to Their Proficiency Levels
and Departments
Faculties**
Levels* *
L2
Male
Art
Letters
Admin.
Engineer.
Total
c::
u
3
13
11
32
L3
Female
Male
7
8
10
11
36
3
5
3
4
15
Female
Total
24
30
32
29
116
9
14
7
3
33
*Art
= Faculty of Art, Design and Architecture
Letters = Faculty of Humanities and Letters
Admin
= Faculty of Economics, Administrative and
Social Sciences and Faculty of Business
Administration
Engineer= Faculty of Engineering
**L2
= Intermediate, L3= Upper intermediate
Subjects
from
the
Faculty
of
Economics.
Administrative and Social Sciences and the Faculty of
Business
Administration
students
of
these
were combined
faculties
are
put
because
in
the
classes
30
together.
Since the students of Computer Technology
and Programming, which is a two-year department,
put
in the
Faculty
same
classes with
of Engineering,
the students
these
students
are
of the
were
also
given the questionnaire but their questionnaires were
eliminated afterwards.
3.3
Setting
Bilkent University
private university
learning
study
the first
in Türkiye.
facilities it
there are
is
and the
Among the
provides
numerous
for its
students,
self-access centers, consisting of a self-
room,
a
video
Language Learning
room,
a
Computer
Laboratoi'y (CALL) , and
Assisted
a language
laboratory at the School of English Language
In
to a
the language laboratory
variety of tapes.
tapes of pedagogical
exercises,
tapes.
games
and
In the
based
vocabulary
and
program for
are songs.
stories,
course books supplemented
preparation
with
exercise
CALL laboratory they can either
on
teacher
(BUSED.
students can listen
There
examination
language,
which
giving practice
examination type
guide
only
exercises.
to
start
aim
on
They
or to
at
play
teaching
grammar,
or do
can consult
choose
them, but they can work
a
suitable
on their own by
following the instructions given by the computer.
the self-study
suitable
books,
room students can read
for their
skills books,
level,
work
In
graded novels
on various
exercise books,
the
course
dictionaries.
31
magazines,
and
sample
homework and have them
exam material,
or
do their
checked by the guide teacher.
In the video room, which is the only place
guide
teacher, they
can
choose from
video tapes, such as movies,
course tapes,
without a
a variety
documentaries,
of
language
etc., and either watch for fun or work
on exercises for the tapes prepared in advance.
The
self-access center
with different
activities.
also provides
For example,
there is a
conversation club
which gathers
twice a
the
a
In
guidance
students
of
a
week under
those
meetings
from different levels
announced at least
is
teacher.
students
writing
opportunity
talk about a subject
I
a week before the meeting.
There
club
to write
which
gives
students
I
as many
compositions
as they
like and have it checked by the guide teacher.
can have
a one-to-one consultation with
the
They
the teacher
on their work if they like, or they can just take the
corrected version of their composition from
box
assigned to
Another
this club
support given
courses.
students
necessary
skills
and with
self-study room.
by the self-access
the study skills
skills
in the
English in
the mail
center is
Those courses try to give
to cope
general.
with
the
four
Students who
would like to attend those courses put their names on
the lists posted in the self-study room and go to the
course at the announced date and time.
32
3.4
Materials
There
during
were
the
two
course
questionnaires
of
questionnaire given to
the study.
a
students who
access centers regularly, and the
administered
preliminary
used the
self-
main questionnaire
given to the subjects of the study.
The first one (see Appendix A) was given only to
the students who
went to at
access units regularly.
questionnaire
that could
the self-
Those students were given a
to collect data on possible activities
have been done
possible
least one of
times
that
attending those
in those centers
students
might
I
centers.
and the
have
been
Twenty
students filled in
the Questionnaire in
each
I of the
self-access units.
That
was
questionnaire
questions
possible
talking
in order
to
answei's" as
about
made
have a
up
of
open-ended
limitless ‘‘range
Henei'son et
advantages
of
al . mention
open-response
of
when
format
(1987, p. 61) .
The
answers
questionnaire
obtained
were then
from
questionnaire was
preliminary
used to develop
questionnaire which was given
main
that
the second
to the subjects.
made up
of three
This
sections.
(See Appendix B .)
The
first
information
section
about students'
background.
Questions
their
department,
sex,
asked
in
questions
social and
this section
whether
they
to
get
educational
asked
have
for
a
33
scholarship
or
not,
Bilkent. where
lived, what
they came
where that
high
from, where
in high
been
in
their parents
education was,
or
state school,
was, and what
their foreign
school.
The graduates
and whether
only in the foreign
of a
school were asked how many
classes they used to
a week,
as well.
had
a
private or Anatolian high
hours of total
level of
school
high school
was
they
they had finished, whether it was a
pi'ivate/Anatol ian
language
long
their parents'
what high school
language
how
have in foreign
their teachers
spoke
language or sometimes in Turkish
Everybody was asked whether they used to be
assigned
homework
individual
or
assignments
or
projects
group
work,
required
doing
which
and
required
whether
any
those
research
or
experiments.
In the following section the students were asked
where and how they preferred to study.
then, were asked which
used.
did in
which asked
of the units answered
use them.
section were
checklist.
based
what kind of
those places and what times
preferred to go there.
did not
of the self-access units they
If they used at least one, then
questions
on
The students,
they answered
activities they
of the year they
The ones who did not use
questions which asked why they
All of
the questions
closed-response items in the
in
answers
of
the
this
form of a
The alternatives for the checklists
the
any
were
preliminary
34
questionnaire.
As
suggested
in
(1987), an "other" option was
the
checklists
in
each
"nothing was left out"
The
to
that
attitudes
and control over one's
There were seven questions which asked how
those questions were based on
even number
of choices.
force the respondents to
answer, and
p. 16)
The answers to
a Likert scale with an
The reason
for this was to
give a positive or negative
not to “mark in the
Cognetta (1976,
order
ensure
investigated their
felt for some given situations.
negative
al.
provided at the end of
question
toward self-directed learning
they
et
(p. 65).
last section
learning.
Henerson
suggest.
middle" as Long arid
The order of
the
and positive attitudes were also changed in
CO
ensure
that
the
respondents
were
not
automatically answering them all in the same manner.
