Progressive vs modular system in preparatory school English language teaching program: A case of system change at a state university in Turkey

Abstract

Please fill up the following information accurately. (Please use Times New Roman, 12 pt.
Progressive vs modular system in preparatory school English language teaching program: A case of system change at a state university in Turkey
Due to its importance in almost all significant fields such as science, technology, education and trade, English language is offered as a compulsory course in all levels of formal education in Turkey. In the higher education context, most universities offer one-year compulsory English preparatory education for students enrolled in departments whose medium of instruction is in English. Commonly, the two systems existing in preparatory programs known as modular system and progressive system enact the legislation and organization of courses as well as the assessment, classroom procedures and material design. In progressive system, English education is offered throughout the year based on learners’ level of English according to the placement test given at the beginning of the education year; on the other hand, in modular system English is taught in different modules at the same time allowing learners to move forward or fall behind their current levels. Because of the poor English levels of the preparatory class students at a state university in Turkey, a system change from a progressive system to a modular one took place which started to be implemented from 2015-2016 academic year onwards. For the purpose of evaluating both systems, English language instructors’ views related to strengths and weaknesses of the modular and progressive systems were gathered through a semi-structured opinion form. The data were gathered from 23 participants who actively taught English in the both systems and were analyzed through inductive content analysis. Findings of the study show that the participants found the modular system effective and efficient since students were placed in their correct levels of English unlike in the progressive system and since they were assessed based on their current level of English, Additionally, the participants favoured the modular system due to well-planned placement system in each module although they reported that modular system caused confusion on the part of the instructors because of the frequent exams and quizzes applied within a limited period. Besides, delivering English in more than one module at a time also caused the instructors to feel under pressure and a burden. As for progressive system, it was found that it was practical in terms of planning and organization in spite of decreasing student motivation. These findings indicate that although instructors find modular system effective and efficient, it needs a good planning and organization.
Information about Author(s)*
Author 1
Author (Last name, First name)	Erarslan, Ali
Affiliated institution (University)	Alanya Alaaddin Keykubat University
Country	Turkey
Email address	[e-mail]
Department & Rank	Department of English Language Teaching
Corresponding author (Yes/No) Write only one corresponding author.	Yes
Author 2
Author (Last name, First name)
Affiliated institution (University)
Country
Email address
Department & Rank
Corresponding author (Yes/No)
Author 3
Author (Last name, First name)
Affiliated institution (University)
Country
Email address
Department & Rank
Corresponding author (Yes/No)
Author 4
Author (Last name, First name)
Affiliated institution (University)
Country
Email address
Department & Rank
Corresponding author (Yes/No)

Keywords

• Preparatory education,EFL,Higher Education,Modular

References

1. Alkan, M. F., & Arslan, M. (2014). Evaluation of the 2 nd Grade English Language Curriculum. Uluslararası Eğitim Programları ve Öğretim Çalışmaları Dergisi, 4(7), 87–99.
2. Arı, A. (2014). Teacher Opinions About Evaluation of 6th Grade English Lesson Curriculum in Primary Schools. Journal of Theoretical Educational Science, 7(April), 172–194.
3. British Council-TEPAV. (2015). The state of English in Higher Education in Turkey: A Baseline Study. British Council.
4. Brown, J. (1995). The elements of language curriculum A Systematic Approach to Program Development. Boston: Heinle & Heinle Publishers.
5. Cephe, P. T., & Toprak, E. T. (2014). The Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Insights for language testing. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 10(1), 79–88.
6. Cholakova, M. (2015). The Influence of the English Language in a Multilingual and a Monolingual Environment – A Comparative Approach. International Journal of English Language Teaching, 3(4), 35–78.
7. Cihan, T., & Gürlen, E. (2009). İlköğretim 5 . Sınıf İngilizce Dersi Öğretim Programına İlişkin Öğretmen Görüşleri * Teachers ’ Opinions on the English Language Curriculum of the 5 th Grade of Primary Education Öz Giriş Yabancı Dil Öğretimi Programının Özellikleri. Anadolu Universitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi.
8. Coşkun, a. (2013). An investigation of the effectiveness of the modular general English language teaching preparatory program at a Turkish university. South African Journal of Education, 33(3), 1–18. Retrieved from http://www.scielo.org.za/scielo.php?pid=S0256-01002013000300010&script=sci_arttext&tlng=es

