AUTONOMOUS COMPUTER- ASSISTED LANGAUGE LEARNING: TURKISH PRIMARY SCHOOL STUDENTS PERCEPTIONS OF DYNED SOFTWARE

AUTONOMOUS COMPUTER- ASSISTED LANGAUGE LEARNING: TURKISH PRIMARY SCHOOL STUDENTS PERCEPTIONS OF DYNED SOFTWARE Serpil MERI University of Soutampton sm17g10@soton.ac.uk

Overview: Introduction Literature Review: Learner Autonomy, CALL & Previous Studies Research Questions Methodology Results Conclusion

Introduction Two concepts in education learner autonomy CALL The ignorance of these concepts in Turkish context as based on recitation (Yumuk, 2002) Ministry of National Education launched DynEd courseware in 2007 (DynEd, 2011). The shift from more teacher-centred approaches to more learner and learning-centred approaches (Ozsevik, 2010)

Learner Autonomy A buzzword in educational areas for over two decades (Little, 1991, p.1). Defining Learner Autonomy Holec (1981): the ability to take charge of one s own learning (p.3). David Little (1991): the capacity to take charge of one s learning.

The Role of the Learners in Autonomous Learning An autonomous learner is one who has an independent capacity to make and carry out the choices which govern his or her actions (Littlewood, 1996, p.428). The importance of the confidence (Wenden, 1991) Key words for learner autonomy (see Holec, 1981; Kenny, 1993; Little, 1991): responsibility, capacity and control.

The Role of the Teachers in Autonomous Learning Cranston (2000): the shift in the traditional role Benson (2001): teachers role as a facilitator, helper, coordinator, counsellor, consultant, adviser, knower and resource (p.171)

CALL Levy (1997): CALL as the search for and study of applications of the computer in language teaching and learning (p.1). Its advantages such as the increase in motivation, selconcept, knowledge, student-centred learning and more active attendance (for instance, Brownlee-Conyers, 1996; Dwyer, 1996; McGrath, 1998; Weiss, 1994)

DynEd Language Learning Software Founded in 1987 at the Language Institute of Japan. DynEd is a beneficial language learning program that draws students attention (Alkan, 1997; Watt & Foscolos, 1998) as the activities proceed while students increase their scores and levels (Bas, 2010). Gobel (2008): the students using the systems for language learning outperformed the others engaged in the programs for misuse of the software. Bas & Kuzucu (2009): the students who engaged in DynEd language learning program were more successful than others who were instructed with traditional language learning methods. Bas (2010): DynEd courses are in favour of the positive development of the students in English.

Previous Studies on Learner Autonomy and CALL Blackstock Junior High School (1993): The project students with self-determination in CALL settings became more independent and were defined as knowledge navigators. Murray (1999): learners of French with  la rencontre de Philippe more autonomous and desire to learn. The similar studies of Chatel (2002) & Lasagabaster and Sierra (2003) the computer as helpful and useful for learning.

Contrast views on its effectiveness (e.g. (Fletcher-Flinn and Gravatt, 1995; Shute and Gawlick-Grendel, 1996; Spotts, 1992). Liou et al. (1992): a multimedia project the instruction with the computer and with the traditional instruction Bordonaro (2003): the views on using the computers were positive, whereas it is not apparent that most of the learners take control of their learning and reveal their autonomy in language learning.

Research Questions 1. What role does the teacher play in computer-assisted language learning via DynEd, and how important is the teacher s presence? 2. Do the students perceive that they have gained confidence as a learner, or improved their performance on taking control of their learning as a result of the DynEd experience? 3. What are the difficulties and problems the students come across in the process of the DynEd courses? 4. What does the teacher think on her students learning independently via DynEd?

Methodology The study conducted in a Turkish primary school in the first week of April in 2011. 60 students varied from 12 to 13 (30 males and 30 females) & taking DynEd courses in a week since September 2010 & having basic computer skills & intermediate level of English. The teacher having two-year teaching experience & teaching in English and DynEd courses.

Research Instruments Questionnaire: 28 statements about a) teachers effective and assistive role in the DynEd environments, b) the effect of DynEd on students confidence and performance on their learning and c) problems and difficulties they face during the DynEd courses using a 5 ponit-likert scale (some taken from the studies of Bas, 2010; Cheng and Lin, 2010; Stepp-Greany, 2002; Varol & Yilmaz, 2010). Interviews: Semi-structured to 20 students in groups & the teacher.

The Results 1. The role and presence of the teacher in autonomous computer-assisted language learning as a facilitator and helper Increase their learning potentiality 2. The effect of DynED programme on the students confidence and performance Facilitating learning esp. in speaking Dyned s role in inside and outside classroom activities 3. The difficulties and problems encountered during the DynED courses the number of the computers and time duration, the ignorance of the school principals & the slow application of software.

4. Teacher s views on students learning via DynED Teachers role in DynEd courses as a facilitator and helper Students as autonomous learners as they could handle their learning on their own DynEd enhanced them to learn independently and actively.

Conclusion DynEd had an important effect on their confidence and performance. There are problems and difficulties encountered in DynEd which could be a detrimental to learning. CALL promotes autonomous language learning in the Turkish context.