Both the preliminary and the main questionnaires
were given in Turkish, so that there would not be any
misunderstanding
questions.
or lack
Hughes
(1988)
questionnaires
in
respondents
avoid
to
of
the
comprehension
defends the
native
the
of
utility
language
of
incomprehensibility
the
of
the
of
questions by the respondents.
3.5
Collection of Data
The preliminary
students who
questionnaire was given
use the self-access units
teachers of each unit.
to the
by the guide
35
The
main
questionnaire was
students selected randomly.
to select
whom they
were given
classes, one whom
the self-access
knew did
not.
centers and
units, and
the
Two questionnaires
to students who had never
the self-access
with four
Two teachers were asked
two students from their
they knew attended
other
piloted
been to any of
two to students
who had
attended at least one of those units, via their class
teachers.
The aim was to see
whether there was any
ambiguity in the directions or questions.
The main questionnaire was given to the subjects
in their' classrooms during their regular
by the researcher.
while they
class! hours
Their teachers were also present
were answering
the
questionnaire.
I
The
instructions were read aloud by the researcher before
they
answered
mentioned
each
by the
was anonymous
section.
It
researcher that
was
especially
the questionnaire
in order to ensure
that students gave
sincere answers to the questions.
3.6
Analytical Procedures
To
determine
the
subjects' attitude toward
educational
the
background, a
means on
the
relationship
between
t-test was
attitude scale
run comparing
between the
groups, private/Anatolian vs. state high schools.
determine
the
attendance
at
relationship
between
self-access centers
background,. Chi-Square
the
was employed
and
two
To
subjects'
educational
comparing
the
36
attendance
frequencies
between
the
two
groups
(private/Anatolian vs.
state high schools).
To
i
determine the relationship of the moderator variables
(see section 1.3.4),
subjects'
except for
attitude toward
department, on
attendance at
self-access centers, t-tests
square
employed,
were
department,
respectively.
a one-way Anova . followed
test, was
run to
moderator
variable
concerning
subjects'
attitude
toward
Since there
great many
For
department
number of
the
by a Scheffe
self-directed
of variables the
Social Sciences
and chi-
determine the relationship
were a large
the
of the
and
the
learning.
subjects and
a
Statistical Package for
(SPSS) was used to analyze the data.
CHAPTER 4
DATA ANALYSIS AND RESULTS
4.1
Introduction
This
study
aimed
between university
directed learning
to
find
students'
and their
and the relation between
out
the
attitudes
relation
towai'd self-
educational background,
the students' attendance at
self-access centers and their educational background.
The educational background
to be the source of
factor which was
the differences in attitude
use of the centers
was the high school the
graduated
The
from.
thought to
sex,
social
factors
parents'
department, the
level
year they
of
their level, and their being scholarship
were
were their
education,
had been at
and
subjects
which
be moderating these relations
their
thought
their
prep school,
students or
not.
In other words, the study was carried out to see
the differences in the attitude
learning
and the
tendency
to attend
self-access
centers among private/Anatolian high school graduates
and state high school graduates.
The subjects were given a questionnaire
of three sections.
made up
In the first section the subjects
were to answer questions related to their background.
The second
The
users
section was divided into two subsections.
first part
of
the
of the
second section
self-access
centers.
was
for the
There
were
questions which asked how often and for what purposes
they used
second
those centei-s.
section was
access centers.
which
asked
The second
for the
In
non-users of
this part there
for the
reasons
centers.
The
third section
questions
for
everybody.
subjects
were asked
part of
for
the seif-
were questions
not using
consisted of
In
the
this
attitude
section
questions which
chose
the
assessed their
attitudes toward self-directed learning.
4.2
Hypotheses
It was hypothesized
school graduates
that private/Anato1ian high
would have a more positive; attitude
i
and
would use
high
school
variables.
groups
graduates.
it
would
frequent
subjects
self-access centers
As
was hypothesized
have
a
self-access
whose
more
for
the
moderator
the' following
positive
have
state
I
that
centers more;
parents
more than
attitude
male
higher
and
subjects,
education,
subjects who have scholarships, and, related to that,
the
subjects
who are
Engineering Faculty,
the
scholarship
the
future
who make up of
student
students of
the
the majority of
population
at
Bilkent
University, subjects who had been at the prep program
for more than a year
and the subjects who were
lower language proficiency level.
at a
39
4.3
Results
4.3.1
Attitude Scale
T-tests were run between
and each of
However.
had
the dependent
than two
possible to
Variables
wei*e
data
in
for
order
computed
as one
Nevertheless,
and
for
dimensional
data,
departments.
level
dimensions.
father's
educational
secondary school
level,
high school
and
and
as a second level.
not possible to compute the
in
since
Thus,
the parents'
was
primary and
it was
department
it
two
degrees were computed
the contrary,
variables.
level of education
to have
mother's
were combined;
university
On
levels.
compute the data for
education
status
and moderator
department and parents'
more
of
the means of attitudes
ordpr
to
there were
have
four
for department, a
a
two
separate
one-way Anova
was run.
The
results
of the
were non-significant
as
far as
high
t-tests showed
that there
differences between
the groups
school, sex,
level, being scholarship
language
or not, and
proficiency
parents'
level
of education were concerned.
The
only
departments.
that there was
significance
was
achieved
among
The results of the one-way Anova showed
a significant difference in
among departments.
The significance was
the .02 level; that is, p < .05 (Table 4.1).
attitude
achieved at
40
Table 4.1
Results of One-way Anova :
Attitudes of Four Departments
Source of variation
SS
Between groups
Within groups
Total
71.2
782.1
853.4
After it was found
difference
run to
determine the pairwise
subjects,
the
Table
MS
F
3
106
109
23.7
7.3
.02
that there was a significant
among departments,
departments.
d. f .
4.2
the Scheffe
test was
differences among the
presents
the
number
of
the percentages of subjects, the means, and
standard
deviations
of
the
four
groups
of
subjects.
Table 4.2
Means and Standard Deviations
of the Four Departments
on the Attitude Scale
faculty*
1.
2.
3.
