Journals / IOJET / 2019 / Cilt: 6 - Sayı: 2

THOUGHTS ON LEARNER AUTONOMY IN A CALL SYSTEM TOGETHER WITH STUDENT PERCEPTIONS

Journal
IOJET
Pages
339–354
Publication Date
2022-10-18
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Though the students shoulder the responsibility oflearning, most students need guidance of their teachers to set goals for their learning process.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:In our institution, Quartet (computer software program) was a part of the curriculum whichprovides the students with the opportunity to work on their own in order to develop theirlanguage skills.
📊
Key Findings & Data:To what extent the learners benefit from the materials and the time providedfor them mainly depends on students since as Dakin suggests (1973) “though the teacher maycontrol the experiences the learner is exposed to, it is the learner who selects what is learntfrom them” (p. 16).
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Though the students shoulder the responsibility oflearning, most students need guidance of their teachers to set goals for their learning process.
🔬Design:Survey & Empirical Study
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

In our institution, Quartet (computer software program) was a part of the curriculum whichprovides the students with the opportunity to work on their own in order to develop theirlanguage skills. To what extent the learners benefit from the materials and the time providedfor them mainly depends on students since as Dakin suggests (1973) “though the teacher maycontrol the experiences the learner is exposed to, it is the learner who selects what is learntfrom them” (p. 16). According to the observations of teachers, some, but not all studentsworked effectively in lab lessons. This paper aims to identify the students’ perceptions aboutthemselves, the teacher, their peers and language learning to have an idea of their autonomyand their thoughts on computer assisted language learning. Data were gathered through a 46-item questionnaire. Frequency tests were used to determine the frequencies and percentagesof each item to find out the perceptions of participants on learner autonomy and theusefulness of computer lab lessons. Though the students shoulder the responsibility oflearning, most students need guidance of their teachers to set goals for their learning process.

🔖

Cite This Article

CEYLAN, N. O. (2022). THOUGHTS ON LEARNER AUTONOMY IN A CALL SYSTEM TOGETHER WITH STUDENT PERCEPTIONS. IOJET, Cilt: 6 - Sayı: 2, 339–354. https://ajindex.com/articles/542299

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (9)

  1. Ayres, R. (2002). Learner attitudes towards the use of CALL. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 15(3), 241-249.
  2. Bares, D. (1976). From communication to curriculum. Harmondsworth: Penguin. Benson, P. (2001). Teaching and researching autonomy in language. London: Longman. Beatty, K. (2003). Teaching and researching computer-assisted language learning. Essex: Pearson Education Limited. Chang, L. L. (2007). The effects of using CALL on advanced Chinese foreign language learners. CALICO Journal, 24(2), 331-353.
  3. Cotterall, S. (1995). Developing a course strategy for learner autonomy. English Language Teaching Journal, 49(3), 219-227.
  4. Cotterall, S. (1999). Promoting learner autonomy through the curriculum: Principles for designing language courses. ELT Journal, 54(2), 109-117.
  5. Dakin, J. (1973). The language laboratory and language learning. London: Longman. Dam, L. (1995). Learner autonomy 3: From theory to classroom practice. Dublin: Authentik. Dickinson, L. (1995). Autonomy and motivation: A literature review. System, 23(2)165-174.
  6. Felix, U. (2008). The unreasonable effectiveness of CALL: What have we learned in two decades of research? ReCALL, 20(2), 141-161. Gagné, R. M. (1977). The conditions of learning. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Harri- Augstein, S. and Thomas, L.F. (1979). Self-organised learning and the relativity of knowing: towards a conversational methodology. In P.Stringer and D. Bannister (Eds). Constructs of sociality and individuality. London: Academic Press, 115-132.
  7. Haliday, M.A.K. (1978). Language as social semiotic: the social interpretation of language and meaning. Sydney: Edward Arnold. Holec, H. (1981). Autonomy in foreign language learning. Oxford: Pergamon. Huttunen, I. (1986). Learning to learn languages: investigating learner strategies and learner autonomy. Report on Workshop 2B. Council for Cultural Cooperation. Council of Europe. Strasbourg. Logan, S., & Moore, N., (2003). Implementing learner training from a teacher’s perspective. Proceedings of the Independent Learning Conference 2003. Published 20 September 2003. Littlewood, (1996). Autonomy: An anatomy and a framework. System, 24(4) 427-435.
  8. Mitra, A., & Steffensmeier, T. (2000). Changes in students' attitudes and student computer use in a computer-enriched environment. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 32(3), 417-433.
  9. Nunan, D. (1996). Towards autonomous learning: Some theoretical, empirical and practical issues, Taking control: Autonomy in language le