July 2012, Volume 15, Issue 2, pp 171-193

How learning in an inverted classroom influences cooperation, innovation and task orientation

Jeremy F. Strayer

Download PDF (246 KB) View Article

Abstract
Recent technological developments have given rise to blended learning classrooms. An inverted (or flipped) classroom is a specific type of blended learning design that uses technology to move lectures outside the classroom and uses learning activities to move practice with concepts inside the classroom. This article compares the learning environments of an inverted introductory statistics class with a traditional introductory statistics class at the same university. This mixed-methods research study used the College and University Classroom Environment Inventory (CUCEI), field notes, interviews and focus groups to investigate the learning environments of these two classrooms. Students in the inverted classroom were less satisfied with how the classroom structure oriented them to the learning tasks in the course, but they became more open to cooperative learning and innovative teaching methods. These findings are discussed in terms of how they contribute to the stability and connectedness of classroom learning communities.
Juli 2012, Volume 15, Issue 2, pp 171-193 Bagaimana pembelajaran di kelas terbalik mempengaruhi kerjasama, inovasi dan orientasi tugas Jeremy F. Strayer Unduh PDF (246 KB) Lihat Pasal abstrak Perkembangan teknologi terbaru telah memunculkan kelas blended learning. Terbalik (atau membalik) kelas adalah jenis khusus desain blended learning yang menggunakan teknologi untuk memindahkan kuliah di luar kelas dan menggunakan kegiatan belajar untuk memindahkan berlatih dengan konsep di dalam kelas. Artikel ini membandingkan lingkungan belajar dari kelas statistik pengantar terbalik dengan kelas statistik pengantar tradisional di universitas yang sama. Ini penelitian campuran metode yang digunakan College dan Universitas Kelas Lingkungan Mainan (CUCEI), catatan lapangan, wawancara dan kelompok fokus untuk menyelidiki lingkungan belajar dari dua ruang kelas. Siswa di kelas terbalik kurang puas dengan bagaimana struktur kelas berorientasi kepada tugas-tugas belajar di kursus, tetapi mereka menjadi lebih terbuka terhadap pembelajaran kooperatif dan metode pengajaran yang inovatif. Temuan ini dibahas dalam hal bagaimana mereka memberikan kontribusi bagi stabilitas dan keterhubungan masyarakat kelas belajar.

Teacher interpersonal behaviour and student achievement in English as a Foreign Language classrooms in China

Michael Wei, Perry den Brok, Yalun Zhou

Download PDF (286 KB) View Article

Abstract
We examined the relationship between English as a Foreign Language (EFL) teachers interpersonal behaviour and students fluency in English in secondary education in China. A total of 160 students from four classes in the southwest part of China were asked to assess their teachers interpersonal behaviour using the Questionnaire on Teacher Interaction (QTI). This was the first time that the QTI was successfully translated and used (in EFL classrooms) in China. Cronbachs reliability coefficients for the scales were adequate, while confirmatory factor analyses provided support for the theoretical framework behind the questionnaire. Results showed that teacher uncertainty was negatively correlated with student achievement. Furthermore, the degree of teacher cooperation with students was the only significant predictor for student achievement, but its effect disappeared when student background variables were taken into account. Results also indicated a discrepancy between students perceptions of preferred and actual teacher interpersonal behaviour. The tolerantauthoritative profile was the most common interpersonal style based on Chinese students perceptions. Guru perilaku interpersonal dan prestasi siswa dalam bahasa Inggris sebagai kelas Bahasa Asing di Cina Michael Wei, Perry den Brok, Yalun Zhou Tampilkan ke-3 ... hide Download PDF (286 KB) Lihat Pasal Abstrak Kami meneliti hubungan antara bahasa Inggris sebagai Bahasa Asing (EFL) perilaku interpersonal dan siswa guru kefasihan dalam bahasa Inggris di pendidikan menengah di Cina. Sebanyak 160 siswa dari empat kelas di bagian barat daya Cina diminta untuk menilai perilaku antarpribadi guru mereka menggunakan kuesioner tentang Guru Interaksi (QTI). Ini adalah pertama kalinya bahwa QTI telah berhasil diterjemahkan dan digunakan (dalam EFL kelas) di Cina. Koefisien reliabilitas Cronbach untuk skala yang memadai, sedangkan faktor analisis konfirmatori memberikan dukungan untuk kerangka teoritis belakang kuesioner. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa ketidakpastian guru berkorelasi negatif dengan prestasi siswa. Selain itu, tingkat kerja sama guru dengan siswa adalah satu-satunya prediktor signifikan bagi prestasi siswa, namun efeknya menghilang ketika variabel latar belakang siswa yang diperhitungkan. Hasil penelitian juga menunjukkan perbedaan antara persepsi siswa terhadap guru perilaku interpersonal yang disukai dan aktual. Profil toleranotoritatif adalah gaya interpersonal yang paling umum berdasarkan persepsi mahasiswa Cina '.

July 2013, Volume 16, Issue 2, pp 183-199

Bullying behaviour, intentions and classroom ecology

Sarah Pryce, Norah Frederickson

Download PDF (247 KB) View Article

Abstract
Anti-bullying commitment across school communities is seen as crucial to the effectiveness of interventions. This exploratory study used a mixed-methods design to investigate bullying behaviour, intentions and aspects of the classroom ecology within the context of an antibullying initiative that was launched with a declaration of commitment. Across the sample of 14 primary school classes, containing 338 children aged 811 years, changes over time in peer-assessed and self-reported bullying and victimisation were found to be associated with changes in pupils sense of school belonging and perceptions of their classroom climate. Using a newly-developed theory of planned behaviour measure, changes in bullying were found to be associated with pupils intentions and perceived control with regard to engagement in bullying behaviour. No differences were found between intervention and comparison classes on any of the pupil outcome measures. However teachers of intervention classes reported a relative increase in perceived control over undertaking anti-bullying work with their class. The role of the class as a meaningful unit of analysis in the investigation of ecological-systemic bullying interventions in primary schools is highlighted.

Juli 2013, Volume 16, Issue 2, pp 183-199 Bullying perilaku, niat dan ekologi kelas Sarah Pryce, Norah Frederickson ... Menunjukkan semua 2 hide Download PDF (247 KB) Lihat Pasal Abstrak Komitmen anti-intimidasi di seluruh komunitas sekolah yang dianggap penting untuk efektivitas intervensi. Penelitian ini eksplorasi menggunakan desain campuran-metode untuk menyelidiki perilaku bullying, niat dan aspek ekologi kelas dalam konteks inisiatif antibullying yang diluncurkan dengan pernyataan komitmen. Seluruh sampel dari 14 kelas sekolah dasar, yang berisi 338 anak usia 8-11 tahun, perubahan dari waktu ke waktu dalam peer-dinilai dan dilaporkan sendiri bullying dan korban yang ditemukan terkait dengan perubahan dalam arti murid sekolah milik dan persepsi mereka iklim kelas. Menggunakan teori baru dikembangkan dari perilaku tindakan yang direncanakan, perubahan dalam bullying yang ditemukan terkait dengan niat murid dan kontrol yang dirasakan sehubungan dengan keterlibatan dalam perilaku bullying. Tidak ada perbedaan yang ditemukan antara intervensi dan kelas pembanding pada salah satu ukuran hasil murid. Namun guru kelas intervensi melaporkan peningkatan relatif dirasakan kontrol atas melakukan anti-intimidasi bekerja dengan kelas mereka. Peran kelas sebagai unit analisis yang berarti dalam penyelidikan intervensi intimidasi ekologi-sistemik di sekolah dasar disorot.

Computing laboratory classes as language learning environments

Zuhal Okan

Download PDF (351 KB) View Article

Abstract
Whereas most research on computer-assisted language learning (CALL) tends to rely heavily on the assessment of academic achievement and language learning outcomes, this study involved an evaluation of the psychosocial learning environment in computing laboratories. The What Is Happening In this Class? (WIHIC) and Attitude to Computers and Computing Courses (ACCC) questionnaires were administered to 152 university students undertaking 1year compulsory education courses in English at the Centre for Foreign Languages (YADIM) at ukurova University in Turkey. Analysis of data illuminated students perceptions of the computer laboratory class as a language learning environment and paved the way for further learning environment studies involving both students and teachers.

Kelas laboratorium komputasi sebagai lingkungan pembelajaran bahasa Zuhal Okan Tampilkan ke-1 ... hide Download PDF (351 KB) Lihat Pasal Abstrak Sedangkan sebagian besar penelitian tentang pembelajaran bahasa dengan bantuan komputer (CALL) cenderung sangat bergantung pada penilaian prestasi akademik dan hasil belajar bahasa, penelitian ini melibatkan evaluasi lingkungan belajar psikososial di laboratorium komputasi. The Apa yang Terjadi di kelas ini? (WIHIC) dan Sikap terhadap Komputer dan Kursus Komputer (ACCC) kuesioner yang diberikan kepada 152 mahasiswa melakukan 1tahun program wajib belajar dalam bahasa Inggris di Pusat Bahasa Asing (Yadim) di ukurova Universitas di Turki. Analisis data diterangi persepsi siswa dari kelas laboratorium komputer sebagai bahasa lingkungan belajar dan membuka jalan untuk studi lingkungan pembelajaran lebih lanjut yang melibatkan para siswa dan guru.

Students perceptions of science teachers interpersonal behaviour in secondary schools: Development of a Turkish version of the Questionnaire on Teacher Interaction

Sibel Telli, Perry den Brok, Jale Cakiroglu

Download PDF (191 KB) View Article

Abstract

The purpose of the study was to investigate the reliability and validity of a Turkish adaptation of an existing instrument for measuring teacher interpersonal behaviour. The Questionnaire on Teacher Interaction (QTI) maps teacher behaviour in terms of two dimensions: Influence (DominanceSubmission) and Proximity (CooperationOpposition). A sample of 674 students from 24 classes (Grades 911) of experienced teachers in two Turkish secondary schools participated in the study. Development of the instrument involved several steps: translation and back translation by teacher educators; piloting of different versions while refining the items; interviews with students and teachers to establish the importance of teacher interpersonal behaviour in the Turkish context; and a final administration of the questionnaire to the sample described. Interview data and statistical analyses supported the reliability and validity of the instrument. Turkish teachers were perceived by their students as very cooperative and moderately dominant. Mahasiswa persepsi guru sains perilaku antarpribadi di sekolah menengah: Pengembangan versi Turki Kuesioner tentang Guru Interaksi Sibel telli, Perry den Brok, Jale Cakiroglu Tampilkan ke-3 ... hide Download PDF (191 KB) Lihat Pasal Abstrak Tujuan dari penelitian ini adalah untuk menyelidiki reliabilitas dan validitas adaptasi Turki instrumen yang ada untuk mengukur perilaku antarpribadi guru. Kuesioner tentang Guru Interaksi (QTI) peta perilaku guru dalam hal dua dimensi: Pengaruh (Dominasi-Submission) dan Proximity (Kerjasama-Oposisi). Sebuah sampel dari 674 siswa dari 24 kelas (Kelas 9-11) dari guru yang berpengalaman dalam dua sekolah menengah Turki berpartisipasi dalam studi. Pengembangan instrumen melibatkan beberapa langkah: terjemahan dan kembali terjemahan oleh pendidik guru, uji coba versi yang berbeda sambil menyempurnakan item, wawancara dengan siswa dan guru untuk menetapkan pentingnya perilaku antarpribadi guru dalam konteks Turki, dan administrasi akhir kuesioner untuk sampel dijelaskan. Data wawancara dan analisis statistik mendukung reliabilitas dan validitas instrumen. Guru Turki yang dirasakan oleh siswa mereka sebagai sangat kooperatif dan cukup dominan.