4.
Engineer
Letters
Admin.
Art
n
o.
' ’O
Means
28
24
31
27
25.5
21.8
28.2
24.5
20.28
21.58
19.45
21.03
S t d .D e v .
2.41
2.74
3.02
2.50
*Engineer= Faculty of Engineering
Letters = Faculty of Humanities and Letters
Admin.
= Faculty of Economics, Administrative and
Social Sciences and Faculty of Business
Administration
Art
= Faculty of Art, Design and Architecture
41
With the application of the Scheffe test,
found that a significant difference
groups 2 (the Faculty
3
(the
Social
Faculty
Economics,
Administrative
the
of
and
Administration),
occurred between
of Humanities and Letters) and
of
Sciences
it was
Faculty
and between
groups
and
Business
3 and
4
(the
Faculty of Art, Design and Architecture).
There were
not any
the
significant
departments.
all
differences between
other
Table 4.3 displays the t-values between
the groups
and the
significant t-values.
For
group numbers refer to Table 4.2.
Table 4.3
Results of Scheffe Test;
Significant T-values for Departments
Group Comparisons
Group
Group
Group
Group
Group
Group
1
1
1
2
2
3
vs.
vs.
vs.
vs.
vs.
vs.
.076
.250
.273
.009* *
.470
.038*
2
3
4
3
4
4
'P< .01
•p<.05
4.3.2
T-Va1ues
Attendance
The study
second
had
dependent
attendance
two dependent
variable
at self-access
variables.
was
centers.
the
The
students'
This dependent
variable was examined against the independent and the
moderator variables,
as well.
tested, Chi-Square was used
a significant difference
Since
frequency was
to see whether there was
between groups.
The
data
42
used
for the
form.
In
attitude scale were
other
department,
words, all
were two
used in
the
the same
data, except
for
This means
the
dimensional.
degree of freedom (d.f.) was 1 for all variables, but
department.
here
For this
are Chi-Square
reason, the results presented
values after
Yates-correction,
which is essential in this test if the d.f.
The results
difference
only
schools.
showed that there was a significant
between
the
two
Even the percentages of
enough to see the
is 1.
kinds
of
high
the subjects were
difference between the two groups.
/
Table 4.4 displays the cross-tabulation of* attendance
at self-access centers by the type of high school.
iab1e 4.4
Cross-tabulation of Attendance at
Self-Access Centers
High school
Private/Anato1ian
n
15
24
40
Non-attenders
Attenders
Total
Table
4.5
shows
attendance at
high
school.
the
n
'O
14.1
21.2
35.4
Chi-Square
self-access centers
After the
State
14
59
73
I'esults
and
Oy
'O
12.3
52.2
64.6
between
the type
Yates correction
of
the Chi-
square value was found to be 4.72 which is at the .02
level of sianificance.
43
Table 4.5
Results of Chi-square:
Attendance at Self-Access Centers
Chi-square
d.f.
Level of
Significance
02
4.72
4.4
Discussions of che Results
It
was
relationship
students
hypothesized
between
toward
the
that
there
attitudes
seif-directed
of
was
a
university
learning
and
their
educational background, and that their attitudes were
i
modified by their social
background.
i.e..
sex.
department, year at prep school,
level.
parents'
scholarship
level
or
non.
of
The
language proficiency
education.
results
and
of the
being
t-tests
showed that the null hypotheses were accepted,
for department.
A.s
for department,
the one-way Anova revealed a
but the
direction of
expected way.
more
the
except
results of
significant difference,
the relation
It was expected
was
not in
the
that there would
be
students of the Faculty of Engineering who had
V
a
than
positive
attitude toward
students of
scholarship
oiher
students,
faculties.
who
were
also
Further,
mostly
more
the
students of the Faculty of Engineering, were expected
to
have a
significant
positive attitude.
difference
between scholarship and
Therefore.
among departments.
having a
but
not
non-scholarship students was
44
surprising, at
of
first.
Humanities and
Design
and
Students of
Letters and
Architecture
positive attitude toward
both the Faculty
the Faculty
had a
of Art.
significantly
more
self-directed learning than
students of the Faculty of
Economics. Administrative
and
the
Social
Sciences
Administration.
rating than
and
Faculty
of Business
They also had a higher mean attitude
the Faculty of Engineering students did.
but it was not significant.
It
was
also
hypothesized
that
there
was
a
relationship between subjects' educational background
and their
use of
self-access centers, and
that the
use of these centers were modified by social factors,
such
as
language
sex,
department,
proficiency
year
level,
at
prep
parents'
education, and being scholarship or not.
of
the
Chi-Square
nypotheses
tests
were accepted
showed
for
educational background,
that
school
from.
they
graduated
CTi'aduates of state
centers
school,
level
The results
that
the
all variables
is, the
of
null
except
type of
high
Significantly
more
high schools attended self-access
than the graduates of private/Anatolian high
schools.
However,
the
expected
direction
for
Graduates
of
relation was
this
private/Anatolian
expected to attend more.
not
variable,
high
in
the
either.
schools
were
CHAPTER 5
CONCLUSIONS
5.1
Sumniciry of the Study
The focus of the
soudy was the relation between
university students' educational background and their
actitudes
toward
self-directed
learning:
and
the
relation between the students' educa'cional backcrrounci
and their attendance at self-access centers.
It was hypothesized cha'c more positive attitudes
toward
of
se 1f-direcced learning and
more fretiuent use
self-access centers would be found among private/
.Anatolian
subjects
high
who
school
had
subjects from
graduates,
parents
with
the Engineering
male
higher
гor two years
education,
Faculty who
scholarship students, subjects who had
subiects.
are also
been at BUSEL
and those who were at a lower level of
language proficiency.
The
results
subjects were given a questionnaire and the
of
interpreted
the
questionnaire
with
Package
for Social
between
attitude
moderator
whether
were
the computer
program
Sciences (SPSS).
scores
and
the
variables were tested
and
Statistical
The
relation
independent
and
with t-tests to see
a significant
difference between
the different groups of subjects.
Chi-square was run
to
there was
analyzed
determine
the
relation
between
the
subjects'
attendance at self-access centers and the independent
and moderator variables.
