Ufuk-U_niversitesi-SBE-Dergisi-S-ayı-5-kopya

More documents

Recommendations

Info

overall six factor structure which was validated using confirmatory factor analysis inDemirel’s adaptation study (2009). The instrument’s reliability coefficient was found .91 forthe inventory, .73 for the construct measuring memory strategies, .75 for the constructmeasuring cognitive strategies, .66 for the construct measuring compensation strategies, .83for the construct measuring metacognitive strategies, .67 for the construct measuring affectivestrategies, and .66 for the construct measuring social strategies.2.3 Procedure and AnalysisThe instruments were piloted before they were distributed to the participants of thisstudy. Changes have been made in the proficiency test and the use of the Turkish version ofthe language learning inventory was agreed on. Before the distribution of the instruments eachparticipant signed a consent form. Next, they were asked to fill out the demographicinformation form, proficiency test and SILL. This process took 30 minutes and was carriedout in a classroom. The data were analyzed using the statistical package of social sciences(SPSS) 20.3. ResultsThe independent samples T-tests were conducted to determine the difference betweenthe scores of the number of languages known and the native language of the instructor. All theassumptions were checked and no violation of the assumptions was found. One otherfundamental assumption was the English proficiency level of the groups. Even though all theparticipants were elementary students in the English language, which is the second languagefor the bilingual participants and the third or fourth language of multilingual participants, anEnglish proficiency test was administered which showed that there was no statisticaldifference between the bilingual (M = 53.46; SD = 11.992) and multilingual (M = 55.86; SD =14.754) group’s English proficiency score (t (68) = .749, p > .05).The analyses revealed a main effect of languages known on the SILL score (t (68) =2.209, p < .05). Moreover, there is a significant difference between the direct strategies andlanguages known (t (68) = 2.864, p < .01), but no significant difference between the indirectstrategies and the languages known (t (68) = 1.124, p > .05). More specifically, a statisticallysignificant difference was found between the memory strategies and the languages known (t(68) = 4.859, p < .001) and a marginally significant difference between the cognitivestrategies and the languages known (t (68) = 1.988, p = .051); however, there was no main66
effect of compensation strategies (t (68) = .194, p > .05) (see Table 3). The variables with asignificant difference were re-examined. It revealed that multilinguals gained a higher SILLscore (M = 182.52; SD = 20.592) than the bilingual participants (M = 170.27; SD = 24.318).Apart from the SILL score, the multilingual participants scored higher in the direct strategies(multilinguals: M = 106.41; SD = 12.111; bilinguals: M = 97.27; SD = 13.849); memorystrategies (multilinguals: M = 33.07; SD = 4.463; bilinguals: M = 27.71; SD = 4.606) andcognitive strategies (multilinguals: M = 51.10; SD = 7.355; bilinguals: M = 47.51; SD =7.507) which lead to significance.Table 3. Independent-Samples T-Test results for Languages known on the SILL and constructst df Sig. (2-tailed)SILL score 2.209 68 .031Direct strategies 2.864 68 .006Indirect strategies 1.124 68 .265Memory strategies 4.859 68 .000Cognitive strategies 1.988 68 .051Compensation strategies .194 68 .847Metacognitive strategies .742 68 .460Affective strategies 1.614 68 .111Social strategies .348 68 .729The T-test analysis conducted to analyze the effect of the instructor’s native languageon the language learning strategies showed a significant difference for the affective strategies(t (68) = 2.091, p < .05) (Turkish instructor: M = 3.32; SD = .932; Spanish instructor: M =3.76; SD = .818). When analyzed individually, the effect of the instructor for the affectivestrategies was found to be significant for the bilingual participants (t (39) = 2.444, p < .05)(Turkish instructor: M = 3.02; SD = .883; Spanish instructor: M = 3.68; SD = .810), but notfor the multilingual participants (t (27) = .934, p > .05).4. DiscussionThe goal of this study was to investigate the impact of the number of languages knownand the native language of instructors on the use of language learning strategies. The findingssuggest that multilingualism is a factor affecting the dependent variable of language learningstrategies thus being in accordance with previous studies (Kemp, 2007; Psaltou-Joycey andKantaridou, 2009). Several studies have affirmed that multilingual individuals make use of a67