Introduction
That new information and communications technologies hold great potential for improving the way in which people learn is not in doubt. Through the use of Internet applications (electronic mail, electronic journals, the World Wide Web), for example, realistic and meaningful activities can be brought into the classroom. When they are combined with text, sound, graphics and animation, computer technology can enrich and extend the instructional activities of the class. Thus, educators, as well as parents, rush out to invest large sums of money in computer laboratories on the assumption that computer technology will somehow transform the educational experience. This information technology pull has forced educators to consider more closely how the presence of computers could change the physical and psychosocial nature of classroom environments in either negative or positive ways (Zandvliet and Fraser 2005). Little research, however, has taken place to support this discussion. As Teh and Fraser (1995) state, Innovations in computer-assisted learning rarely have been evaluated in terms of their impact on the nature of the classroom learning environment as perceived by students (p. 178). Especially in the context of computer-assisted language learning, for which technology-induced pedagogy is seen as a panacea to teaching problems, such as lack of opportunities for real-life communication, motivation, and provision of authentic input, can the impact of technology be fully understood with reference to students perceptions on overall learning environment? The significance of this study is that it is one of the first to investigate the effectiveness of computer laboratory classes in a university setting as a language learning environment. The aim is to describe the psychosocial environments of laboratory classes where computer technology is used to supplement regular classes. We investigated what is happening in these laboratories more closely in an effort to maximise the possibilities offered for student learning and for the creation of viable learning environments.

Learning environment research

In the past four decades, learning environment research has firmly been established as a thriving field of study. The pioneering work of Kurt Lewin, who proposed that the interaction between the environment and the personal characteristics of the individual determines human behaviour, has contributed to the soaring interest in studying the learning environment. The term learning environment is most often associated with the physical aspects, the psychological or emotional conditions, and the social and cultural influences present in the classroom. It typically covers issues such as the effect of a classroom environment on student learning and attitudes, the effect of a schools environment on teacher job satisfaction and effectiveness, and the effect of technology on classroom environment (Fraser 1994). Much attention has been given to the development and use of instruments to assess the qualities of the classroom learning environment from the perspective of the student (Fraser 1986, 1994; Fraser and Walberg 1991), and the association between learning environment variables and student outcomes has provided a particular rationale and focus for the use of learning environment instruments. A great number of instruments to measure various aspects of the learning environment have been developed, such as Learning Environment Inventory (LEI), What Is Happening In this Class? (WIHIC), Science Laboratory Environment Inventory (SLEI), Computer Classroom Environment Inventory (CCEI) and the Constructivist Learning Environment Survey (CLES). The two common formats of these instruments are the actual form, which assesses the learning environment experienced by the students, and the preferred form, which focuses on the environment ideally preferred by the students.

Studies built on Lewins (1936) influential field theory and Walbergs (1981) theory of educational productivity found that students perceptions of the classroom psychosocial environment are associated with, and actually could predict, their affective, behavioural and cognitive learning outcomes (Fraser 1986, 1994, 1998; Fraser and Fisher 1982; Haertel et al. 1981). A review of recent publications indicates three general themes for contemporary classroom environment research: constructivist classroom environments (Taylor et al. 1995), teacher interpersonal behaviour in the classroom (Kent and Fisher 1997; Wubbels et al. 1993), and computer-assisted instruction classrooms (Teh and Fraser 1995). The increased use of computers in classrooms has led to studies in evaluating the effectiveness of computer-assisted learning (Fisher and Stolarchuk 1997; Teh and Fraser 1995; Zandvliet and Fraser 2005) and investigating the association between gender, computer experience and perceived environment (Levine and Donitsa-Schmidt 1995). In the context of computer-assisted language learning (CALL), Egbert and Jessup (1996) have focused on learner perceptions of a package of salient dimensions of an ideal computer-supported language learning environment. Their analytic and systemic analyses of learner perceptions indicate that learners perceive their learning environments in unexpected ways and that technology has an impact on these perceptions in that it allows the classroom to be individualised in ways that are not possible without technology. Egbert and Jessup also discuss implications for task construction and grouping and the importance of learner perceptions to acquire an understanding of computer-supported language learning environments. This study raised similar issues and aimed to contribute to an understanding of what is happening in computer-supported language learning environments and of how students perceive their learning environments.

Research methods
This study aimed to find answers to the following questions: 1. What are the characteristics of language learning environment in the computing laboratory and how do university students perceive their learning environments?

2. How do learners perceive the contribution and effect of computer technology in the learning environment?

3. Are the What Is Happening In this Class? (WIHIC) and Attitude to Computers and Computing Courses (ACCC) questionnaires valid measures of Turkish students attitudes toward computer technology and their perceptions of the computing laboratory as a classroom environment?

The setting The CALL applications at the Centre for Foreign Languages (YADIM) were carried out in computer laboratories housing 25 networked computers. The operating system was Windows XP. The software programs that were utilised are mainly for English language study. There is a range of software, from text-based grammar-practice programs to full multimedia (video/audio) based titles that enable learners to record their own voice and play it back. The activities carried out at the CALL laboratory included visiting websites to work with supplementary materials on the topics covered in the face-to-face teaching environment, such as grammar, reading, writing and listening skills. CALL activities used at YADM did not include using electronic chat rooms formally, but cross-cultural e-mail exchange was included after the students gained some competence in producing written work in English, which usually happens during the second term of the year. The students at YADIM utilise the computer suites on a regular basis of 1 or 2 h per week per class as a complement to face-to-face teaching in traditional classrooms. These classes run for 18-week semesters and are full-time courses (24 contact hours per week). The students also have a chance to use the computers at the Self-Access Centre for their free studies. Participants The questionnaires were administered to 152 students undertaking English courses involving a computing laboratory component within the Centre for Foreign Languages at ukurova University in Turkey. The ages of the students differed from 18 to 25 years, with the average age being 20.3 years. The number of male participants was 101 while the number of female participants was 51. Instruments The first set of data was collected utilising the questionnaire WIHIC (Fraser et al. 1996). The same questionnaire was used to assess students perceptions of the computer laboratory environment. The version of the WIHIC used in this study consisted of 7 scales and 42 items. These scales are Student Cohesiveness, Teacher Support, Involvement, Investigation, Task Orientation, Cooperation and Equity. The WIHIC has been extensively cross-validated in studies in Taiwan and Australia (Aldridge et al. 1999), the UK, Canada and Australia (Dorman 2003), Canada and Australia (Zandvliet and Fraser 2005), Korea (Kim et al. 2000) and the USA (Allen and Fraser 2007; Ogbuehi and Fraser 2007; Wolf and Fraser, in press). Table 1 provides a scale description and a sample item from each WIHIC scale. Table 1 Description of WIHIC scales Scale Student Cohesiveness Teacher Support Description Extent to which students know, help and are supportive of one another Sample item I know other students in this class. (+)

Extent to which the teacher helps, befriends, trusts The teacher takes a personal and is interested in students interest in me. (+) Extent to which students have attentive interest, participate in discussions, do additional work and enjoy the class I explain my ideas to other students. (+)

Involvement

Scale

Description Extent to which skills and processes of inquiry and their use in problem solving and investigation are emphasised

Sample item I carry out investigations to test my ideas. (+)

Investigation

Task Orientation

Extent to which it is important to complete I pay attention in this class. activities planned and to stay on the subject matter (+) Extent to which students cooperate rather than compete with one another on learning tasks I work with other students in this class. (+)

Cooperation

Equity

I am treated the same as Extent to which students are treated equally by the other students in this class. teacher (+)

This study also involved the use of the Attitude to Computers and Computing Courses (ACCC) questionnaire to measure students attitudes towards computers and computer courses (Newby and Fisher 1997a, b). All the scales have seven items. A scale description and a sample item from each ACCC scale is provided in Table 2. Table 2 Description of ACCC scales Scale Anxiety Description Extent to which the student feels comfortable using a computer Sample item Working with a computer makes me very nervous. (+)

Enjoyment Usefulness of Computers Usefulness of Course

Extent to which the student enjoys using I enjoy learning on a computer. (+) a computer Extent to which the students believes computers are useful Extent to which the student finds the course useful My future career will require a knowledge of computers. (+) I do not think I will use what I learned in this class. ()

Translation into Turkish and back translation Initially, the two questionnaires were translated into Turkish by the researcher. The next step involved an independent translation of the Turkish version into English by an academic who was not involved in the original translation. Then, the researcher checked the back translations, and subsequently some items were modified in the Turkish translation.

Results and discussion

Validation of WIHIC and ACCC For the purpose of validating both WIHIC and ACCC, confirmatory factor analyses were conducted on the data. These analyses were done using the LISREL 8.3 computer package. Interpretation of the values was based on Browne and Cudeck (1993). In accordance with their suggestions, Root Mean

Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) values should be as small as possible with perfect fit indicated by an index of zero. Values less than 0.05 indicate good fit. Goodness of Fit Index (GFI) values range from 0 to 1, with values above 0.95 indicating good model fit. For Parsimony Goodness of Fit Index (PGFI) and Parsimony Normed Fit Index (PNFI), values again range from 0 to 1 while values close to 1, which indicates perfect fit, are not expected. Confirmatory analysis for the measurement model produced the following results for the WIHIC, comprising 42 items with 6 items in each of 7 scales. While the RMSEA value was 0.07, GFI, PGFI, PNFI values were 0.68, 0.60 and 0.77, respectively. These results, on the basis of the standards given above, indicate a reasonable, but not perfect, model fit for the WIHIC (perhaps partly because of the small sample size). Figure 1 below also shows that regression coefficients for this model ranged from 0.14 to 0.85, while measurement errors ranged from 0.39 (SC2) to 0.93 (E2). In Fig. 1 the seven classroom environment dimensions are shown in ellipses, while scale items are shown in rectangles.

Fig. 1 Measurement model for the WIHIC Table 3 includes more validation information for the WIHIC, based on its use in Turkey. The reliability coefficient has been used as the index of scale internal consistency and ranges from 0.72 to 0.89, suggesting that the Turkish version of the WIHIC possess satisfactory internal consistency.

Table 3 Internal consistencies, means and standard deviations for WIHIC scales Scale reliability M SD

Student Cohesiveness 0.72 Teacher Support Involvement Investigation Task Orientation Cooperation Equity 0.81 0.86 0.85 0.81 0.84 0.89

20.14 3.51 16.88 4.92 20.62 4.78 17.78 4.94 23.17 4.39 19.11 5.11 25.23 4.66

The high mean scores on each scale of the WIHIC shown in Table 3 suggest a positive classroom environment, with the mean scores ranging between 25.23 and 16.88. The students perceived Equity, Task Orientation, Involvement, and Student Cohesiveness more positively. The scores for these four scales were 25.23 for Equity, 23.17 for Task Orientation, 20.62 for Involvement, and 20.14 for Student Cohesiveness. However, students rated the amount of Teacher Support and Investigation as lower. The interscale correlations for the WIHIC are presented in Table 4 below. The scale of Student Cohesiveness is correlated closely and positively with Cooperation (0.59) and Involvement (0.41). However, this correlation decreases with the other scales. Table 4 Interscale correlations for the WIHIC Correlation Scale Student Teacher Task Involvement Investigation Cooperation Equity cohesiveness support orientation 0.38** 0.42** 0.33** 0.29** 0.59** 0.22**

Student 1.00 Cohesiveness Teacher Support Involvement Investigation Task Orientation

1.00

0.50** 1.00

0.35** 0.41** 1.00

0.13 0.23** 0.36** 1.00

0.32** 0.31** 0.29** 0.35**

0.37** 0.31** 0.03 0.27**

Correlation Scale Student Teacher Task Involvement Investigation Cooperation Equity cohesiveness support orientation 1.00 0.32** 1.00

Cooperation Equity **p < 0.01

Confirmatory factor analysis of the ACCC data revealed an RMSEA value of 0.07, while GFI, PGFI, PNFI values were 0.81, 0.66 and 0.75, respectively. Figure 2 also shows that regression coefficients for this model ranged from 0.31 to 0.96. Measurement errors ranged from 0.20 (Item USECO1) to 0.83 (Item USECO3).