40
5.2
Conclusions
From the
seem
to
results of this study.
be
subjects'
a
relation between
self-access
background.
did nC't
the
attitudes
and their educational background.
there is a relation between the
at
there does not
centers
In addition.
seem to
attendance.
of
However
subjects' attendance
and
their
educational
most of the social factors
ariect tne sub jects ' attitudes and
I'ne oniy exception was the oepartment c-i
tПe sub jec13 . inere se erned t'O jce a relation
ne twe en
choice of department and attitude.
The subjects who were tne ruture students c*f tne
i
Faculty
of ijno'ineei*ing
positive attitudes.
w'as
not a
wei'e
between the
Fngineering
Faculty and
departments.
This may
students.
nave шс>ге
Howev’er. it was found that tnere
difference
the attitude scale.
expected to»
students c-i
the students
be because or
and it may also
regardless of
their
of the
tne
otner
the nature c-i
oe oecause nicst
department.
have
a
positive attitude toward self-directed learning.
The
schools
subjects who
were
were graauates of
expected
to
have
state nigh
less
attendance at self-access centers, because
frequent
they were
thouaht to have a less positive attitude toward seifdirected learning.
opposite.
not
The reason for this may
a difference
state and
Nonetheless, the results were the
between
be that there is
the education
nrivate/Anatolian high
schools.
systems or
It
may
47
also
be because
the students
who are
graduates of
state high schools feel that they nave not mastered a
foreign
language
experience,
so
Another reason
well
enough
they have
in
to study
their
previous
moi'e carefully.
might be the difference
in the sizes
or classes in the two kinds of schools.
ihe classes
are
smaller in
the private/Anatolian
and small classes mignt
high schools,
encourage dependency on
the
teacher while large classes have tne opoosite effect.
0 .0
Assessment of tne otudy
The. reason ror the
unexpecteu. results might
be
the nature of the guest lonriaii'ê. Neai’'ly all subjects
were found
to nave a positive
directed learning.
wei'e found
where
to
be attending
the students
expected to come.
questions
who
not very many
of them
tne self—access
rooms,
are se1f—directed
would be
This may have occurred because the
asked
for
probably answered
they
However.
attitude toward self-
the
subjects’ attitudes 'were
by the subjects in such a way that
reflected their
intention
ratner
tnan
their
behavior.
It was also found that there were contradict ions
in the response of the subjects.
be said
the
more
that the
s/he
subjects said
A.ltnough it
more self-directed the
uses the
they felt
self-access
cannot
student is
centei's. some
very positive about
a room
where students can work on their own and direct their
48
own
learning, but
did not attend
any of
the self-
access rooms at all.
5.4
Pedagogical Implications
By looking at the results of the study it can be
said that
students of
Biikent University.
tiie students who were the
in favor
now to
subjects C'f tne studv.
of se 1f-directed
direct their
iQea C’f
learning but do
learning.
helping stuuents with
The best 'way to help learners
learn.
their
in other
words, to
own learning.
ai'ways
been used
come to
Orientation
not know-
At this point,
the
their learning rise.s.
train them
Such
focus
in directing
training programs
the students
university in theii'
programs
are
is to snow them how to
to orient
college or
at least
on
have
-when they
first year.
the
personal,
psychological and social development of the students.
but
abC'Ve ail
skills of
they
aim at
the students
imprC'Ving the
(Perigo and Upcraft,
academic
1989).
To be academically successful.
students need to
know how to control their learning.
This means they
have
to
strategies.
develop
suitable
learning
and
As Oxford says:
Learning strategies are steps taken by
students
to enhance their own
learning.
Strategies are especially
important
for
language
learning because
they are tools
for active, self-directed
involvement ...
Appropriate
language
learning strategies
result in improved proficiency and greatersel f-conf idence . (1990. p. 1)
study
49
An ideal training program would be the one which
starts on
the
the very first day of
students should
strategies.
one school.
become aware
They should
First,
of their
decide whether
current
their own
learning skills are effective, or whether they should
develop
new strategies.
oresented
proven.
with
After that,
strategies whc^se
they can
errectivene.s;s
be
are
The next step is to provide them with
effective learning
language skills
strategies for
each of
(Perigo and Upcrafr.
the four
1989).
The very same orientation program can be used at
BU3EL. as
well.
students,
teachers
students
In
order to
who
throughout the
In this
are
have a
going
unity
to
year can be
among
orient
the
trained first.
training session, teachers can
be bc>th told
what to do to raise students' awareness and how to do
it.
Carver
and
Dickinson
(1967)
give a
list
activities which lead to self-directed learning.
first
making
step is
to raise
them talk
the students'
about theii'
of
The
awareness by
learning expei'iences.
The next step is to make the students watch tor their
learning,
in
themselves.
other
This
Carver and Dickinson
example
of
students need
words,
may
to
be done
make
them
monitor
in
several
ways.
give the use
s e 1f—monitoring.
of a diary
After
to diagnose their errors
correct themselves.
They also talk
as an
monitoring,
and learn to
about group and
pair work
as techniques chat lead to seit-direction.
Another technique
is to
make them design
their own
materials, for instance, to make them write questions
for reading
and listening
texts.
In
addition, the
teacher can encourage students to make rules of their
own for grammar or
telling the
vocabulary.
.Another technique is
student the objectives or
the lesson so
tnat the learner will be aoie to reiy on
the teaciiTi
less .
5.0
Imp 1 icatic»ns for Further Research
nature
of
the
questionnaire
ma'i*r
^t
i
imoossible to determine the
subjects wno were realiy
5 0 f—Qii'ected. rather tnan who would like to be self~
directed.
For this
subjects how
reason. I'ather than
they feel in certain
aJsking the
situations with a
ratina scale, a checklist which consists of a variety
of
activities some of which require selr-study could
be given cind the subjects should be asked to tick the
ones they do while studying.
In this way the results
would reflect what they do rather than what they feel
they
should
checklist
be
doing.
A
questionnaire
of activities which
with
a
reflect a tendency to
be self-directed would enable the researcher to
rind
more valid and reliable results.