References: Alkan, B, (1997), The Investigation of the Comparision of Computer-Assisted English Language Learning and Teacher-Centred English Language Teaching, Dokuz Eylul Universitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitusu, (Unpublished Master s Thesis), Izmir. Bas, G (2010), Evaluation of DynED Courses Used in Elementary Schools from the Views of Teachers in Turkey, Journal of Language and Linguistics Studies, vol. 6, no 1, pp. 14-39. Bas, G & Kuzucu, O, (2009), Effects of Call Method and DynED Language Programme on Students Achievement Levels and Attitudes towards the Lesson in English Classes, International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning, vol. 6, no 7, pp. 31-44. Benson, P, (2001), Teaching and researching autonomy in language learning, Longman, London. Blackstock Junior High School: Multimedia technology drives smart school (1993). Technology and Learning, 14(1), 41-44. Bordonaro, K, (2003), Perceptions of Technology and Manifestations of Language Learner Autonomy, CALL-EJ ONLINE, vol. 5, no.1. Brownlee-Conyers, J, (1996), Voices from networked classrooms, Educational Leadership, vol. 54, no. 3, pp. 34-37. Chatel, RG, (2002), New technology, new literacy: Creating a bridge for English language learners, The New England Reading Association Journal, vol. 38, no. 3, pp. 45-49. Cranston, NC, (2000), Teachers as leaders: a critical agenda for the new millenium, AsiaPacific Journal of Teacher Education, vol. 28, no. 2.

Cheng, H, & Lin, NC, (2010), Exploring students perceptions of self-access English learning, Procedia Social and Behavioural Sciences, vol. 2, pp. 2676-80. Dwyer, D, (1996), A response to Douglas Noble: We're in this together, Educational Leadership, vol. 54, no. 3, pp. 24-27. DynED 2011--- DynED: English Language Learning Solutions, viewed 14 March 2011, http://www.dyned.com/about/. Fletcher-Flinn, CM, & Gravatt, B (1995), The efficacy of computer-assisted instruction (CAI): A metaanalysis, Journal of Educational Computing Research, vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 219-242. Globel, P, (2008), Student off-task behaviour and motivation in the CALL classroom, International Journal of Pedagogies and Learning, vol. 4, no. 4, pp. 4 18. Holec, H, (1981), Autonomy in Foreign Language Learning, Pergamon, Oxford. Kenny, B, (1993), For more autonomy, System, 21, pp. 431-442. Lasagabaster, D, & Sierra, JM, (2003, September), Student evaluation of CLL software programs, Educational Media International, vol. 40, no. 3/4, pp. 293-304. Levy M, (1997a), CALL: context and conceptualisation, Oxford University Press, Oxford. Levy, M, (1997b), Computer-Assisted Language Learning, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Liou, H-S, Wang, SH, & Hung-Yeh, Y, (1992), Can grammatical CALL help EFL writing instruction?, CALICO Journal, vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 23-43. Little, D, (1991), Learner Autonomy 1: definitions, issues and problems, Authentik, Dublin. Littlewood, W. (1996). "Autonomy : an anatomy and a framework, System, vol. 24, no. 4, pp. 427-435. McGrath, B, (1998), Partners in learning: twelve ways technology changes the teacher-student Relationship, Technological Horizon In Education, vol. 25, no. 9, pp. 58-62. Murray GL, (1999), Exploring learners CALL experiences: a reflection on method, Computer Assisted Language Learning, vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 179-195.

Ozsevik, Z, (2010), The use of communicative language teaching (CLT): Turkish EFL teachers perceived difficulties in implementing CLT in Turkey, unpublished master s dissertation, University of Illionis. Shute, VJ, & Gawlick-Grendel, LA, (1996), Experimental approach to teaching and learning probability: Stat lady, Galaxy Scientific Corporation (NTIS No. ADA 316 969/5/XAB), Lack Land Air Force Base, TX. Spotts, DS, (1992), Comparison of computer-based training and conventional classroom training for technical instruction, (Report No. AFIT/CI/CIA-94-010), Air Force Institute of Technology (NTIS No. ADA 281 825), Wright-Patterson Air Force Base OH. Step-Greany, J, (2002), Student perceptions on language learning in a technological environment: implications for the new millenium, Language Learning & Teaching, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 165-80. Varol, B, & Yilmaz, S, (2010), Similarities and differences between female and male learners: inside and outside class autonomous language learning activities, Procedia Social and Behavioural Sciences, vol. 3, pp. 237-44. Watt, DLE, & Foscolos, D, (1998), Evaluating ESL Software for the Inclusive Classroom, International Electronic Journal for Leadership in Learning, vol. 2, no. 6. Weiss, J, (1994), Keeping up with the research, Technology and Learning, vol. 14, no. 5, pp. 30-34. Wenden, A, (1991), Learning Strategies for Learner Autonomy, Prentice Hall, London. Yumuk, A, (2002), Letting go of control to the learners: the role of the Internet in promoting a more autonomous view of learning in an academic translation course, Educational Research, vol. 44, no. 2, pp. 141-56.