Fig. 2 Measurement model for the ACCC When confirmatory factor analysis also was conducted for the ACCC data, nearly all items loaded on their a priori scales, with the following exceptions: 1.

Item 1 in the Anxiety scale was omitted because its T-value is negative (0.68).

2. Item 2 in the Anxiety scale loaded on the Usefulness of the Course and Enjoyment scales (30.6 and 35.2, respectively).

3. Item 1 in the Usefulness of the Computers loaded on the Anxiety and Enjoyment scales (30.5 and 34.6, respectively).

These items were removed to refine the model which is shown in Fig. 2. Table 5 provides some cross-validation information for the ACCC when used specifically in the present sample of Turkish students. It is seen that the reliability figures for different ACCC scales range from 0.72 to 0.79. Table 5 Internal consistencies, scale means and standard deviations for the ACCC scales Scale Anxiety Enjoyment reliability M 0.79 0.74 SD

9.4 4.08 23.0 4.73 24.1 4.96 18.4 4.74

Usefulness of Computers 0.75 Usefulness of Course 0.72

Higher mean scores occurred on the scales of Enjoyment and Usefulness of Computers, whereas lower scores occurred on Usefulness of the Course and Anxiety. It seems that students at preparatory school found the language learning environment enjoyable and also were aware of the usefulness of the computer. On the other hand, their level of anxiety was quite low and students did not perceive learning English through computers to be particularly useful. The interscale correlations for the ACCC are presented in Table 6. The scales of Usefulness of the Course and Usefulness of Computers are correlated closely and positively with Enjoyment (0.51 and 0.55, respectively), but negatively with Anxiety (0.26). Table 6 Interscale correlations for the ACCC Correlation Scale Usefulness of course Anxiety Usefulness of computers Enjoy

Correlation Scale Usefulness of course Anxiety Usefulness of computers Enjoy Usefulness of Course Anxiety Usefulness of Computers Enjoy **p < 0.01 Associations between computer laboratory environment and attitudinal outcomes Table 7 presents results of analyses for associations between students perceptions of their computer laboratory environment (WIHIC) and their attitudes towards computers (ACCC). An examination of the simple correlation coefficients in Table 7 shows that only two relationships were statistically significant (p < 0.05). Teacher Support was positively and significantly related to students anxiety, and Investigation correlated negatively and significantly with the Usefulness of Computers scale. Table 7 Simple correlations for associations between WIHIC and ACCC scales Simple correlation Scale Usefulness of course Anxiety Usefulness of computers Enjoyment Student Cohesiveness 0.02 Teacher Support Involvement Investigation Task Orientation Cooperation Equity *p < 0.05 Characteristics of the learning environment Table 8 below lists the items in the WIHIC scale Student Cohesiveness together with the percentage frequency of each response alternative (Never, Rarely, Sometimes, Often and Always). A large majority of the students stated that they know other students in the class and that they make friendships easily among students. About half of the students often or sometimes get help from the other students and work well with them. 0.16 0.07 0.07 0.13 0.05 0.05 0.07 0.18* 0.08 0.02 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.08 0.14 0.14 0.19* 0.05 0.06 0.06 0.01 0.14 0.05 0.13 0.01 0.07 0.05 1.00 0.27** 0.23** 1.00 0.40** 1.00 0.51** 0.54** 0.55** 1.00

Table 8 Percentage frequency of responses to Student Cohesiveness items % frequency Item wording Never Rarely Sometimes Often Always I make friendships easily among students in this class. I know other students in this class. Members of the class are my friends. I work well with other class members. I help other class members who are having trouble with their work. In this class, I get help from other students. Total 0.0 1.3 2.0 6.5 3.3 5.9 3.8 3.9 2.6 7.8 17.6 11.8 20.3 10.6 12.4 7.8 20.3 32.7 26.1 37.9 22.9 35.3 33.3 31.4 26.8 25.5 21.6 29.0 48.0 54.2 37.9 15.7 32.7 13.7 33.7

Table 9 reports students perceptions as to the frequency of Teacher Support provided to them. A majority of the students perceived that the teacher never or rarely goes out of his/her way to help them. They stated that the teacher rarely or sometimes takes a personal interest in them or considers their feelings. These relatively low scores on Teacher Support must be interpreted with the Turkish educational context in mind. In Turkey, teachers generally have limited time to pay personal attention to their students because of large class sizes. Besides, in general, the students consider the teacher as knower and depend on him/her in terms of what they need to learn and how best to learn it. This respect for the teachers knowledge might mean that students would rarely question teaching methods or the lesson content. In some cases, the students respect for the teacher means that, even if they have difficulty understanding the content, they still wouldnt ask questions but would wait for the teacher to take the lead. That is probably why almost 60% of the students felt that teachers questions help them to understand what is going on in the laboratory. Table 9 Percentage frequency of responses to Teacher Support items % frequency Item wording Never Rarely Sometimes Often Always The teacher takes a personal interest in me. The teacher goes out of his/her way to help me. The teacher considers my feelings. The teacher is interested in my problems. 9.8 35.3 19.0 8.5 34.0 34.6 29.4 30.7 38.6 20.3 25.5 26.8 9.8 4.6 7.2 4.6

14.4 11.1 19.6 13.7

% frequency Item wording Never Rarely Sometimes Often Always The teacher moves about the class to talk with me. 13.7 The teachers questions help me to understand. Total 2.0 2.5 28.8 14.4 28.7 30.7 26.8 28.1 15.0 11.1 34.0 22.2 16.2 11.7

Table 10 includes items referring to the WIHICs Involvement scale (the involvement of the students in the laboratory practices). Most of the students believed that they can sometimes contribute to classroom discussions by asking questions or answering the questions directed to them by the teacher. It can be argued that the relatively low rating for Involvement is not very surprising given that the main concern of many Turkish teachers is to cover the curriculum on time. Besides, the selection of material is predetermined by the teacher and lessons are sequentially ordered and proceed at a relatively fixed pace. Therefore, computer technology is used to a lesser extent than it is desired for enabling students to be involved in the lesson or to take more control over their own learning. Table 10 Percentage frequency of responses to Involvement items % frequency Item wording Never Rarely Sometimes Often Always I discuss ideas in class. I give my opinions during class discussions. The teacher asks me questions. I ask the teacher questions. I explain my ideas to other students. My ideas and suggestions are used during classroom discussions. Total 2.0 3.9 1.3 3.3 3.3 2.0 2.6 11.8 14.4 14.4 22.2 13.1 16.3 15.4 22.9 30.1 49.7 37.3 36.6 44.4 36.8 28.1 22.9 24.8 22.9 28.1 23.5 25.0 34.6 28.1 9.2 13.7 18.3 13.1 19.5

Regarding the scale Investigation, Table 11 shows that more than half of the students felt that, in the computing laboratory, they rarely or sometimes are given the opportunity to explain the meanings of the statements or to undertake investigations to answer the questions coming from discussions or from the teacher herself/himself. A majority of the students, however, stated that they investigate to answer questions which puzzle them. This might mean that the teachers limited time for students on an individual basis might stimulate the development of students investigation skills. Table 11

Percentage frequency of responses to Investigation items % frequency Item wording Never Rarely Sometimes Often Always I explain the meaning of statements. I am asked to think about the evidence for statements. 2.6 10.5 27.5 38.6 30.1 22.9 17.6 38.6 28.8 33.3 34.6 28.1 21.6 17.0 16.3 22.9 30.7 9.2 4.6 8.5 8.5 15.7

I investigate to answer questions coming from discussions. 11.1 I find out answers to questions by doing investigation. 10.5

I carry out investigation in class to answer questions which 7.2 puzzle me. I carry out investigation in class to answer the teachers questions. Total 9.2 8.5

26.8 27.3

30.7 32.4

22.9 22.0

9.8 9.4

Table 12 lists the items in the Task Orientation scale. The responses indicated that a majority of the students know the goals of the laboratory sessions and pay attention during the class. Almost 75% of students stated that they try to understand the work in the class and feel that accomplishing something is important to them. The high scores on Task Orientation is not very surprising because students at YADIM are under great pressure to pass the proficiency examination given at the end of the preparatory year before they are allowed to follow their courses at their faculties. Therefore, they tend to persist with tasks that they find useful, especially when the tasks are linked to what is needed for examinations and assessments. Their commentsunfortunately, very few in number also indicated that the expectations of parents and teachers and the competitive nature of the university entrance examinations and placement system in Turkey, where only about one fifth of students can be placed in higher education programs, provided incentives for them to stay on task in class and to learn. Table 12 Percentage frequency of responses to Task Orientation items % frequency Item wording Never Rarely Sometimes Often Always I know the goals for this class. I am ready to start this class on time. I pay attention during this class. I try to understand the work in this class. 2.0 5.9 2.0 0.0 9.2 13.1 6.5 4.6 20.9 24.8 25.5 19.6 37.9 33.3 45.8 39.2 29.4 22.2 19.6 35.9

% frequency Item wording Never Rarely Sometimes Often Always Getting a certain amount of work done is important to me. I know how much work I have to do. Total 0.0 3.3 3.3 7.2 9.8 8.4 17.6 25.5 22.3 22.2 28.1 34.4 52.3 32.7 32.0

The frequencies of responses to items in the WIHIC Cooperation scale are shown in Table 13. When asked if they are able to cooperate with other students in the laboratory, most of the students chose rarely or sometimes. The reason might lie in the fact that, when students are using computers, they usually work alone. If they work together, it is in pairs, whereas working in small groups is much less common. Therefore, we do not see the use of computers supporting cooperative learning very frequently in the laboratory. Yet, more than half of the students seem to share their resources with others or learn from others. Table 13 Percentage frequency of responses to Cooperation items % frequency Item wording Never Rarely Sometimes Often Always I cooperate with other students when doing assignment work. 17.6 27.5 34.6 10.5 9.2

I share my books and resources with other students when 5.2 doing assignments. I learn from other students in this class. I cooperate with other students in this class. When I work in groups in this class, there is teamwork. I work with other students on projects in this class. Total 5.9 5.2 6.5 8.5 8.2

17.6 22.2 18.3 16.3 17.6 20.0

24.2 41.8 32.0 23.3 35.3 31.9

30.1 17.6 27.5 35.3 22.9 24.0

22.2 11.8 16.3 17.6 15.0 15.7

Table 14 lists the items in the Equity scale. It seems than an overwhelming majority of students were pleased with the frequency of help and attention provided in the laboratory. They believed that they are given equal opportunities during class discussions and receive the same amount of encouragement from the teacher as other students do. Table 14 Percentage frequency of responses to Equity items