In
caused
study.
addition,
a
diversion from
From
Qiff0 j'0 nces
having
the
between
so
many
variables
the
main
purpose of
results of
high
the study,
schools
was
also
the
compai ing
sufficient.
51
Other social
factors, apart from department, did not
seem to be influential.
of
the
the differences
two types
Perhaps a qualitative study
in learning
of high
experiences between
schools might
be
useful in
revealing other variables to study.
Focusing on students current learning strategies
and
the relation
between these and
their attitudes
toward self-directed learning might be interesting to
study.
Assessing
students'
present
learning
strategies and their beliefs about language learning,
and
comparing them
with students'
attitudes toward
directing their own êarning, may give
further ideas
about how to lead students to self-directed learnina.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Ahmad, K.. Corbett. G.. Rogers. M . . á Susse. K.
(1965).
Computers,
language
learning
and
language____ teaching.
Cambridge;
Camprlage
University Press.
Allan. M. (1965). Teaching English with video. Essex:
LoriOTjaH .
.Allwi'ight. D. (1968). Autonomy and individualization
in whole-class instruction. In A. BrooRs &. P.
Grundy (Eds.). Individualization and auioncmv in
language learning (d p . 35-44). London: Modern
pngiisn rupi1 cap ions
Bai*nett.
L. 6
Jordan. G.
(1991) . .Self-access
faciiiPies: what are they for? ELT Journal. 45.
3 05 - 5 1 2 .
Bloor. M. J Bloor. T. (1988). Syllabus negopiacion:
The basis of learner autonomy. In A BrC'OKs & P.
Grundy
(Eds. ). Individualizat ion_and auponomv
in language learning (pp. 62-74). London: Modern
English Pub1icap ions.
Brooks.
A. &. Grundy.
P.
(1986). introduction:
Individualization. autonomy
and English for
p . Grundy
purposes. in A . Brooks
d C a C l6 r r i2 C
in
and auto'nomv
(Eds.). Individua 1izat ion
language learning (pp. 1-11). London: ModeiTi
English Publications.
Carver. D. d Dickinscri. L.
(i987). Learning to be
self-directed.
In M. Geddes d G. Sturtridge
(Eds.). Individualization (pp. 15-21). London:
Mc'dern English Publications.
Dickinson. L. (1967). Self-instrucpion in language
1earn! ,ng. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Dickinson. L. (1968). Learner training. In A. Brooks
d P . Grundy
(E d s .) . Indi vidua 1iza t ion__ and
in
language
learning >pp. 45-53,
autonomy
London: Modern English rubl icatic-ns
Evans, T. D.. Corsini, R. J. d Gazda, G. M. (1990).
Individual education and Phe 4Rs. Educational
Leadership, 46, 52-56.
Fischer. R. A. (1988) . (Jompuper assisted i.nstruction
in the French classroom a pilot project. French
Review. 61. 578-586.
DD
Habowsky, J. E. J.. Sands, T. W., Hogue. c. w. V. ,
Stager. R. A. & Postlethwait. 3." N. (1990) . An
Journal or
audio-directed.
multimedia lab.
College Science Teaching. 19. 232-234
Fitz-Gibbon, C . T.
Henerson, M. E., Morris, L. L.
to measure______
attitudes. Newbury
(1967). How
Park. CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.
Hofstede. G. {1983. Fall). The cultural relativity of
organizational practices and theories. Journal
of International Business Studies. 75-89. (ciced
in Riley. 1988)
Hoiec. H.
(1980). Learner training: Meeting needs in
sel f-dii'ected learning. In H. B. Altman & J. C.
Vaughan
(Eds.), Foreign
language teaching:
Meeting
individual needs.
London: P ergamon
Press.
Fanning. P.
(1988).
Houghton. D .. Long. G.. Si
and indi''îdual ization
in language
Autonomy
learning: The role and responsibilities (of the
In A. Brooks Si P. Grundy
(Eds. ).
EAP tutor
and autonomy
in language
Individua 1ization
pp. 75-84). London: Modern t-nglish
learning
Publications.
Hughes. A. (19 88). Introducing a needs based test of
English language proficiency into an English
medium un iversity in Turkey. In A. Hughes (Ed.),
Testing for university study (pp. 134-153).
Oxford: The British Council.
landoli, L. J. (1990). CALL and the proression: ihe
current state. French Review, 64. z61—2/2.
Long. S. Si Cognetta, R. A.
(1978). Questionnaires:
Their development and use. San
Mateo. CA:
County Office of Education.
Oxford, R. L. (1990). Language learning strategies.
New York: Newbury House publishers.
Perigo. D. J. Si Upcraft. M. 1,. (1989) .Ôrientation
programs. In M. L. Upcraft (Ed.). ihe freshman
year experience ipp- 82-94). San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Polloway, E. A., Cronin. M. E. &. Patton, J. R.
(1986). The efficacy of group versus one-to-one
instruction: A review. Remedial and Special
Education, 7, 22-30.
54
Reseau,
J.
(1991).
Evaluating computer-assisted
language learning (CALL) as seen Ly pupils.
Educational Media International, 28. 32-35.
Kicnards,
J.
dictionary
Lonaman.
&
of
Weber.
H.
(i960).
applied_1injuist ics.
Lc'ncrman
Essex:
Riley. P.
(1988). The ethnography of autonomy.
In
A . Brooks &. P . Grundy (Eds .). Individual isat ion
and autonomy in language learning (PP. 12-34).
London: Modern English Pubiications.
Sheer in. S.
(1989).
University Press.
3e 1f-.Access.
Oxford:
Oxford
Simons. P. iR. J. Si Vermunt. J. D. H. M. ii966). SelfregulatiC'n in knC’WieQge acguisition: a selection
of Dutch research. In G. Beuknof
p. P;. j.
Simirions (Eds. ) . German and Dutch research on
1earning and instruction. The Hague: 3.V .0.
S i avın. L·.
Ih e o r V
Hall.
H.
(1986).
Hducat 1 ona 1 D sr/cho 1o g y :
into practice.
New York: ■ i-'rentice
Toma 1in. B . (1990) .
3. .
action: Recipes foi using V 1QΘC»
teaching. New York: P'rentice Hail.
