International Association of Educators   |  ISSN: 1554-5210

Original article | International Journal of Progressive Education 2021, Vol. 17(6) 270-288

Use of the Web Adventure Method in Teaching Turkish as a Foreign Language (Example of A2 Level)

Vedat Halitoğlu

pp. 270 - 288   |  DOI: https://doi.org/10.29329/ijpe.2021.382.19   |  Manu. Number: MANU-2103-11-0003.R2

Published online: December 03, 2021  |   Number of Views: 39  |  Number of Download: 137


Abstract

In this study, a three-week sample application for the use of the WebQuest method in Turkish language teaching was developed, and the effectiveness of the application was tried to be determined through a "achievement test" and students’ views. The study employed the mixed methods design, in the quantitative stage of the study, experimental and control groups of 28 people each with similar Turkish language levels were formed randomly among foreign students studying Turkish at Alaaddin Keykubat University. The WebQuest method was used in the experimental group while the traditional teaching method was used in the control group. A “achievement test” was applied to the groups as a pre-test and post-test, and the results were analyzed with the SPSS 25 software. In the qualitative stage of the study, the control group’s views on the teaching process were obtained through interview forms, mails, and focus groups, and the obtained data were subjected to content analysis in the Nvivo 12 software to reveal codes and themes. To increase the content validity of the theme achievement test, more than one expert was consulted. The study found that the Turkish teaching process involving the use of the WebQuest method was more effective.

Keywords: Keywords: Language, Education, Technology


How to Cite this Article?

APA 6th edition
Halitoglu, V. (2021). Use of the Web Adventure Method in Teaching Turkish as a Foreign Language (Example of A2 Level) . International Journal of Progressive Education, 17(6), 270-288. doi: 10.29329/ijpe.2021.382.19

Harvard
Halitoglu, V. (2021). Use of the Web Adventure Method in Teaching Turkish as a Foreign Language (Example of A2 Level) . International Journal of Progressive Education, 17(6), pp. 270-288.

Chicago 16th edition
Halitoglu, Vedat (2021). "Use of the Web Adventure Method in Teaching Turkish as a Foreign Language (Example of A2 Level) ". International Journal of Progressive Education 17 (6):270-288. doi:10.29329/ijpe.2021.382.19.