% frequency Item wording Never Rarely Sometimes Often Always The teacher gives as much attention to my questions as to 2.0 other students questions. I get the same amount of help from the teacher as do other students. I am treated the same as other students in this class. I receive the same encouragement from the teacher as other students do. 0.0 1.3 0.7 7.8 13.7 28.8 47.1

3.9 2.6 2.0 11.8 3.9 5.3

15.7 9.2 15.7 15.7 16.3 11.8

30.1 34.6 29.4 24.2 26.8 29.0

49.7 51.6 51.6 44.4 51.6 49.3

My work receives as much praise as other students work. 3.3 I get the same opportunity to answer questions as other students. Total 0.7 1.6

Overall students perceptions of the learning environment in this study suggest that, on average, Turkish students perceived their classes as highly task oriented, moderately cohesive, cooperative and equitable, but less teacher supportive, and associated with involvement or stimulating investigation. The results suggest that students should receive more teacher support and involvement in the teaching/learning process and should cooperate with other students more than at present. Also, the teachers behaviour should be changed to be more helping/friendly and understanding so that the teacher can cater for the students interests. Student attitudes to computers and computing courses Table 15 presents each item in the ACCC Anxiety scale, together with the percentage frequency of each response alternative. A majority of the students felt that computers do not make them nervous (42% and 19%) and that they do not have a sinking feeling when they think about trying to use a computer. The item I feel aggressive and hostile towards computers, in particular, received the Never response from 62.7% of the students. Table 15 Percentage frequency of responses to Anxiety items % frequency Item words Strongly disagree 45.8 Disagree Not sure 15.7 Agree Strongly agree 5.2

Working with a computer makes me very nervous.

27.5

5.2

I get a sinking feeling when I think about trying 54.9 to use a computer.

19.6

16.3

5.2

3.3

% frequency Item words Strongly disagree 56.9 34.0 Disagree 22.2 33.3 Not sure 13.1 19.0 Agree 4.6 7.8 Strongly agree 2.6 5.2

Computers make me feel uncomfortable. Computers make me feel uneasy and confused. I feel aggressive and hostile towards computers. Total

62.7 42.4

13.7 19.4

13.7 13.0

5.2 4.7

3.9 3.4

Regarding the ACCC scale of Enjoyment, the percentages shown in Table 16 suggest that a clear majority of the students enjoyed using computers in the laboratory. Almost 70% of students found working with computers often or always enjoyable and stimulating. Table 16 Percentage frequency of responses to Enjoyment items % frequency Item words Strongly disagree 5.2 7.8 2.0 Disagree Not sure 24.2 14.4 20.3 Agree Strongly agree 31.4 54.2 35.9

It is fun to find out how computer systems work. I enjoy using a computer. I think working with computers would be enjoyable and stimulating. The challenge of solving problems using a computer does not appeal to me. I would like to work with computers. I enjoy learning on a computer. Total

15.7 5.9 13.1

22.9 17.0 28.1

31.4 3.3 3.9 8.1

28.1 9.8 9.8 13.7

26.1 17.0 19.6 20.3

5.9 21.6 26.1 20.3

7.8 47.7 39.9 36.2

The scale Usefulness of Computers includes items such as My future career will require knowledge of computers and The use of computers will increase in the future (see Table 17). The responses indicate that most of the students recognised the importance of the computers in their future life and believed that knowledge of the use of the computers will help them get a job (57%) (see Table 17). Table 17

Percentage frequency of responses to Usefulness of Computers items % frequency Item words Strongly disagree 3.3 Disagree Not sure 12.4 Agree Strongly agree 54.2

My future career will require knowledge of computers. I cannot imagine getting a job that does not involve using computers. Computers are an important factor in the success of a business. The use of computers will increase in the future.

6.5

22.9

13.1

13.7

15.0

15.7

41.8

4.6

3.9

9.8

19.6

61.4

5.9

7.2

8.5

13.7

64.1

All tertiary students need a course about using 6.5 computers. Knowledge of the use of computers will help me get a job. Total 3.3 6.1

15.7

19.0

23.5

34.6

11.1 9.7

10.5 12.5

17.6 18.8

56.8 52.2

Table 18 presents results for the scale Usefulness of the Course. More than 60% of the students felt that they will never use what they learned in this class. The percentage of students who stated that the course provides them with skills that they expect to use in the future is quite low, with almost half of the students strongly disagreeing with the statement. The findings also indicated that lessons conducted in the CALL laboratory dont contribute a great deal to their technical skills. This is not very surprising because, on the basis of the feedback obtained from the teachers, most of the students already had a high level of competence in the workings of the computers. That is probably why they found using CD-ROMs or navigating in the Internet not very demanding on their technical skills. What is interesting here is the high percentage of Not Sure responses given to all items in this scale. A possible explanation might be that being preparatory students, they were not fully aware of how they would make use of the language skills that they gain once they start their academic courses at their faculties. Students perceptions of usefulness of the course might also have been influenced by the fact that not all aspects of language learning are equally emphasised in the CALL laboratory. Of the four skills of speaking, listening, reading and writing, the receptive skills of listening and reading are more commonly addressed by the programs in the laboratory than the productive skills of speaking and writing. This asymmetry might have caused a feeling of discontent among students. Table 18 Percentage frequency of responses to Usefulness of Course items Item words % frequency

Strongly disagree I do not think I will ever use what I learned in this 6.5 class. This class provided me with skills I expect to use in 22.9 the future. This class has increased my technical skills. I gained few useful skills from this class. This class helped develop my problem-solving skills. 14.4 8.5 18.3

Disagree

Not sure 23.5

Agree

Strongly agree 25.5

5.9

37.9

24.8 34.6 8.5 28.8

24.8 20.9 20.3 28.8

19.0 17.6 43.8 11.8

7.8 11.8 18.3 11.8

As a result of this class, I feel confident about 12.4 tackling unfamiliar problems involving computers. Total 13.8

24.8 21.2

22.2 23.4

22.2 25.4

17.6 15.5

Summary and implications

The findings for the present study came from data collected from two different questionnaires, namely, the What Is Happening In this Class? (WIHIC) and the Attitude to Computers and Computing Courses (ACCC) questionnaires. The data support the cross-cultural validity of the classroom environment scales after they had been translated into the Turkish language and used for the first time in Turkey. Each scale in the WIHIC was found to display satisfactory internal consistency. Confirmatory factor analysis of the WIHIC and ACCC confirmed their a priori factor structure with a few minor exceptions. However, as Dorman (2003) suggested, it is generally problematic to obtain satisfactory fit for a model with seven latent variables and 42 observed variables. The variables in the ACCC also pose similar problems as the model fit indices indicated. Therefore, it is recommended that some items be modified to improve their discrimination among respondents. An examination of mean scores on WIHIC suggests that Teacher Support, Investigation and Cooperation receive lower scores relative to other scales. Seemingly, students did not receive enough teacher support, couldnt stay on task long enough to feel involved in the teaching/learning process, and were less cooperative when computers are used. These findings are supported by Schofields (1995) study which revealed that, although peer interaction increases when computers are used, in some cases, interaction becomes competitive rather than cooperative. Kim et al. (2000) also report higher mean scores for the scales of Student Cohesiveness, Task Orientation and Cooperation in the WIHIC, and lower mean scores for Teacher Support, Involvement and Investigation. These scores and patterns are almost the same as those in past research conducted in Australia and Taiwan (Aldridge et al. 1999). In contrast, the scores of Australian students in the study by Rawnsley and Fisher (1997) were higher for the scales of Teacher Support, Involvement and Equity than those of the Korean students. The reason could be that teachers are required to prepare a lesson plan to supplement a given curriculum on a specific timeline and incorporate the most beneficial Websites and CD-ROMs in the instruction. They are also faced with the problem of managing the class in a laboratory that has 25

computers. In addition, teachers have to allocate time for discussion and other hands-on activities important for language learning. Apparently, teachers need training or inservice education on how to incorporate technology in their instruction in order to create a positive language learning environment. Regarding the ACCC, all scales except Anxiety had high mean scores. Apparently, students enjoyed their CALL classes, believed in the use of these courses and the use of computers for their studies, but did not feel any fear or worry when computers were used. This might be attributed either to the limited availability of the CALL classes, which are given only 2 h a week, or to the classes being highly controlled by the teachers and most activities being structured by the teachers (Mucherah 2003). However, we need to be cautious when interpreting these results because the study involved no classroom observation component that could provide a more complete picture of the learning environment in the computing laboratory. The present study had some limitations. First, although the instruments used in the study have proved to be useful in the overall analysis of the classroom environments researched in the study, they could have been combined with lesson observation and student interview data. Second, considering teacher perceptions of learning environments could yield additional valuable insights into the dynamics of the laboratory classes. Thus, comparing student and teacher perceptions of the same environment would be possible. Third, the study could have included both psychosocial environment variables and physical environment variables within the same learning environments in classrooms in which information technologies are used. Nevertheless, even with an awareness of all of these limitations, this study still revealed a number of concerns that need to be addressed when implementing computer-assisted instruction in the learning process. Most of all, it points to the need of adopting a holistic view of learning environments. As a first step in this direction, the study identified the strengths and weaknesses of a language learning environment in a computer laboratory. Investigating issues, such as the role of teachers and when and how to use computer technology effectively in foreign language instruction, will be crucial as research on learning environment and the use of technology continues to develop. References Aldridge, J. M., Fraser, B. J., & Huang, T.-C. I. (1999). Investigating classroom environments in Taiwan and Australia with multiple research methods. Journal of Educational Research, 93, 4862.CrossRef Allen, D., & Fraser, B. J. (2007). Parent and student perceptions of classroom learning environment and its association with student outcomes. Learning Environments Research, 10, 6782.CrossRef Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K. A. Bollen & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equations (pp. 36162). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Dorman, J. P. (2003). Cross-national validation of the What Is Happening In this Class? (WIHIC) questionnaire using confirmatory factor analysis. Learning Environments Research, 6, 231 245.CrossRef Egbert, J. L., & Jessup, L. M. (1996). Analytic and systemic analyses of computer-supported language learning environments. TESL-EJ, 2(2), 24 pp. Retrieved June 29, 2005, from http://www.writing.berkeley.edu/TESL-EJ/ej06/toc.html Fisher, D. L., & Stolarchuk, E. (1997, November). The effects of using laptop computers on achievement, attitude to science and classroom environments in science. Paper presented at the annual conference of the Western Australian Science Education Association, Perth, Australia.