Page 1 and 2:
ISSN: 2146-7676UFUK ÜNİVERSİTES
Page 3 and 4:
UFUK ÜNİVERSİTESİSOSYAL BİLİM
Page 5 and 6:
SUNUŞDergimizin 2014 yılı ilk sa
Page 7 and 8:
A NEED-BASED EVALUATIONOF A PREPARA
Page 9 and 10:
In the literature on language teach
Page 11 and 12:
focus teaching on this. Accordingly
Page 13:
International Relations) were 20 (7
Page 16 and 17: questionnaire in their English-medi
Page 18 and 19: REFERENCESAlagözlü, N. K. (1984).
Page 20 and 21: APPENDIX A1 STUDENT QUESTIONNAIRE
Page 23 and 24: 24. Converting short notes into
Page 27 and 28: The Role Of Gender On University St
Page 29 and 30: (Johnson 2001; Türküm, 2005). Joh
Page 31 and 32: Table 1 : Means and Standard Deviat
Page 33 and 34: 2.3 ProcedureEthical permission to
Page 35 and 36: age and attitude toward help seekin
Page 37 and 38: Economics and Administrative Scienc
Page 39 and 40: REFERENCESAddis, M. E., & Mahalik,
Page 41 and 42: Koydemir-Özden, S. (2010). Self-as
Page 43 and 44: LİSE ÖĞRENCİLERİNİN MESLEKİ
Page 45 and 46: göre mesleki bakımdan daha önce
Page 47 and 48: Araştırmanın amacıMesleki olgun
Page 49 and 50: Tablo 1: Lise Öğrencilerinin Mesl
Page 51 and 52: Lise öğrencilerinin karar verme s
Page 53 and 54: KAYNAKÇA Acıbozlar, Ö. (2006). Y
Page 55: Oğuz, Ö. (2008). Lise öğrencile
Page 58 and 59: 1. IntroductionDifferent from the p
Page 60 and 61: noteworthy to mention that multilin
Page 62 and 63: The findings indicate that multilin
Page 64 and 65: Table 1. Descriptives statistics fo
Page 68 and 69: wider variety of strategies with a
Page 70 and 71: inclusion of instructors who are no
Page 72 and 73: Gardner, R. C., & MacIntyre, P. D.
Page 74 and 75: AppendicesAppendix A- English Profi
Page 77 and 78: ELT Student Teachers’ Evaluations
Page 79 and 80: Reflective Teaching in TurkeyIn Tur
Page 81 and 82: Table 1: Reliability Analysis o
Page 83 and 84: Table 4: Mean and standard dev
Page 85 and 86: Table 9: Mean and standard dev
Page 87 and 88: ReferencesAkbari, R. (2007). Reflec
Page 89: Pollard, A. & Triggs, P. (1997) Ref
Page 92 and 93: 1. GİRİŞEğitim ve program geli
Page 94 and 95: Genelgeçer tek bir bilimsel sürec
Page 96 and 97: Program geliştirmedeki yenilikleri
Page 98 and 99: -Elde ettiği sonuçlardan hareket
Page 100 and 101: “İnternet Üzerinden Öğrenme
Page 102 and 103: de sınıf içi dersler de öğrenm
Page 104 and 105: teknik ve pedagojik uzmanlar gerekt
Page 106 and 107: 3. Proje ekibinin kurulması4. Plan
Page 108 and 109: KAYNAKÇABigdoli, H. (2004). The In
Page 110 and 111: 110
Page 112 and 113: Hiçbir öğrenci bir diğeriyle ay
Page 114 and 115: İçerik sınıfta nelerin öğreti
Page 116 and 117:
(MEB, 2006; Tomlinson, 2005). Ek ol
Page 118 and 119:
- Öğrencilerden gereksinim duyduk
Page 120 and 121:
desteklerine gereksinim duydukları
Page 122 and 123:
KAYNAKÇAAlberto P. A, ve Troutman
Page 124 and 125:
124
Page 126 and 127:
1.GİRİŞBuradaki araştırma OECD
Page 128 and 129:
öğretilenleri almışlar mı diye
Page 130 and 131:
edileceğini araştırmaz, ancak bu
Page 132 and 133:
yaşarlar: Çok fazla sayıda koşu
Page 134 and 135:
• Birincil Stratejiler ve Destek
Page 136 and 137:
ir dönemdir. Özellikle artan yaş
Page 138 and 139:
2. Hipotez: Öğretmenlerin coğraf
Page 140 and 141:
Tablo 7 Öğretmenlerin Coğrafi
Page 142 and 143:
stratejileri”ne yönelik bilişse
Page 144 and 145:
sonuçları χ 2 (12, N =407) = 13,
Page 146 and 147:
sebebiyet verir. Bunun önemli bir
Page 148 and 149:
KAYNAKÇAArtelt, C., Stanat, P., Sc
Page 150 and 151:
Lieteratur. 10. Sonderheft: Lesesoz
Page 152 and 153:
YAYIM ALANI, YAZIM KURALLARI ve YAZ
Page 154:
• Birebir alımlar “…” İş
show all

Ufuk-U_niversitesi-SBE-Dergisi-S-ayı-5-kopya

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?