Stempieski .
Video in
Ianquage
Stevi ck, E . (1976). Memory. meaning. and method.
Rowley. M A : Newbury House Publishers. Inc.
St. John. M. J.
(1986). Attitudinai changes to selfaccess in EAP. In
A. BrooKS 9 p. Grundy
iEds.) .
Individualisation
and autonc^mv
in
language learning tpp. 126-135). London: Modern
English Pubiications.
Strevens. P.
(1977). New orientations in teaching
of English. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Sturtridge. G. (1982). Individualised learning: 'What
are options for the classroom teacher? In M.
Geddes
&
G.
Sturtridge
(Eds.),
Individua 1isat ion ipp· 8-14). London: Modern
English Publications. Ltd.
Tarone. E.. & Yule, G.
(1989).
Focus on the
language learner. Oxford:
Oxford University
Press.
55
Van
Rossum. E. J..
Deijkers. R., &. Hamer, R.
(1985). Students’ learning conceptions and their
interpretation
of
significant
educational
concepts. Higher Education. 14, 617-641.
Vermunt, J. D. H. M. & Van Ri.iswijk, F. A. (1966).
Analysis and development of students' skill in
self-regulated learning. Higher Educacion. 17.
647—662.
Waterhouse. P.
{1989). Supported
self-study in
schools
and
colleges.
Educational
Media
International. 26. 33-37.
Yanok. J. (.1968). Individualised instruct ion;
aoDroach. Academic Therapy. 24. 163-167.
A GOOD
OD
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A.
Preliminary Questionnaire
1.
Turkish Version
I.
Lütfen aşağıdaki soruları cevaplayınız.
1.
Self-access bireysel çalışma
odasını
amaçlarla
kullanıyorsunuz?
Burada
ne
aktıviteier yapıyorsunuz?
2.
Buraya
ge1iyorsunuz?
ders
yılının
hangi
hangi
gibi
dönemlerinde
A * A ·* yr
II.
1.
Bilgisayar
kul ianiyorsunuz?
yapıyorsunuz?
2.
üuraya
ge1iyorsunuz?
III.
laboratuarını
boratuarını
Burada ne
ders
yılının
hangi
amaçlarla
gibi
aktiviteier
hangi
dönemlerinde
1.
Lisan
kullanıyorsunuz?
yapıyorsunuz?
2.
Buraya
geliyorsunuz?
laboratuarını
Burada ne
ders
yılının
hangi
gibi
hangi
amaçlarla
aktıviteier
dönemlerinde
A A A A A
IV.
1.
Video odasını hangi amaçlarla kullanıyorsunuz?
Burada ne aibi aktiviteier yapıyorsunuz?
2.
Buraya
ge1iyorsunuz?
ders
yılının
hangi
dönemlerinde
57
2.
English Version
I.
Please answer the following questions
1.
For what purposes do you use self-access study
room? What kind of activities do you do here?
2.
In which periods of the
attend the self-study room?
II.
academic year
do you
Please answer the following questions.
1.
For what purposes do you use Computer Assisted
Language Lab (CALL)?
What kind of activities do you
do here?
2.
In which periods
attend CALL?
of the
academic year
do you
'ki<'AA A
I
III.
please answer the following questions
1. For what purposes do you use the language lab?
What kind of activities do you do here?
)
2.
In which periods of the
attend the language lab?
IV.
academic year
do you
Please answer the following questions.
1.
For what purposes do you use the
What kind of activities do you do here?
2.
In which periods
attend the video room?
of the
video room;'
academic year
do you
58
APPENDIX B.
1.
Main Questionnaire
Turkish Version
A. 1. Cinsiyetiniz: K _____
E
2.
Bölümünüz:
___________
3.
Burslu musunuz?
4,
Bilkent'te kaçıncı yılınız?
5.
Düzeyiniz: _________
Nere 1isiniz?
Ailenizin oturduçru şehir
8 . Annenizin eğitim düzeyi:
ilk
orta
lise
üniversite
9. Babanızın eğitim düzeyi:
ilk
■
orta ____ lise
üniversite
10. Bitirdidiniz lise:
11. Bitırdiçiniz lise hangi şehirdeydi?
12. Bitirdiğiniz lise:
özel okul/Anadolu lisesiydi.
Devlet lisesiydi.
Lisedeki yabancı diliniz neydi?
Eder
bir
özel
1İsevi veya
Anadolu
lisesini
bitirdiyseniz 14■ soruyu cevaplayınız.
Eder bir devlet lisesini bitirdiyseniz 15. soruya
geçiniz.
14. a. Aşadidaki derslerden hangilerini yabancı dilde
gördöyseniz karsısına X işareti koyunuz.
Matemat ik
Fen
Fizik
Kimya
Biyolo ji
Okuduğunuz yabancı dilin edebiyat!
tarihi
coğrafyası
b. Bütün bu dersler dahil haftada toplam kaç saat bu
dilde edıtim görüyordunuz? ________
59
Bu derslerde hocalarınız:
yalnızca yabancı dil konuşuyorlardı
bazen Türkçe de konuşuyorlardı.
genellikle Türkçe konuşuyorlardı.
15. Lisede bireysel çalışma gerektiren ödevler
projeler yapıyor muydunuz?
E _____
H _____
veya
16. Lisede grup çalışması
projeler yapıyor muydunuz?
veya
gerektiren ödevler
E _____
H _____
17. Bu ödev veya projeler deney
yapmanızı gerektiriyor muydu?
E _____
veya
araştırma
H
B. Asaçrıdaki
seçeneklerden size
uygun
yanındaki boşluğa (X) işareti koyunuz.
Simdi Bilkent
Yüksekokulu'nda
bulundurarak:
1.
Ders
hangisinde
edersiniz?
üniversitesi Ingiliz
(TDMYO)
olduğunuzu
Dili
goz
olanının
Meslek
önünde
çalışırken
genellikle asagidakilerden
veya
hangilerinde
çalışmayı
terçih
kütüphanede
se 1f-aççess 'te (biı*eysel çalisma odası
lisan laboratuarında
CALL'da (Bilgisayar Destekli Lisan
öğrenme Laboratuarı)
Ders çalışırken:
yalnız olmayı teroih ederim
arkadaşlarımla olmayı tercih ederim
bir öğretmenle olmayı tercih ederim
Diğer (belirtiniz;
3.