Fraser, B. J. (1986). Classroom environment. London: Croom Helm. Fraser, B. J. (1994). Research on classroom and school climate. In D. Gabel (Ed.), Handbook of research on science teaching and learning (pp. 493541). New York: Macmillan. Fraser, B. J. (1998). Classroom environment instruments: Development, validity and applications. Learning Environments Research, 1, 733.CrossRef Fraser, B., & Fisher, D. (1982). Predicting students outcomes from their perceptions of classroom psychosocial environment. American Educational Research Journal, 19, 498518.CrossRef Fraser, B. J., Fisher, D. L., & McRobbie, C. J. (1996). Development, validation and use of personal and class forms of a new classroom environment instrument. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York. Fraser, B., & Walberg, H. (Eds.). (1991). Educational environments: Evaluation, antecedents and consequences. Oxford, UK: Pergamon. Haertel, G. D., Walberg, H. J., & Haertel, E. H. (1981). Socio-psychological environments and learning: A quantitative synthesis. British Educational Research Journal, 7, 2736.CrossRef Kent, H., & Fisher, D. L. (1997). Associations between teacher personality and classroom environment. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago. Kim, H., Fisher, D., & Fraser, B. (2000). Classroom environment and teacher interpersonal behaviour in secondary science classes in Korea. Evaluation and Research in Education, 14, 322.CrossRef Levine, T., & Donitsa-Schmidt, S. (1995). Computer experience, gender, and classroom environment in computer-supported writing classes. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 13, 337 357.CrossRef Lewin, K. (1936). Principles of topological psychology. New York: McGraw-Hill. Mucherah, W. M. (2003). The influence of technology on the classroom climate of social studies classrooms: A multidimensional approach. Learning Environments Research, 6, 3757.CrossRef Newby, M., & Fisher, D. L. (1997a). An instrument for assessing the learning environment of a computer laboratory. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 16(2), 179190.CrossRef Newby, M., & Fisher, D. L. (1997b). Development and use of the Computer Laboratory Environment Inventory. In R. Kevill, R. Oliver, & R. Phillips (Eds.), ASCILITE97: What works and why. Proceedings of the 14th Annual Conference of the Australian Society for Computers in Tertiary Education (pp. 430 435). Perth, Australia: Curtin University of Technology. Ogbuehi, P. I., & Fraser, B. J. (2007). Learning environment, attitudes and conceptual development associated with innovative strategies in middle-school mathematics. Learning Environments Research, 10, 101114.CrossRef Rawnsley, D., & Fisher, D. (1997, December). Mathematics classroom learning environments: Do boys and girls view them differently? Paper presented at the Australian Joint Regional Conference of GASAT and IOSTE, Perth, Australia. Schofield, J. W. (1995). Computers and classroom culture. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Taylor, P., Dawson, V., & Fraser, B. (1995, April). Classroom learning environments under transformation: A constructivist perspective. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco. Teh, G., & Fraser, B. (1995). Development and validation of an instrument for assessing the psychosocial environment of computer-assisted learning classrooms. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 12, 177193.CrossRef Walberg, H. J. (1981). A psychological theory of educational productivity. In F. Farley & N. Gordon (Eds.), Psychology and education: The state of the union (pp. 81108). Berkely, CA: McCutchan. Wolf, S. J., & Fraser, B. J. (in press). Learning environment, attitudes and achievement among middle-school science students using inquiry-based laboratory activities. Research in Science Education. Wubbels, T., Crton, H., Levy, J., & Hooymayers, H. (1993). The model for interpersonal teacher behavior. In T. Wubbels & J. Levy (Eds.), Do you know what you look like?: Interpersonal relationships in education (pp. 1328). Washington DC: Falmer Press. Zandvliet, D. B., & Fraser, B. J. (2005). Physical and psychosocial environments associated with networked classrooms. Learning Environments Research, 8, 117.CrossRef

8.065.750 scientific documents at your fingertips

Browse by Discipline
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. Architecture & Design Astronomy Biomedical Sciences Business & Management Chemistry Computer Science Earth Sciences & Geography Economics Education & Language Energy Engineering Environmental Sciences Food Science & Nutrition Law Life Sciences Materials Mathematics Medicine Philosophy Physics Psychology Public Health Social Sciences Statistics

Our Content

Journals Books Book Series Protocols Reference Works

Other Sites

Springer.com SpringerImages SpringerProtocols SpringerMaterials SpringerReference

Help & Contacts

Contact Us Feedback Community Impressum

Legal Springer, Part of Springer Science+Business Media Privacy Policy, Disclaimer, General Terms & Conditions Not logged in Universitas Negeri Semarang Gedung H, Rektorat (3000176692) 11741 SpringerLink Indonesia eJourn Consortium (3000951794) 103.23.101.50 Springer for Research & Development

IntroductionThat informasi baru dan teknologi komunikasi memiliki potensi besar untuk memperbaiki cara di mana orang belajar tidak diragukan lagi . Melalui penggunaan aplikasi Internet ( surat elektronik , jurnal elektronik , World Wide Web ) , misalnya , kegiatan nyata dan berarti dapat dibawa ke dalam kelas . Ketika mereka dikombinasikan dengan teks, suara , grafis dan animasi , teknologi komputer dapat memperkaya dan memperluas kegiatan pembelajaran kelas. Dengan demikian , pendidik , serta orang tua , bergegas keluar untuk berinvestasi uang dalam jumlah besar di laboratorium komputer pada asumsi bahwa teknologi komputer entah bagaimana akan mengubah pendidikan informasi experience.This tarik teknologi telah memaksa pendidik untuk mempertimbangkan lebih dekat bagaimana kehadiran komputer bisa mengubah sifat fisik dan psikososial lingkungan kelas baik cara negatif atau positif ( Zandvliet dan Fraser 2005) . Penelitian kecil , bagaimanapun, telah terjadi untuk mendukung diskusi ini . Sebagai negara Teh dan Fraser ( 1995) , " Inovasi dalam belajar dengan bantuan komputer jarang telah dievaluasi dalam hal dampaknya terhadap sifat lingkungan belajar kelas seperti yang dirasakan oleh siswa " ( hal. 178 ) . Terutama dalam konteks pembelajaran bahasa dengan bantuan komputer , yang teknologi -induced pedagogi dipandang sebagai obat mujarab untuk masalah mengajar , seperti kurangnya kesempatan untuk komunikasi kehidupan nyata , motivasi , dan penyediaan input otentik , bisa dampak teknologi sepenuhnya dipahami dengan mengacu pada persepsi siswa terhadap lingkungan pembelajaran secara keseluruhan? arti penting dari studi ini adalah bahwa itu adalah salah satu yang pertama untuk menyelidiki efektivitas kelas laboratorium komputer dalam lingkungan universitas sebagai

lingkungan belajar bahasa. Tujuannya adalah untuk menggambarkan lingkungan psikososial laboratorium kelas di mana teknologi komputer digunakan untuk melengkapi kelas reguler . Kami menyelidiki apa yang terjadi di laboratorium ini lebih dekat dalam upaya untuk memaksimalkan kemungkinan yang ditawarkan untuk belajar siswa dan untuk menciptakan pembelajaran yang layak environments.Learning lingkungan researchin empat dekade terakhir , penelitian lingkungan belajar telah tegas telah ditetapkan sebagai bidang berkembang studi . Karya perintis dari Kurt Lewin , yang mengusulkan bahwa interaksi antara lingkungan dan karakteristik pribadi individu menentukan perilaku manusia , telah memberikan kontribusi untuk kepentingan melonjak dalam mempelajari lingkungan belajar . Istilah ' lingkungan belajar ' yang paling sering dikaitkan dengan aspek fisik , kondisi psikologis atau emosional , dan pengaruh sosial dan budaya hadir di dalam kelas . Ini biasanya mencakup isu-isu seperti pengaruh lingkungan kelas pada siswa belajar dan sikap , pengaruh lingkungan sekolah terhadap kepuasan kerja guru dan efektivitas, dan pengaruh teknologi terhadap lingkungan kelas ( Fraser 1994) . Banyak perhatian telah diberikan kepada pengembangan dan penggunaan instrumen untuk menilai kualitas lingkungan belajar kelas dari perspektif siswa ( Fraser 1986 , 1994, Fraser dan Walberg 1991) , dan hubungan antara variabel lingkungan belajar dan hasil siswa telah memberikan alasan tertentu dan fokus untuk penggunaan instrumen pembelajaran lingkungan . Sejumlah besar instrumen untuk mengukur berbagai aspek dari lingkungan belajar telah dikembangkan , seperti Lingkungan Belajar Inventory ( LEI ) , Apa yang Terjadi di kelas ini? ( WIHIC ) , Laboratorium Ilmu Lingkungan Mainan ( SLEI ) , Lingkungan Kelas Komputer Inventory ( CCEI ) dan Konstruktivis Lingkungan Survey Learning ( Cles ) . Dua format umum instrumen ini adalah bentuk yang sebenarnya , yang menilai lingkungan belajar yang dialami oleh siswa , dan bentuk yang diinginkan , yang berfokus pada lingkungan idealnya disukai oleh students.Studies dibangun di Lewin ( 1936 ) teori medan berpengaruh dan Walberg ini ( 1981 ) teori produktivitas pendidikan menemukan bahwa persepsi siswa terhadap lingkungan psikososial kelas yang berhubungan dengan , dan benar-benar bisa memprediksi , afektif mereka , perilaku dan hasil belajar kognitif ( Fraser 1986 , 1994 , 1998; Fraser dan Fisher 1982; Haertel dkk 1981) . . Sebuah tinjauan publikasi terbaru menunjukkan tiga tema umum untuk penelitian lingkungan kelas kontemporer : lingkungan konstruktivis kelas ( Taylor et al, 1995 . ) , Perilaku antarpribadi guru di kelas ( Kent dan Fisher 1997; Wubbels et al 1993. ) , Dan instruksi dengan bantuan komputer . kelas ( Teh dan Fraser 1995 ) peningkatan penggunaan komputer di ruang kelas telah menyebabkan studi dalam mengevaluasi efektivitas belajar dengan bantuan komputer ( Fisher dan Stolarchuk 1997 , Teh dan Fraser 1995; Zandvliet dan Fraser 2005) dan menyelidiki hubungan antara jender , pengalaman komputer dan lingkungan yang dirasakan ( Levine dan Donitsa - Schmidt 1995 ) . Dalam konteks pembelajaran bahasa dengan bantuan komputer ( CALL) , Egbert dan Jessup ( 1996) telah berfokus pada persepsi pelajar dari 'paket ' dari dimensi penting dari komputer yang didukung lingkungan belajar bahasa yang ideal . Mereka analisis analitik dan sistemik persepsi pembelajar menunjukkan bahwa peserta didik memahami lingkungan belajar mereka dengan cara yang tak terduga dan teknologi yang berdampak pada persepsi ini dalam yang memungkinkan kelas untuk menjadi ' individual ' dengan cara yang tidak mungkin tanpa teknologi . Egbert dan Jessup juga membahas implikasi untuk konstruksi tugas dan pengelompokan dan pentingnya persepsi pelajar untuk memperoleh pemahaman tentang komputer - didukung belajar bahasa studi environments.This mengangkat isu serupa dan bertujuan untuk memberikan kontribusi terhadap pemahaman tentang apa yang terjadi di bahasa komputer - didukung lingkungan belajar dan bagaimana siswa memahami pembelajaran environments.Research methodsThis studi mereka bertujuan untuk menemukan jawaban atas pertanyaan-pertanyaan berikut : 1.What adalah karakteristik lingkungan belajar bahasa di laboratorium komputasi dan bagaimana mahasiswa merasakan lingkungan belajar mereka ? 2.Bagaimana melakukan peserta didik memahami kontribusi dan pengaruh teknologi komputer dalam lingkungan belajar ? 3.Are Apa yang Terjadi di kelas ini? ( WIHIC ) dan Sikap terhadap Komputer dan Kursus Komputer (