References
  1. Abbit, J., Ophus, J. (2008). What we know about the impacts of webquests: a review of research. AACE Journal, 16(4), 441-456. [Google Scholar]
  2. Albayati, H. (2020). Approaches, methods in English language teaching: eclectic approach, Global Scientific Journals, 8 (3), 850-857. [Google Scholar]
  3. Aldalalah, O., M., A., Eyadat, Y., Ababneh, Z., W., M. (2015). Effects of webquest on the achievement and motivation of Jordanian University students of (independent & dependent) cognitive style. World Journal on Educational Technology. 7(2), 119-135. [Google Scholar]
  4. Alshumaimeri, Y., Almasri, M. M. (2012). The effects of using webquests on reading comprehension performance of Saudi EFL students. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology. 11, 295-306. [Google Scholar]
  5. Anderson, G. J., Walberg, H. J. (1974). Learning environments. In H. J. Walberg (ed.), evaluating educational performance: a sourcebook of methods, instruments, and examples (pp. 81–98). Berkeley, CA: McCutchan. [Google Scholar]
  6. Averkieva L., Chayka, Y., Glushkov, S. (2015). Web quest as a tool for increasing students’ motivation and critical thinking development. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 206, 137 – 140. [Google Scholar]
  7. Awada, G., Burston, J., Ghannage, R. (2020). Effect of student team achievement division through WebQuest on EFL students’ argumentative writing skills and their instructors’ perceptions, Computer Assisted Language Learning, 33(3), 275-300. [Google Scholar]
  8. Aydinli, J. M., Elaziz, F. (2010). Turkish students' and teachers' attitudes toward the use of interactive whiteboards in EFL classrooms, Computer Assisted Language Learning, 23(3), 235-252. [Google Scholar]
  9. Behbahani, A. R., Shahbazi, M. (2020). Investigating the effectiveness of a digital game-based task on the acquisition of word knowledge, Computer Assisted Language Learning, 1-26. [Google Scholar]
  10. Berelson, B. (1952). Content analysis in communication research, Free Press, Glencoe. [Google Scholar]
  11. Bogdan, R. C., Biklen, S. K. (1992). Qualitative Research for Education: İntroduction and Methods. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. [Google Scholar]
  12. Brannen, J. (2005). Mixed methods research: a discussion paper, ESRC National Centre for Research http://eprints.ncrm.ac.uk/89/1/MethodsReviewPaperNCRM-005.pdf NCRM Methods Review Papers.  [Google Scholar]
  13. Brito, C., Mario, B. (2007). Webquests: a tool or a trandisciplinary methodology? Interactive Educational Multimedia, 15, 52-64. [Google Scholar]
  14. Burke, M., Gurffey S., Colter S., Riehl, J. (2003). Biowebquest: evaluating the effectiveness of a "webquest" model of inquiry learning in a biology sequence for non-science majors. http://www.itc.utk.edu/~burke/syllabus03 obteined from that address. [Google Scholar]
  15. Buyukozturk, S. (2013). Sosyal bilimler icin veri analizi el kitabi. Ankara: Pegem A Yayincilik. [Google Scholar]
  16. Canale, M., Swain, M. (1980). Theoratical bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics, 1(1), 1-47. [Google Scholar]
  17. Chou, C. (2011). An inquiry into the effects of incorporating webquest in an EFL college course. İnternational Conference on Consumer Electronics (s. 1-4). XianNing, China. [Google Scholar]
  18. Cooksey, R. W. (2020). Media review. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 14(4), 545-547. [Google Scholar]
  19. Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design: qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. [Google Scholar]
  20. Díez, T., Richters, M., Amanda, M. (2020). Podcasting as a tool to develop speaking skills in the foreign language classroom. The EuroCALL Review, 28(1), 40-56.  [Google Scholar]
  21. Djamàa, S. (2020). Lecture in the living room, homework in the classroom: the effects of flipped ınstruction on graduate efl students’ exam performance. Computers in the Schools, 37(3), 141-167. [Google Scholar]
  22. Dodge, B. (1995). Webquests: a technique for internet-based learning. Distance Educator, 1(2), 10-13. [Google Scholar]
  23. Dodge, B. (2001). Focus: five rules for writing a great WebQuest. Learning and Leading with Technology, 28 (8), 6-9. [Google Scholar]
  24. Drew, P. Ausband, L. (2009). Developing higher-order thinking skills through webquests. Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 26(1), 29-34. [Google Scholar]
  25. Dudeney, G., Hockly, N. (2007). How to teach English with technology?  Essex:  Pearson Education Limited.  [Google Scholar]
  26. Ebadi S., Rahimi M. (2018). An exploration into the impact of webquest-based classroom on efl learners’ critical thinking and academic writing skills: a mixed-methods study. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 31(4), 1–35. [Google Scholar]
  27. Ebadi, S., Rahimi, M. (2018). An exploration into the impact of WebQuest-based classroom on EFL learners’ critical thinking and academic writing skills: a mixed-methods study, Computer Assisted Language Learning, 31(5-6), 617-651. [Google Scholar]