Okulumuzdaki
bireysel çalişma
birimlerinden
hangisini veya hangilerini kullanıyorsunuz?
self-access (bireysel çalışma odası)
CALL (Bilgisayar Destekli Lisan
öğrenme Laboratuarı)
lisan laboratuarı
öğrenci video odası
_____
_____
_____
_____
60
Bu birimlerden birini veya birkaçını KULLANIYORSANIZ,
4-7. soruları sadece kullandığınız birimler için
çevaplayınız.
Bu birimlerden
hiçbirini
soruları cevaplayınız.
KULLANI4IY0RSANIZ,
8-11.
4.a. Self-access
çalışma odasına asaoıdaki1erden
hangisini veya hangilerini yapmak için gidiyorsunuz?
tek basına ders çalışmak
_____
ödevlerimi yapmak
_____
çeşitli kitap ve dergi gibi
kaynaklardan yararlanmax
_____
self-açcess'teki aktivitilere
(writing çlub, conversation club vb.) kanılmak
yabancı hocalarla konuşmak
eksik olduğum konularda self-access
hocalarından vardım almak
Diğer (belirtiniz)
b. Se1f-aççess'e daha çok ne zaman gidiyorsunuz?
düzenli olarak hergün
ödevim olduğu zaman
bos vakit buldukça
derste anlamadığım
birsey olduğunda
Diğer (belirtiniz)
5a. CALL bilaisayar laboratuarına aşağıdakilerden
hangisini veya hangilerini yapmak için gidiyorsunuz?
derslerde öğrendiklerimi pekişti iı*nıek_____
derslerde ögrenemediklerimi ¿'drenmek _____
hatalarımı ve doğrularını görmek
_____
yeni kelimeler öğrenmek
_____
sınavlara yönelik testler çözmek
_____
oyun oynamak
_____
bilgisayar kullanmayı öğrenmek
_____
derslerde sıkıldığım zaman rahatlamak _____
Diğer (belirtiniz)
b. CALL'a daha çok ne zaman gidiyorsunuz?
haftada 2-3 defa
ayda birkaç defa
bos vakit buldukça
sınav öncesi
Diğer (belirtiniz)
61
6a. Lisan laboratuarına aşağıdakilerden
veya hangilerini yapmak için gidiyorsunuz?
nangısını
İngilizce dinleme ve anlama
yeteneğimi geliştirmek
konuşma yeteneğimi geliştirmek
telaffuzumu düzeltmek
yeni kelimeler öğrenmek
hikaye dinlemek
şarkı dinlemek
ders kitaplarının kasetlerini
tekrar dinlemek
sınava yönelik dinleme
alıştırma iarı vaomak
Diaer (belirtiniz)
b.
Lisan
laboratuarına
g 1 d iyorsunuz ?
daha
çok
ne
zaman
haftada 2-3 defa
ayda birkaç defa
bos vakit buldukça
sınav öncesi
7a. öğrenci video odasına aşağıdakilerden hangisini
veya hangilerini yapmak için gidiyorsunuz?
orijinal film seyrederek
İngilizcemi ilerletmek
dinleme yeteneğimi geliştirmek
değişik dünyalar tanımak
sadece film seyretmek
dinlenip eğlenmek
bos vaktimi geçirmek
Diğer (belirtiniz)
b.
öğrenci video
gidiyorsunuz?
odasına
haftada 2-3 defa
ayda birkaç defa
bos vakit buldukça
sınav öncesi
Á AA
A A A A A
daha
çok
ne
zaman
62
8. Self-access bireysel
çünkü
çalışma odasına
gitmiyorum
yerini bilmiyorum
burada neler yapabileceğimi bilmiyorum
yararı olduğuna inanmıyorum
ne çalışacağımı bilemiyorum
Diğer (belirtiniz.)
9. CALL bilgisayar laboratuarını kullanmıyorum çünkü
yerini bilmiyorum
bilgisayar kullanmayı bilmiyorum
burada neler yapabi1eçegimi bilmiyorum
Diğer .(belirtiniz)
İO. Lisan laboratuarını kullanmıyorum çünkü ...
yerini bilmiyorum
buradaki aletleri kullanmayı bilmiyorum
Diğer fneıirtinız;
11. öğrenci video odasını kul 1anmıyoru.m çünkü
yerini bilmiyorum
Diğer (belirtiniz)
63
с.
Aşağıdaki cümlelerde size en uygun olan
üzerindeki rakamı daire içine alınız.
durumun
(1-3. sorular için) İngilizce öğrenmeniz açısından:
1. Sınıfta öğretmeniniz bir
verdiği zaman, grup veya ikili
size nasıl geliyor?
1
2
hiç hoşuma biraz hoşuma
gitmiyor
gidiyor
ödev
veya aktivice
olarak çalışmak fikri
3
genellikle
hoşuma gidiyor
4
çok hoşuma
gidiyor
2. öğretmeniniz bir ödev veya aktivite verdiği zaman,
çek başınıza çalışmak fikri size nasıl geliyor?
1
çok hoşuma
gidiyor
2
genellikle
hoşuma
gidiyor
3. öğrencilerin kendi
çalışabilecekleri bir
nasıl geliyor?
1
hiç hoşuma
ditmıvor
2
biraz hoşuma
gidiyor
3
biraz hoşuma
gidıvor
hiç hoşuma
gitmiyor
başlarına istedikleri
'çalışma odası" fikri
genellikle
hoşuma gidiyor
dibi
size
çok hoşuma
gidiyor
4. Kendi başınıza ne kadar Ingilizoe çalışıyorsunuz?
1
2
sık sık
ara sıra
3
çok az
4
hiç
5. Tek başınıza çalışırken neye ne kadar
gerektiğine kendi başınıza karar vermek
nasıl geliyor?
1
çok hoşuma
gidiyor
2
genellikle
hoşuma
gidiyor
D. İngilizce öğrenirken
hoşunuza gider mi?