ACCC ) kuesioner ukuran yang valid sikap mahasiswa Turki ' terhadap teknologi komputer dan persepsi mereka tentang laboratorium komputasi sebagai lingkungan kelas ? Aplikasi PANGGILAN Menyetel di Pusat Bahasa Asing ( Yadim ) dilakukan di laboratorium komputer perumahan 25 komputer jaringan . Sistem operasi adalah Windows XP . Program perangkat lunak yang digunakan terutama untuk belajar bahasa Inggris . Ada berbagai perangkat lunak , dari program tata bahasa praktek berbasis teks multimedia lengkap judul ( video / audio ) berbasis yang memungkinkan peserta didik untuk merekam suara mereka sendiri dan bermain kegiatan back.The dilakukan di laboratorium PANGGILAN termasuk mengunjungi website untuk bekerja dengan bahan tambahan pada topik yang dibahas dalam lingkungan pengajaran tatap muka , seperti tata bahasa , membaca, menulis dan keterampilan mendengarkan . Kegiatan PANGGILAN digunakan pada Yadim tidak termasuk menggunakan chat room elektronik resmi , tetapi pertukaran e -mail lintas budaya ini dimasukkan setelah siswa memperoleh beberapa kompetensi dalam memproduksi karya tulis dalam bahasa Inggris , yang biasanya terjadi selama jangka waktu kedua siswa year.The di Yadim memanfaatkan ruang komputer secara teratur 1 atau 2 jam per minggu per kelas sebagai pelengkap mengajar tatap muka di kelas tradisional . Kelas-kelas ini berjalan selama 18 - minggu semester dan program penuh waktu ( 24 jam kontak per minggu ) . Para siswa juga memiliki kesempatan untuk menggunakan komputer di - Self Access Centre for kuesioner studies.ParticipantsThe mereka gratis yang diberikan kepada 152 siswa melakukan kursus bahasa Inggris yang melibatkan komponen laboratorium komputasi dalam Pusat Bahasa Asing di ukurova Universitas di Turki . Usia para siswa berbeda dari 18 sampai 25 tahun , dengan usia rata-rata menjadi 20,3 tahun . Jumlah peserta lakilaki adalah 101 sementara jumlah peserta perempuan adalah 51.InstrumentsThe pertama set data dikumpulkan memanfaatkan

kuesioner ( Fraser et al . 1996) . Kuesioner yang sama digunakan untuk menilai persepsi siswa tentang lingkungan laboratorium komputer . Versi dari WIHIC yang digunakan dalam penelitian ini terdiri dari 7 skala dan 42 item . Skala ini Kohesivitas Mahasiswa , Dukungan Guru , Keterlibatan , Investigasi , Orientasi Tugas , Kerjasama dan Ekuitas . WIHIC telah secara ekstensif cross- divalidasi dalam studi di Taiwan dan Australia ( Aldridge et al . 1999) , Inggris , Kanada dan Australia ( Dorman 2003) , Kanada dan Australia ( Zandvliet dan Fraser 2005) , Korea ( Kim et al . 2000 ) dan Amerika Serikat ( Allen dan

Fraser 2007; Ogbuehi dan Fraser 2007; Wolf dan Fraser , dalam pers ) . Tabel 1 memberikan gambaran skala dan item sampel dari setiap skala WIHIC . tabel 1 Keterangan skala WIHIC Skala Deskripsi Item Sampel Mahasiswa Kohesivitas Sejauh mana siswa mengetahui , membantu dan mendukung satu sama lain saya tahu siswa lain di kelas ini . ( + ) Guru Dukungan Sejauh mana guru membantu , berteman , trust dan tertarik pada siswa Guru mengambil kepentingan pribadi dalam diriku . ( + ) Keterlibatan Sejauh mana siswa memiliki minat perhatian , berpartisipasi dalam diskusi , melakukan pekerjaan tambahan dan menikmati kelas saya menjelaskan ideide saya ke siswa lain . ( + ) Luas Investigasi mana keterampilan dan proses penyelidikan dan penggunaannya dalam pemecahan masalah dan investigasi ditekankan Saya melakukan penyelidikan untuk menguji ide-ide saya . ( + ) Orientasi Tugas Sejauh mana adalah penting untuk menyelesaikan kegiatan yang

direncanakan dan tinggal pada subyek saya membayar perhatian di kelas ini . ( + ) Luas kerjasama yang siswa bekerja sama daripada bersaing satu sama lain dalam tugas saya bekerja dengan siswa lain di kelas belajar ini . ( + ) Luas ekuitas yang siswa diperlakukan sama oleh guru saya diperlakukan sama dengan siswa lain di kelas ini . ( + ) Penelitian ini juga melibatkan penggunaan Sikap terhadap Komputer dan Kursus Komputer ( ACCC ) kuesioner untuk mengukur sikap siswa terhadap komputer dan program computer ( Newby dan Fisher 1997a , b ) . Semua sisik memiliki tujuh item. Penjelasan skala dan item sampel dari setiap skala ACCC disajikan dalam Tabel 2 . tabel 2 Keterangan skala ACCC Skala Deskripsi Item Sampel Kecemasan Sejauh mana siswa merasa nyaman menggunakan komputer Bekerja dengan komputer membuat saya sangat gugup . ( + ) Kenikmatan Sejauh mana siswa menikmati menggunakan komputer saya menikmati

belajar di komputer . ( + ) Kegunaan Komputer Sejauh mana siswa percaya komputer berguna karir masa depan saya akan membutuhkan pengetahuan tentang komputer . ( + ) Kegunaan Kursus Sejauh mana siswa menemukan kursus berguna Saya tidak berpikir saya akan menggunakan apa yang saya pelajari di kelas ini . ( - ) Penerjemahan ke dalam bahasa Turki dan kembali translationInitially , dua kuesioner diterjemahkan ke dalam bahasa Turki oleh peneliti . Langkah selanjutnya melibatkan terjemahan independen dari versi Turki ke dalam bahasa Inggris oleh seorang akademisi yang tidak terlibat dalam terjemahan asli . Kemudian , peneliti memeriksa kembali terjemahan , dan kemudian beberapa item yang dimodifikasi dalam translation.Results Turki dan discussionValidation dari WIHIC dan ACCCFor tujuan memvalidasi baik WIHIC dan ACCC , analisis faktor konfirmatori dilakukan pada data . Analisis ini dilakukan dengan menggunakan LISREL 8.3 paket komputer . Interpretasi dari nilainilai didasarkan pada Browne dan Cudeck ( 1993) . Sesuai dengan saran mereka , Root

Mean Square Error of Approximation ( RMSEA ) nilai harus sekecil mungkin dengan sempurna ditunjukkan oleh indeks nol . Nilai yang kurang dari 0,05 mengindikasikan cocok. Goodness of Fit Index ( GFI ) nilai berkisar dari 0 hingga 1, dengan nilai di atas 0,95 menunjukkan cocok Model . Untuk kekikiran Goodness of Fit Index ( PGFI ) dan kekikiran bernorma Fit Index ( PNFI ) , nilai lagi berkisar antara 0 sampai 1 sedangkan nilai mendekati 1 , yang menunjukkan cocok , tidak expected.Confirmatory analisis untuk model pengukuran menghasilkan hasil sebagai berikut untuk WIHIC , yang terdiri dari 42 item dengan 6 item di setiap dari 7 skala . Sedangkan nilai RMSEA itu 0,07 , GFI , PGFI , nilai PNFI adalah 0,68 , 0,60 dan 0,77 , masing-masing. Hasil ini , berdasarkan standar yang diberikan di atas , menunjukkan akal , tapi tidak sempurna , model fit untuk WIHIC (mungkin sebagian karena ukuran sampel yang kecil ) . Gambar 1 di bawah ini juga menunjukkan bahwa koefisien regresi untuk model ini berkisar 0,14-0,85 , sementara kesalahan pengukuran berkisar antara 0,39 ( SC2 ) menjadi 0,93 ( E2 ) . Dalam Gambar . 1

dimensi lingkungan kelas tujuh ditunjukkan dalam elips , sedangkan item skala ditunjukkan dalam persegi panjang . Gambar . 1 Model pengukuran untuk WIHICTable 3 mencakup informasi validasi lebih untuk WIHIC tersebut , berdasarkan penggunaannya di Turki . The Koefisien reliabilitas telah digunakan sebagai indeks konsistensi internal skala dan rentang 0,720,89 , menunjukkan bahwa versi Turki WIHIC yang memiliki konsistensi internal yang memuaskan . tabel 3 Konsistensi internal , dan standar deviasi untuk skala WIHIC Skala kehandalan M SD Kohesivitas Mahasiswa 0,72 20,14 3,51 Dukungan Guru 0.81 16.88 4.92 Keterlibatan 0.86 20.62 4.78 Investigasi 0.85 17.78 4.94 Orientasi Tugas 0,81 23,17 4,39 Kerjasama 0.84 19.11 5.11 Ekuitas 0.89 25.23 4.66 Nilai rata-rata yang tinggi pada setiap skala

WIHIC ditunjukkan pada Tabel 3 menunjukkan lingkungan kelas yang positif , dengan nilai rata-rata berkisar antara 25,23 dan 16,88 . Para siswa dirasakan Ekuitas , Orientasi Tugas , Keterlibatan , dan Kohesivitas Mahasiswa lebih positif . Skor untuk keempat skala adalah 25,23 untuk Ekuitas , 23,17 untuk Orientasi Tugas , 20,62 untuk Keterlibatan , dan 20,14 untuk Kohesivitas Mahasiswa . Namun, siswa dinilai jumlah Dukungan Guru dan Investigasi sebagai lower.The korelasi interscale untuk WIHIC yang disajikan pada Tabel 4 di bawah ini . Skala Kohesivitas Mahasiswa berkorelasi erat dan positif dengan Kerjasama ( 0.59 ) dan Keterlibatan ( 0.41 ) . Namun, korelasi ini menurun dengan skala lainnya . tabel 4 Korelasi interscale untuk WIHIC skala Korelasi Mahasiswa kekompakan Guru dukungan Keterlibatan Investigasi Tugas orientasi Kerjasama Ekuitas Kohesivitas Mahasiswa 1,00 0,38 ** 0,42 ** 0,33 ** 0,29 ** 0,59 ** 0,22 ** Dukungan Guru 1,00 0,50 ** 0,35 ** 0,13

0,32 ** 0,37 ** Keterlibatan 1.00 0.41 ** 0.23 ** 0.31 ** 0.31 ** Investigasi 1,00 0,36 ** 0,29 ** 0,03 Orientasi Tugas 1,00 0,35 ** 0,27 ** Kerjasama 1,00 0,32 ** ekuitas 1.00 ** p < 0.01Confirmatory analisis faktor data ACCC mengungkapkan nilai RMSEA sebesar 0,07 , sedangkan GFI , PGFI , nilai PNFI adalah 0,81 , 0,66 dan 0,75 , masingmasing. Gambar 2 juga menunjukkan bahwa koefisien regresi untuk model ini berkisar 0,31-0,96 . Kesalahan pengukuran berkisar dari 0,20 ( Butir USECO1 ) sampai 0,83 ( Butir USECO3 ) . Gambar . 2 Model pengukuran untuk analisis faktor konfirmatori ACCCWhen juga dilakukan untuk data ACCC , hampir semua item dimuat pada skala priori mereka , dengan pengecualian berikut : 1.Item 1 dalam skala Kecemasan dihilangkan karena nilai T adalah negatif ( 0.68 ) .