  28. Ebadi, S., Rahimi, M. (2019). Mediating EFL learners’ academic writing skills in online dynamic assessment using google docs, Computer Assisted Language Learning, 32(5-6), 527-555. [Google Scholar]
  29. Ezzy, D. (2002). Qualitative Analysis: Practice and Innovation. Crows Nest: Routledge. [Google Scholar]
  30. Farenga, S., Ness, D. (Ed). (2005). Encyclopedia of education and human development. New York: M. E. Sharpe. [Google Scholar]
  31. Fern, E. F. (2001). Advanced Focus Group Research. Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE. [Google Scholar]
  32. Fievez, I., Montero Perez, M., Cornillie, F., Desmet, P. (2020). Vocabulary learning through viewing captioned or subtitled videos and the role of learner- and word-related factors. Calico Journal, 37(3), 233–253.  [Google Scholar]
  33. Fraser, B. J.,  D.L.,Fisher. (1982). predictingstudents' outcomes from their perceptions of classroom psychosocial environment. American Educational Research Journal, 19 ( 4) , 498-518. [Google Scholar]
  34. Gaukrodger B., Atkins C. (2013). Second Life calling: language learners communicating virtually across the world. 30th Ascilite Conference (s. 303-307), Sydney. [Google Scholar]
  35. Ginaya, G., Rejeki, I., Astuti, N. (2018). The effects of blended learning to students’ speaking ability. International Journal of Linguistics, Literature and Culture, 4(3), 1−14. https://doi.org/10.21744/ijllc.v4i3.661 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  36. Glesne, C. (2014). Nitel arastirmaya giris (4. Baski). A. Ersoy ve P. Yalcinoglu. (Cev. Ed.). Ankara: Ani. [Google Scholar]
  37. Gravetter, F. J, Forzano, L. B. (2011). Research methods for the behavioural sciences. Cengage Learning, 146. [Google Scholar]
  38. Hassan R. F., Dzakiria, H., Idrus, R. M. (2016). Using second life platform for improving English language skills: students’ perception. İnternational Review of Management and Marketing, 6, 43-47. [Google Scholar]
  39. Hickey, G., Kipping, C. (1996). Issues in research. A multi-stage approach to the coding of data from open-ended questions. Nurse Researcher, 4, 81-91. [Google Scholar]
  40. Hislope, K. (2008). Learning in a virtual world. The International Journal of Learning, 15, 51-58. [Google Scholar]
  41. Howard, R. M. (2001). Collaborative Pedagogy in G. Tate, A. Rupiper& K. Schick (Eds.), A guide to composition pedagogy (pp. 54-70). New York: Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar]
  42. Huang, H. (2013). E-reading and e-discussion: EFL learners' perceptions of an e-book reading program, Computer Assisted Language Learning, 26 (3), 258-281. [Google Scholar]
  43. Irafahmi, D. T. (2016). Creating a ‘real’ WebQuest: Instructional design point of view. International Journal of Education and Research, 4(2), 427−438. [Google Scholar]
  44. Jacob Cohen (1960), A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales, Educational and Psychological Measurement Vol.20, No.1, pp.37-46. [Google Scholar]
  45. Johnson, A. P. (2015). Eylem Arastirmasi El Kitabi. Ani yayincilik, Ankara. [Google Scholar]
  46. Jung, S., Won, E. (2018). Systematic review of research trends in robotics education for young children. Sustainability, 10 (4), 905. [Google Scholar]
  47. Kachina, O. A. (2012). Using webquests in the social sciences classroom. Contemporary Issues in Education Research, 5(3), 185-200. [Google Scholar]
  48. Kasper, L. (2000). New technologies, new literacies: focus discipline research and ESL learning communities. Language Learning and Technology, 4(2), 105-128. [Google Scholar]
  49. Kelly, R. (2000). Working with webquests. Teaching Exceptional Children, 32 (6), 4-13. [Google Scholar]
  50. Kim, M. K., Gaul, C. Z., Bundrage, C. N., Madathany, R. J.  (2020) Technology supported reading comprehension: a design research of the student mental model analyzer for research and teaching (SMART) technology, Interactive Learning Environments [Google Scholar]
  51. Kobylinski, C. (2014). Student feedback on the effectiveness of using a webquest for an integrative skills course in a Korean University. Contemporary İssues in Education Research, 7, 63-68. [Google Scholar]
  52. Koenraad, A. L. M. (2002). TalenQuest: WebQuests for modern languages [PDF]. http://www.koenraad.info/CALL obteined from that address. [Google Scholar]
  53. Krippendorff, K. (2004). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. [Google Scholar]
  54. Krueger, R. A., Casey, M. A. (2000). Focus Gruops: A Practical Guide for Applied Research 3rd edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Pub. [Google Scholar]
  55. Kumar, C. P. (2013). The eclectic method: theory and its application to the learning of english. International Journal of Scientific and Research Publications, 3(6), 2250-3553. [Google Scholar]
  56. Lacina, J. (2007). Inquiry-based learning-technology: designing-exploring webquests. Childhood Education, 83(4), 251-252. [Google Scholar]