1
hiç
2
çok az
biraz hoşuma
gidiyor
çalışmanız
fikri size
4
hiç hoşuma
gitmiyor
öğretmeninizden yardım almak
3
bii'az
4
çok
öğretmeninize ne kadar sıklıkta soru sorarsınız?
sık sık
ara sıra
3
bazen
hiç birzaman
64
2.
English Version
A. 1. Sex:
F _____
2.
Department: __
s.
Scholarship:
4.
Year at Bilkent:
5.
Leve1
6.
Hometown;
Yes
M
No
Where does your family live?
8. Mother's level of education:
pi'imary __ secondary___ high school
uni v .
9. Father's level of education:
orimarv
secondai'v ___ hiah school
univ.
10. High school you graduated fi'om:
11. Where was that hiah school? ___
12. ihe high school you graduated from was a:
private/Anato11 an high school. _
state hiah .school .
13. Foreign language in high school:
If you are a graduate of a private/Anatolian high
school answer question 14.
If you are a graduate of a state high school skip to
question ¿5 .
14. a. Put a X next to the courses you had in foreign
language.
Mathematics
Science
Physics
Chemistry
Biology
Literature
History
Geography
of that foreign
language
b. Including all these courses how many hours of that
language, in total, did you have? _____
DD
c. In those courses your teachers:
spoke only in foreign language,
sometimes spoke Turkish too.
usually spoke Turkish.
15.
In the high school, did you do homewoi'k
assignments or projects which required individual
work?
Y ___
N ___
16. In
the high school, did
you do homework
assianments oa' projects whicli required group work?
Y __1_ N ____
17. Did those assignments and/or projects require you
to do research or experiment? Y ___
N ___
E. Put a X ne:-:t to the alternatives below which best
suit you.
Now that you are at BU3EL:
1.
In which of ti'ie following do you prefer to study?
ilorary
seif study room
ianauage lab
CALL
2. While I study, I prefer to be:
alone
___
with my friends ___
with a teacher ___
other
___
3. Which of the self-access centers do you use?
self-study room
___
tAui-»
_____
language lab
___
student video room ___
If you USE one or more of these centers.
questions 4-7 for the centers you use.
If you DO NOT USE any of these centers
Questions 8-11.
answer
answer
4. a. Which of the following do you do in the seifstudy room?
study on your own
do your homework
to use the resource material
such as books and magazines
to join the activities (writing
club, conversation club, etc.)
oo
to talk to the foreign teachers
to get help from the guide teachers
ochers
b. Wnen do you mosc go to che self-study room?
I'eguiarly everyday
when I have homework
when I have free rime
when I do not understand
in the class
5. a.
lab?
Vihich of the following
do you do
in the CALL
to repeac what. I have
already learned in class
to learn what I couid
not learn in class
to see my mistakes and
the correct forms
t'·;· learn new vocabulai'y
to gain practice on
exam type exercises
to learn how to
operate computers
to relax when I get
bored in class
others ____
b. When do vou most go to the CALL lab?
regularly everyday
2-3 times a week
a couple of times a month
in my free time
before exams
O "Cn 6 1""s
6. a. Which of
language lab?
the
following
do you
to improve my listening skills
to improve my speaking skills
to improve my pronunciation
to learn new words
to listen to stories
to listen to songs
to listen course material again
to gain practice on exam type exercises
others __
do
in
the
b. Whien do vou moso ao to the ianauaae lab?
regularly everyday
2-3 rimes a week
a couple of times a month
in my free time
before exams
7. a. VTl'iicri of the following do you do in trie student
Video room?
to improve my English by
watc'ning foreign movies
to improve my listening skills
to see different worlds
to watch movie
to entertain and reiax
to pass time
others
b. V/1'ien do vou most ao to the student video room!
regularly everyday
2-3 times a week
a couple of times a montn
in my free time
before exams
A Л
A
A
ik
6. I do not go to the self-study room because
I don't
I don't
I don't
I don't
otriers
know where it is.
know w'nat I can do there.
triink It IS useful.
know what to study,
9. I do not ao to the CALL lab because
I don't know where it is.
I don't know how to
operate computers.
I don‘t know what I can do there.
I don't think it is useful.
ozYisys
iü. I do not go to the language lab because
I don't know how to operate
the machines there.
I don't know what I can do there.
I don't think it is useful,
others
68
11. I do not use the student video room because
I don't know what I can do there
I don't think it is useful,
others
C. In the situations below circle the numbei*
statement which best suits you.
(For questions 1-3
experience)
consider
your English
of the
learning
1.
When your
teacher assigns an activity or
assignment in the classroom, how do you like the idea
of working in pairs or groups i'
2
1
I don't
like it
I like ii
a little
2.
When
assignment,
your own ?
1
2
I like it
a lot
your
teacher assigns an activity or
how do you like the idea of woi'king on
I generally
like it
I generally
like it
3
I like it
a little
I like it
a lot
4
I don't
like it
3. How do you like the idea of having a "self-study"
room where students can work themselves?
I don't
like it
4.
When
alone?
I like it
a little
you study r.nglish.
1
often
I generally
like it
sometimes
how much
3
rarely
I like it
a 1ot
do you study
4
never
5.
When you study alone, how do you feel about
deciding on "what to study" and "how much to study"?
I like it
a lot
I generally
like it
3
I liKe it
a little
6.
Do you like to get help
you study English?
1
not at all
from your teacher when
2
a little
4
I don't
like it
generally
4
a lot
69
7.
How often do you ask your teacher questions?
1
o fi:en
2
somet imes
3
rarely
4
never

fi2s*kisfi yniversftv gfl Stisdeats` Ій Partía! Fu

Transcription

Similar documents

Dr. Stefan Tinuta

Attitudes to Language Learning

“Yikes! How Far Can I Stretch My Money?”

Demonstrating the Art of Water Marbling

Ben Vaske – Unique approach of basic skills

melissa prandi, mpm®, rmp

Dave Magrogan Presentation

Change Your Attitude and use Smart Work Ethics

Peace of Mind Brochure - Social Services Knowledge Scotland

as PDF