2.Item 2 dalam skala Kecemasan dimuat pada Kegunaan dari Kursus dan skala Kenikmatan ( 30,6 dan 35,2 , masingmasing) . 3.Item 1 di Kegunaan Komputer dimuat pada Kecemasan dan skala Kenikmatan ( 30,5 dan 34,6 , masing-masing) . Item ini telah dihapus untuk memperbaiki model yang ditunjukkan pada Gambar . 2.Table 5 memberikan beberapa informasi crossvalidasi untuk ACCC bila digunakan secara khusus dalam sampel ini dari mahasiswa Turki . Hal ini terlihat bahwa angka reliabilitas untuk skala ACCC berbeda berkisar 0,72-0,79 . tabel 5 Konsistensi internal , skala dan standar deviasi untuk skala ACCC Skala kehandalan M SD Kecemasan 0.79 9.4 4.08 Kenikmatan 0.74 23.0 4.73 Kegunaan Komputer 0,75 24,1 4,96 Kegunaan Course 0.72 18.4 4.74 Nilai rata-rata yang lebih tinggi terjadi pada skala Kenikmatan dan Kegunaan Komputer , sedangkan nilai yang lebih rendah terjadi pada Kegunaan dari Kursus

dan Kecemasan . Tampaknya bahwa siswa di sekolah persiapan menemukan lingkungan pembelajaran bahasa menyenangkan dan juga menyadari kegunaan komputer . Di sisi lain , tingkat kecemasan cukup rendah dan siswa tidak menganggap belajar bahasa Inggris melalui komputer menjadi korelasi interscale terutama useful.The untuk ACCC disajikan pada Tabel 6 . Timbangan Kegunaan dari Kursus dan Kegunaan Komputer berkorelasi erat dan positif dengan Kenikmatan ( 0,51 dan 0,55 , masingmasing) , namun negatif dengan Kecemasan ( 0,26 ) . tabel 6 Korelasi interscale untuk ACCC skala Korelasi Kegunaan tentu Kecemasan Kegunaan komputer Nikmati Kegunaan Course 1.00 -0.27 ** 0,23 ** 0,51 ** Kecemasan 1.00 -0.40 -0.54 ** ** Kegunaan Komputer 1,00 0,55 ** Nikmati 1.00 ** p < 0.01Associations antara lingkungan

laboratorium komputer dan sikap outcomesTable 7 menyajikan hasil analisis untuk hubungan antara persepsi siswa terhadap lingkungan mereka komputer laboratorium ( WIHIC ) dan sikap mereka terhadap komputer ( ACCC ) . Pemeriksaan koefisien korelasi sederhana dalam Tabel 7 menunjukkan bahwa hanya dua hubungan yang signifikan secara statistik ( p < 0,05 ) . Dukungan Guru adalah positif dan signifikan berkaitan dengan kecemasan siswa , dan Investigasi berkorelasi negatif dan signifikan dengan Kegunaan skala Komputer . tabel 7 Korelasi sederhana untuk hubungan antara skala WIHIC dan ACCC Skala Sederhana korelasi Kegunaan tentu Kecemasan Kegunaan komputer Kenikmatan Kohesivitas Mahasiswa -0,02 0,07 -0,08 0,01 Dukungan Guru -0,16 0,18 * -0,14 -0,14 Keterlibatan -0,07 0,08 -0,14 -0,05 Investigasi -0,07 -0,02 -0,19 * -0,13 Orientasi Tugas -0.13 -0.06 -0.05 -0.01 Kerjasama 0.05 -0.07 0.06 0.07

Ekuitas -0,05 0,08 -0,06 -0,05 * p < 0.05Characteristics dari pembelajaran environmentTable 8 bawah daftar item di WIHIC Kohesivitas Mahasiswa skala bersama dengan frekuensi persentase setiap alternatif respon ( Tidak pernah , Jarang , Kadang-kadang , sering dan selalu ) . Sebagian besar siswa menyatakan bahwa mereka tahu siswa lain di kelas dan bahwa mereka menjalin persahabatan dengan mudah di antara siswa . Sekitar setengah dari siswa 'sering' atau ' kadang-kadang ' mendapatkan bantuan dari siswa lain dan bekerja dengan baik dengan mereka . tabel 8 Frekuensi Persentase tanggapan terhadap item Kohesivitas Mahasiswa Barang kata-kata frekuensi % Tidak pernah Jarang Kadang-kadang Sering Selalu Saya menjalin persahabatan dengan mudah di antara siswa di kelas ini . 0,0 3,9 12,4 35,3 48,0 Aku tahu siswa lain di kelas ini . 1,3 2,6 7,8 33,3 54,2

Anggota kelas adalah teman saya. 2,0 7,8 20,3 31,4 37,9 Saya bekerja baik dengan anggota kelas yang lain . 6,5 17,6 32,7 26,8 15,7 Saya membantu anggota kelas yang lain yang mengalami kesulitan dengan pekerjaan mereka . 3,3 11,8 26,1 25,5 32,7 Di kelas ini, saya mendapatkan bantuan dari siswa lain . 5,9 20,3 37,9 21,6 13,7 Jumlah 3,8 10,6 22,9 29,0 33,7 Persepsi Tabel 9 laporan siswa untuk frekuensi Dukungan Guru diberikan kepada mereka . Sebagian besar siswa merasa bahwa guru 'tidak pernah ' atau ' jarang ' keluar dari / nya cara-nya untuk membantu mereka . Mereka menyatakan bahwa guru ' jarang ' atau ' kadangkadang ' mengambil kepentingan pribadi di dalamnya atau mempertimbangkan perasaan mereka . Ini skor yang relatif rendah pada Dukungan Guru harus ditafsirkan dengan konteks pendidikan Turki dalam pikiran . Di Turki , para guru pada umumnya memiliki waktu terbatas untuk membayar perhatian pribadi kepada siswa mereka karena kelas yang besar . Selain itu , secara umum , para siswa menganggap guru sebagai mengetahui dan

bergantung padanya / dia dalam hal apa yang mereka butuhkan untuk belajar dan bagaimana cara terbaik untuk mempelajarinya . Hal ini untuk pengetahuan guru mungkin berarti bahwa siswa akan jarang mempertanyakan metode pengajaran atau isi pelajaran . Dalam beberapa kasus , rasa hormat siswa bagi guru berarti bahwa , bahkan jika mereka mengalami kesulitan untuk memahami konten, mereka masih tidak akan mengajukan pertanyaan tapi akan menunggu guru untuk memimpin . Itu mungkin mengapa hampir 60 % dari siswa merasa pertanyaan yang guru membantu mereka untuk memahami apa yang terjadi di laboratorium . tabel 9 Frekuensi Persentase tanggapan terhadap Guru Dukungan item Barang kata-kata frekuensi % Tidak pernah Jarang Kadang-kadang Sering Selalu Guru mengambil kepentingan pribadi dalam diriku . 9,8 34,0 38,6 9,8 7,2 Guru keluar dari / nya jalan untuk membantu saya . 35,3 34,6 20,3 4,6 4,6

Guru mempertimbangkan perasaan saya . 19,0 29,4 25,5 14,4 11,1 Guru adalah tertarik pada masalah saya. 8,5 30,7 26,8 19,6 13,7 Guru bergerak tentang kelas untuk berbicara dengan saya . 13,7 28,8 30,7 15,0 11,1 Pertanyaan guru membantu saya untuk memahami . 2,0 14,4 26,8 34,0 22,2 Jumlah 2,5 28,7 28,1 16,2 11,7 Tabel 10 mencakup item mengacu pada skala Keterlibatan para WIHIC itu ( keterlibatan siswa dalam praktek laboratorium ) . Sebagian besar murid percaya bahwa mereka dapat ' kadangkadang ' berkontribusi dalam diskusi kelas dengan mengajukan pertanyaan atau menjawab pertanyaan yang ditujukan kepada mereka oleh guru . Hal ini dapat dikatakan bahwa rating yang relatif rendah untuk Keterlibatan tidak terlalu mengherankan mengingat bahwa perhatian utama dari banyak guru Turki adalah untuk menutupi kurikulum tepat waktu . Selain itu , pemilihan bahan ditentukan oleh guru dan pelajaran secara berurutan memerintahkan dan dilanjutkan pada kecepatan yang relatif tetap . Oleh karena

itu , teknologi komputer digunakan untuk tingkat yang lebih rendah daripada yang diinginkan untuk memungkinkan siswa untuk terlibat dalam pelajaran atau untuk mengambil kontrol atas pembelajaran mereka sendiri . tabel 10 Frekuensi Persentase tanggapan terhadap item Keterlibatan Barang kata-kata frekuensi % Tidak pernah Jarang Kadang-kadang Sering Selalu Saya mendiskusikan ide di kelas . 2,0 11,8 22,9 28,1 34,6 Saya memberikan pendapat saya selama diskusi kelas . 3,9 14,4 30,1 22,9 28,1 Guru meminta saya pertanyaan. 1,3 14,4 49,7 24,8 9,2 Saya mengajukan pertanyaan guru . 3,3 22,2 37,3 22,9 13,7 Saya menjelaskan ide-ide saya ke siswa lain . 3,3 13,1 36,6 28,1 18,3 Ide dan saran saya digunakan selama diskusi kelas . 2,0 16,3 44,4 23,5 13,1 Jumlah 2,6 15,4 36,8 25,0 19,5 Mengenai Investigasi skala , Tabel 11 menunjukkan bahwa lebih dari setengah

dari siswa merasa bahwa , di laboratorium komputasi , mereka ' jarang ' atau ' kadang-kadang ' diberi kesempatan untuk menjelaskan arti dari pernyataan atau untuk melakukan investigasi untuk menjawab pertanyaan berasal dari diskusi atau dari guru sendiri / dirinya sendiri . Mayoritas mahasiswa , bagaimanapun , menyatakan bahwa mereka menyelidiki untuk menjawab pertanyaan yang membingungkan mereka. Ini mungkin berarti bahwa waktu guru terbatas untuk siswa secara individual mungkin akan merangsang pengembangan keterampilan investigasi siswa . tabel 11 Frekuensi Persentase tanggapan terhadap item Investigasi Barang kata-kata frekuensi % Tidak pernah Jarang Kadang-kadang Sering Selalu Saya menjelaskan arti pernyataan . 2,6 27,5 38,6 21,6 9,2 Saya diminta untuk berpikir tentang bukti untuk laporan . 10,5 38,6 28,8 17,0 4,6 Aku menyelidiki untuk menjawab pertanyaan yang datang dari diskusi . 11,1