  57. Landis, J. R., Koch G. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics. 33, 159-74. [Google Scholar]
  58. Lara, S., Repáraz C. (2007). Effectiveness of cooperative learning fostered by working with webquest. Electronic Journal of Research in Educational Psychology, 5(3), 731-756. [Google Scholar]
  59. Lasaten, R. C. (2017). Development and validation of webquests in teaching epics. Asia Pacific Journal of Multidisciplinary Research, 5(2), 59-66. [Google Scholar]
  60. Lee, B. J. (2020). Smartphone tapping vs. handwriting: A comparison of writing medium. The EuroCALL Review, 28(1), 15-25. [Google Scholar]
  61. Leite, R., Vieira, P., Silva, R. M., Neves, T. (2017). The Role of webquests in science education for citizenship. İnteractive Educational Multimedia, 15, 18-36. [Google Scholar]
  62. Leung, C. B., Unal, Z. (2013). Advantages and disadvantages of classroom instruction with webquests: connecting literacy and technology. Journal of Reading Education, 38(2), 31-38. [Google Scholar]
  63. Liang, W., Fung, D. (2020). Development and evaluation of a WebQuest-based teaching programme: Students' use of exploratory talk to exercise critical thinking. İnternational journal of educational research, 104, 101652. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2020.101652. [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  64. Lin M., Preston A., Kharrufa A., Kong Z. (2016). Making L2 learners’ reasoning skills visible: The potential of computer supported collaborative learning environments. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 22, 303–322. [Google Scholar]
  65. Littlejohn, A. (Ed.). (2003). Reusing online resources: a sustainable approach to e-learning. London: Kogan Page Limited. [Google Scholar]
  66. Luzón, M. J. (2002). Internet content-based activities for ESP. English Teaching Forum 40(3), 20-25.  [Google Scholar]
  67. MacGregor, S., Lou, Y. (2005). Web-based learning: how task scaffolding website design support knowledge acquisition. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 37, 161-175. [Google Scholar]
  68. Machovikov, A., Stolyarov, K., Chernov, M., Sinclair, I., Machovikova, I.  (2002). Computer-based training system for Russian word pronunciation, Computer Assisted Language Learning, 1(2), 201-214. [Google Scholar]
  69. March, T. (2003). The learning power of webquests. Educational Leadership, 61(4), 42-47. [Google Scholar]
  70. Mayring, P. (2000). Qualitative content analysis. Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 1(2).  [Google Scholar]
  71. Mentxaka, İ. (2004). Webquest: internet como recurso didáctico. Alambique, 40, 62-70. [Google Scholar]
  72. Mills, G. E. (2003). Action Research. A Guide For The Teacher Researcher. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, İnc. [Google Scholar]
  73. Morgan, D. (2018). Living with blurry boundaries: the values of distinguishing between qualitative and quantitative research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 12(3), 268–276. [Google Scholar]
  74. Orucu, D., Simsek, H. (2011). Educational administration: theory and practice. Kuram ve Uygulamada Egitim Yonetimi, 17(2), 167-197. [Google Scholar]
  75. Patterson, N., Pipkin, G. (2001). Guiding readers to new understandings through electronic text. Voices from the Middle, 8(4), 64-66. [Google Scholar]
  76. Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods (2nd Ed.). London: Sage Publications. [Google Scholar]
  77. Pennington, M. C. (1996). Writing the natural way: on computer, Computer Assisted Language Learning, 9(2-3), 125-142. [Google Scholar]
  78. Peterson, M. (2010). Learner participation patterns and strategy use in second life: an exploratory case study. European Association for Computer Assisted Language Learning, 22(3), 273-292. [Google Scholar]
  79. Renau, M. L., Pesudo, M. (2016). Analysis of the implementation of a webquest for learning English in a secondary school in Spain. International Journal of Education and Development Using Information and Communication Technology (İJEDİCT), 12(2), 26-49. [Google Scholar]
  80. Richards, C. (2005). The design of effective ICT-supported learning activities: exemplary models, changing requirements, and new possibilities. Language Learning and Technology, 9(1), 60-79.  [Google Scholar]
  81. Ruschoff, B. (2009). Output-Oriented Language Learning With Digital Media. In M. Thomas, (Ed.), Handbook of Research on Web 2.0 and Second Language Learning. Hershey, London & New York: IGI Global Reference. [Google Scholar]
  82. Sato, T., Murase, F., Burden., T. (2020). An empirical study on vocabulary recall and learner autonomy through mobile assisted language learning in blended learning settings.  Calico Journal, 37, 254-276. [Google Scholar]
  83. Schmid, E. (2006). Investigating the use of interactive whiteboard technology in the English language classroom through the lens of a critical theory of technology, Computer Assisted Language Learning, 19(1), 47-62. [Google Scholar]
  84. Shorten, A., Moorley, C. (2014). Selecting the sample. Evidence-Based Nursing, 17(2), 32–33. https://doi.org/10.1136/eb-2014-101747. [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  85. Shutenko, A. I., Shutenko, E., Ryzhkova, I.,  Koreneva, A., Sidorova, M., Rotaryanu, L. (2019). The use of WebQuests in foreign language training of students of nonlinguistic specialties, Revista Espacios, 40 (19), 1-7. [Google Scholar]
  86. Simina V., Hamel, M. J. (2005). Computer application in second language acquisition through a social constructivist perspective: webquest in project-driven language learning. ReCALL, 17(2). 217-228. [Google Scholar]
  87. Simsek, H., Yildirim, A. (2003). Sosyal Bilimlerde Nitel Arastirma Yontemleri. Ankara: Seckin Yayincilik. [Google Scholar]
  88. Starr, L. (2000). Meet Bernie Dodge: The Frank Lloyd Wright. https://www.educationworld.com/a_issues/chat/chat015.shtml obteined from that address. [Google Scholar]
  89. Strauss, A., Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory Procedurs and Tecniques. Newbury Park, C. A. : Sage. [Google Scholar]
  90. Strickland, J. (2005). Using webquests to teach content: comparing instructional strategies. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 5(2), 138-148. [Google Scholar]
  91. Sumtsova, O.V., Azhel, Y. P., Buyankina, A. S. (2016). webquest-based role play as a way of raising students’ motivation to studying foreign languages. iJET, 11(3), 63-66. [Google Scholar]
  92. Şahin, S. M., Baturay, M. H. (2016). The effect of 5E-learning model supported with WebQuest media on students’   achievement and satisfaction. E-learning and Digital Media,13(3-4), 158-175 [Google Scholar]
  93. Tabachnick, B. G., Fidell, L. S. (2013). Using multivariate statistics. Boston, Pearson. [Google Scholar]
  94. Tashakkori, A., Teddlie, C. (1998). Mixed methodology: combining qualitative and quantitative approaches. Applied Social Research Methods Series, 46, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. [Google Scholar]
  95. Tozcu, A. (2008). The use of interactive whiteboards in teaching non-roman scripts, Computer Assisted Language Learning, 21(2), 143-166. [Google Scholar]
  96. Trajkoska, D. A., Dimov, B. C. (2013). Webquest as a teaching strategy. Journal of Faculty of the Education Bitola, 7(2), 315. [Google Scholar]
  97. Tseng, S., Yeh, H., Yang, S. (2015). Promoting different reading comprehension levels through online annotations, Computer Assisted Language Learning, 28(1), 41-57. [Google Scholar]
  98. Tuan, L. T. (2011). Teaching reading through webquest. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 2(3), 664-67. [Google Scholar]
  99. Unal, Z., Bodur, Y., Unal, A. (2012). Choosing or designing the perfect webquest for your learners using a reliable rubric. Contemporary İssues in Technology and Teacher Education, 12(2), 209- 231. [Google Scholar]
  100. Wali,   N. H.   (2009).   Eclecticism   and   language   learning.   Al-   Fatih Journal. Diyala University-College of Basic Education, 5(39), 289-298. [Google Scholar]
  101. Wang, C., Song, H., Xia, F, Yan, Q. (2009). Integrating second life into an efl program: students´ perspectives. Journal of Educational Technology Development and Exchange, 2(1), 1-16.  [Google Scholar]
  102. Weideman,  A.  (2001).  The  old  and  the  new:  reconsidering  eclecticism  in  language  teaching.  linguam,    17(1):1-13. doi.org/10.5785/17-1-131 (PDF) The Eclectic Method to language Teaching: Clarifications and Conceptual Extensions. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/331743322_The_Eclectic_Method_to_language_Teaching_Clarifications_and_Conceptual_Extensions [accessed Nov 16 2020]. [Google Scholar]
  103. White, M. D., Marsh, E. E. (2006). Content analysis: a flexible methodology. Library Trends 55(1), 22-45. [Google Scholar]
  104. X. Lin, N. E. Breslow. (1996) Bias correction in generalized linear mixed models with multiple components of dispersion, Journal of the American Statistical Association, 91, 1007-1016. [Google Scholar]
  105. Yenmez, A. A., Ozpinar, I., Gokce, S. (2017). Use of webquests in mathematics instruction: academic achievement, teacher and student opinions. Universal Journal of Educational Research, 5(9), 1554-1570. [Google Scholar]
  106. Yesi̇lyurt, S, Capraz, C . (2018). Olcek gelistirme calismalarinda kullanilan kapsam gecerligi icin bir yol haritasi. Erzincan Universitesi Egitim Fakultesi Dergisi, 20 (1) , 251-264.  [Google Scholar]
  107. Yildirim, A. (1999). Nitel arastirma yontemlerinin temel ozellikleri ve egitim arastirmalarindaki yeri ve onemi. Egitim ve Bilim, 23, 7-17. [Google Scholar]
  108. Yildirim, A., Simsek, H. (2008). Sosyal Bilimlerde Nitel Arastirma Yontemleri (6. Baski). Ankara: Seckin Yayincilik. [Google Scholar]
  109. Yin, C. C. (1994). Classroom environment and student affective performance: an effective profile, The Journal of Experimental Education, 62(3), 221-239, DOİ: 10.1080/00220973.1994.9943842  [Google Scholar]
  110. Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research, design and methods, Newbury Park, CA, SAGE. [Google Scholar]