30,1 33,3 16,3 8,5 Saya menemukan jawaban untuk pertanyaan dengan melakukan penyelidikan . 10,5 22,9 34,6 22,9 8,5 Saya melakukan penyelidikan di kelas untuk menjawab pertanyaan yang membingungkan saya . 7,2 17,6 28,1 30,7 15,7 Saya melakukan penyelidikan di kelas untuk menjawab pertanyaan guru . 9,2 26,8 30,7 22,9 9,8 Jumlah 8,5 27,3 32,4 22,0 9,4 Tabel 12 daftar item dalam skala Orientasi Tugas . Tanggapan menunjukkan bahwa mayoritas siswa mengetahui tujuan dari sesi laboratorium dan memperhatikan selama kelas . Hampir 75 % siswa menyatakan bahwa mereka mencoba untuk memahami pekerjaan di kelas dan merasa bahwa mencapai sesuatu yang penting bagi mereka . Skor tinggi pada Orientasi Tugas ini tidak terlalu mengejutkan karena siswa di Yadim berada di bawah tekanan besar untuk lulus ujian kemahiran diberikan pada akhir tahun persiapan sebelum mereka diizinkan untuk mengikuti program mereka di fakultas mereka. Oleh karena itu, mereka cenderung bertahan

dengan tugas-tugas yang mereka anggap berguna , terutama ketika tugas-tugas yang terkait dengan apa yang dibutuhkan untuk ujian dan penilaian . Komentar - sayangnya mereka , sangat sedikit jumlahnya - juga menunjukkan bahwa harapan orang tua dan guru dan sifat kompetitif dari ujian masuk universitas dan sistem penempatan di Turki , di mana hanya sekitar seperlima dari siswa dapat ditempatkan dalam program pendidikan tinggi , disediakan insentif bagi mereka untuk tetap pada tugas di kelas dan belajar . tabel 12 Frekuensi Persentase tanggapan terhadap Tugas item Orientasi Barang kata-kata frekuensi % Tidak pernah Jarang Kadang-kadang Sering Selalu Aku tahu tujuan untuk kelas ini . 2,0 9,2 20,9 37,9 29,4 Saya siap untuk memulai kelas ini tepat waktu . 5,9 13,1 24,8 33,3 22,2 Saya perhatikan selama kelas ini . 2,0 6,5 25,5 45,8 19,6 Saya mencoba untuk memahami pekerjaan di kelas ini . 0,0 4,6 19,6 39,2 35,9

Mendapatkan sejumlah kerja yang dilakukan adalah penting bagi saya . 0,0 7,2 17,6 22,2 52,3 Aku tahu berapa banyak pekerjaan yang harus saya lakukan . 3,3 9,8 25,5 28,1 32,7 Jumlah 3,3 8,4 22,3 34,4 32,0 Frekuensi tanggapan terhadap item dalam skala Kerjasama WIHIC ditunjukkan pada Tabel 13 . Ketika ditanya apakah mereka bisa bekerja sama dengan siswa lain di laboratorium , sebagian besar siswa memilih ' jarang ' atau ' kadang-kadang ' . Alasannya mungkin terletak pada kenyataan bahwa , ketika siswa menggunakan komputer , mereka biasanya bekerja sendirian . Jika mereka bekerja sama , itu di pasang , sedangkan bekerja dalam kelompok kecil jauh kurang umum . Oleh karena itu, kita tidak melihat penggunaan komputer yang mendukung pembelajaran kooperatif sangat sering di laboratorium . Namun , lebih dari setengah dari siswa tampaknya untuk berbagi sumber daya mereka dengan orang lain atau belajar dari orang lain . tabel 13 Frekuensi Persentase tanggapan terhadap

item Kerjasama Barang kata-kata frekuensi % Tidak pernah Jarang Kadang-kadang Sering Selalu Saya bekerja sama dengan siswa lain ketika melakukan pekerjaan tugas . 17,6 27,5 34,6 10,5 9,2 Saya berbagi buku dan sumber daya saya dengan siswa lain ketika melakukan tugas . 5,2 17,6 24,2 30,1 22,2 Saya belajar dari siswa lain di kelas ini . 5,9 22,2 41,8 17,6 11,8 Saya bekerja sama dengan siswa lain di kelas ini . 5,2 18,3 32,0 27,5 16,3 Ketika saya bekerja dalam kelompok di kelas ini , ada kerja sama tim . 6,5 16,3 23,3 35,3 17,6 Saya bekerja dengan siswa lain pada proyek-proyek di kelas ini . 8,5 17,6 35,3 22,9 15,0 Jumlah 8,2 20,0 31,9 24,0 15,7 Tabel 14 daftar item dalam skala Ekuitas . Tampaknya daripada mayoritas siswa senang dengan frekuensi bantuan dan perhatian yang disediakan di laboratorium . Mereka percaya bahwa mereka diberikan kesempatan yang sama saat diskusi kelas dan menerima jumlah yang sama dorongan

dari guru sebagai siswa lain lakukan . tabel 14 Frekuensi Persentase tanggapan terhadap item Ekuitas Barang kata-kata frekuensi % Tidak pernah Jarang Kadang-kadang Sering Selalu Guru memberikan banyak perhatian terhadap pertanyaan saya tentang pertanyaan siswa lain . 2,0 7,8 13,7 28,8 47,1 Saya mendapatkan jumlah yang sama bantuan dari guru seperti halnya siswa lain . 0,0 3,9 15,7 30,1 49,7 Saya diperlakukan sama dengan siswa lain di kelas ini . 1,3 2,6 9,2 34,6 51,6 Saya menerima dorongan yang sama dari guru sebagai siswa lain lakukan . 0,7 2,0 15,7 29,4 51,6 Pekerjaan saya menerima sebanyak pujian sebagai karya siswa lain . 3,3 11,8 15,7 24,2 44,4 Saya mendapatkan kesempatan yang sama untuk menjawab pertanyaan seperti siswa lain . 0,7 3,9 16,3 26,8 51,6 Jumlah 1,6 5,3 11,8 29,0 49,3 Persepsi siswa keseluruhan ' dari lingkungan belajar dalam penelitian ini

menunjukkan bahwa rata-rata , mahasiswa Turki dianggap kelas mereka sebagai sangat berorientasi tugas , cukup kohesif , koperasi dan adil , tetapi kurang guru mendukung, dan terkait dengan keterlibatan atau merangsang penyelidikan . Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa siswa harus mendapat dukungan guru yang lebih dan keterlibatan dalam proses pengajaran / pembelajaran dan harus bekerja sama dengan siswa lain lebih dari saat ini . Juga , perilaku guru harus diubah menjadi lebih membantu / ramah dan pengertian sehingga guru dapat memenuhi sikap interests.Student siswa untuk komputer dan komputasi coursesTable 15 menyajikan setiap item dalam skala Kecemasan ACCC , bersama-sama dengan persentase frekuensi dari setiap alternatif respon . Sebagian besar siswa merasa bahwa komputer tidak membuat mereka gugup ( 42 % dan 19 % ) dan bahwa mereka tidak memiliki perasaan tenggelam ketika mereka berpikir tentang mencoba untuk menggunakan komputer . Item " Saya merasa agresif dan bermusuhan terhadap komputer " , khususnya , menerima Jangan respon dari 62,7 % dari

siswa . tabel 15 Frekuensi Persentase tanggapan terhadap Kecemasan item Barang kata frekuensi % Sangat tidak setuju Tidak Setuju Tidak yakin Setuju setuju Sangat Bekerja dengan komputer membuat saya sangat gugup . 45,8 27,5 15,7 5,2 5,2 Saya mendapatkan perasaan tenggelam ketika saya berpikir tentang mencoba untuk menggunakan komputer . 54,9 19,6 16,3 5,2 3,3 Komputer membuat saya merasa tidak nyaman . 56,9 22,2 13,1 4,6 2,6 Komputer membuat saya merasa gelisah dan bingung . 34,0 33,3 19,0 7,8 5,2 Saya merasa agresif dan bermusuhan terhadap komputer . 62,7 13,7 13,7 5,2 3,9 Jumlah 42,4 19,4 13,0 4,7 3,4 Mengenai skala ACCC dari Kesenangan , persentase ditunjukkan pada Tabel 16 menunjukkan bahwa mayoritas yang jelas dari siswa menikmati menggunakan komputer di laboratorium . Hampir 70 % siswa yang ditemukan bekerja dengan komputer sering atau selalu menyenangkan

dan merangsang . tabel 16 Frekuensi Persentase tanggapan terhadap item Kenikmatan Barang kata frekuensi % Sangat tidak setuju Tidak Setuju Tidak yakin Setuju setuju Sangat Sangat menyenangkan untuk mengetahui bagaimana sistem kerja komputer . 5,2 15,7 24,2 22,9 31,4 Saya menikmati menggunakan komputer . 7,8 5,9 14,4 17,0 54,2 Saya pikir bekerja dengan komputer akan menyenangkan dan merangsang . 2,0 13,1 20,3 28,1 35,9 Tantangan memecahkan masalah dengan menggunakan komputer tidak menarik bagi saya . 31,4 28,1 26,1 5,9 7,8 Saya ingin bekerja dengan komputer . 3,3 9,8 17,0 21,6 47,7 Saya senang belajar di komputer . 3,9 9,8 19,6 26,1 39,9 Jumlah 8,1 13,7 20,3 20,3 36,2 Skala Kegunaan Komputer termasuk barang-barang seperti " karir masa depan saya akan membutuhkan pengetahuan tentang komputer " dan " Penggunaan

komputer akan meningkat di masa depan " ( lihat Tabel 17 ) . Tanggapan menunjukkan bahwa sebagian besar siswa mengakui pentingnya komputer dalam kehidupan masa depan mereka dan percaya bahwa pengetahuan tentang penggunaan komputer akan membantu mereka mendapatkan pekerjaan ( 57 % ) ( lihat Tabel 17 ) . tabel 17 Frekuensi Persentase tanggapan terhadap Kegunaan Komputer item Barang kata frekuensi % Sangat tidak setuju Tidak Setuju Tidak yakin Setuju setuju Sangat Karir masa depan saya akan membutuhkan pengetahuan tentang komputer . 3,3 6,5 12,4 22,9 54,2 Aku tidak bisa membayangkan mendapatkan pekerjaan yang tidak melibatkan menggunakan komputer . 13,1 13,7 15,0 15,7 41,8 Komputer merupakan faktor penting dalam keberhasilan suatu usaha . 4,6 3,9 9,8 19,6 61,4 Penggunaan komputer akan meningkat di masa depan . 5,9 7,2 8,5 13,7 64,1

Semua siswa tersier membutuhkan kursus tentang penggunaan komputer . 6,5 15,7 19,0 23,5 34,6 Pengetahuan tentang penggunaan komputer akan membantu saya mendapatkan pekerjaan . 3,3 11,1 10,5 17,6 56,8 Jumlah 6,1 9,7 12,5 18,8 52,2 Tabel 18 menyajikan hasil untuk Kegunaan skala Kursus . eLearning in the Web 2.0 Era Lessons from the Development of the Lingro.com Language Learning Environment

Artur Janc, ukasz Olejnik, Paul Kastner

Purchase on Springer.com

$29.95 / 24.95 / 19.95 *

7b9d7833094fee Lecture Notes in eLearning in the W 201-211 Artur Janc, Lukas Business Informa chapter 2009 2009

10.1007/978-3-64 37

978-3-642-03424 Buy now

* Final gross prices may vary according to local VAT.

Get Access

Abstract
Recent advances in Web technologies have enabled the creation of new kinds of eLearning applications which have the potential to supplement existing solutions. In contrast to traditional educational software often developed by large corporations leveraging their existing customer base and distribution channels, Web 2.0 educational platforms are commonly created by small technical teams with limited advertising and development

budgets. In this work we use our first-hand experience from developing Lingro, a popular online language learning environment, to compare and contrast the traditional and new approaches for creating eLearning systems. We introduce Lingro as an example of a nextgeneration language learning application, and use it to illustrate Web 2.0 concepts and industry trends, as well as their relation to traditional practices. We provide a general overview of relevant development and business issues, analyzing changes in software development methodologies, ways of acquiring and creating educational content, learning styles and financial and marketing information.
Page %P

Close Plain text

Look Inside

Share
Share this content on Facebook Share this content on Twitter Share this content on LinkedIn

Other actions

Export citations About this Book Reprints and Permissions

Related Content