9. Damirchili, F., & Tajari, M. (2011). Explaining internal factors effective on educational quality improvement based on views of students from Zanjan Azad universities. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 30, 363–366. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.10.071
10. Dogancay-Aktuna, S. (1998). The Spread of English in Turkey and its Current Sociolinguistic Profile. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 19(1), 24–39. https://doi.org/10.1080/01434639808666340
11. Frye, A. W., & Hemmer, P. A. (2012). Program evaluation models and related theories: AMEE guide no. 67. Medical Teacher, 34(5), e288-99. https://doi.org/10.3109/0142159X.2012.668637
12. Gerede, D. (2005). A Curriculum Evaluation Through Needs Analysis: Perceptions of Intensive English Program Graduates at Anadolu University. Anadolu University.
13. Gonzales, E. F. (2011). An EFL placement test and its use in a private high school. Open Distance Learning Master of Arts in Teaching English as a Foreign/Second Language (MA TEFL / TESL). University of Birmingham.
14. İnal, B., & Aksoy, E. (2014). Çankaya Üniversitesi Hazırlık Sınıfı İngilizce Öğretim Programının Değerlendirilmesi. Journal of Research in Education and Teaching, 3(3), 119–134.
15. İyitoglu, O., & Alci, B. (2015). A Qualitative Research on 2nd Grade Teachers ’ Opinions about 2nd Grade English Language Teaching Curriculum. Elementary Education Online, 14(2), 682–696.
16. Karakaş, A. (2015). Orientations towards English among English-medium Instruction Students Abstract. Englishes in Practice, 2(1), 1–38. https://doi.org/10.1515/eip-2015-0001
17. Kir, E., & Sülü, A. (2014). Language Teachers ’ Views on Cefr. International Online Journal of Education and Teaching, 1(5), 358–364. Retrieved from http://iojet.org/index.php/IOJET/article/view/69/97
18. Kirkgoz, Y. (2007). English Language Teaching in Turkey: Policy Changes and their Implementations. RELC Journal, 38(2), 216–228. https://doi.org/10.1177/0033688207079696
19. Kirkgöz, Y. (2014). Students’ Perceptions of English Language versus Turkish Language Used as the Medium of Instruction in Higher Education in Turkey. Turkish Studies, 9(12), 443–459.
20. Lynch, B. K. (1996). Language program evaluation: Theory and practice. Melbourne Australia: Cambridge University Press. Retrieved from https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=uhE0gJlvcoMC&pgis=1
21. Mede, E., & Akyel, A. S. (2014). Design of A Language Preparatory Program : A Case Study. Journal of Theory and Practice in Education, 10(3), 643–666.
22. Mede, E., & Serkan, U. (2014). Evaluation of a language preparatory program : A case study. ELT Research Journal, 3(4), 201–221.
23. Nunan, D. (2003). The Impact of English as a Global Language on Educational Policies and Practices in the Asia-Pacific Region. TESOL Quarterly, 37(4), 589. https://doi.org/10.2307/3588214
24. Öner, G., & Mede, E. (2015). Evaluation of A1 level program at an English preparatory school in a Turkish university: a case study. ELT Research Journal, 4(3), 204–226.
25. Özkanal, Ü., & Hakan, A. G. (2010). Effectiveness of University English Preparatory Programs. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 1(3), 295–305. https://doi.org/10.4304/jltr.1.3.295-305
26. Sarıçoban, G., & Sarıçoban, A. (2012). Atatürk and the History of Foreign Language Education in Turkey. The Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 8(1), 23–26.
27. Seçkin, H. (2010). İlköğretim 4. Sınıf İngilizce dersi öğretim programının değerlendirilmesi. Hacettepe University.
28. Tunç, F. (2010). Evaluation of an English Language Teaching Program at a Public University Using CIPP Model. Middle East Technical University.
29. West, R., Güven, A., Parry, J., Ergenekon, T., Aşık, G., Aydın, İ., & Başıhoş, S. (2015). The state of English in higher education in Turkey:A baseline study. British Council & TEPAV. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004
30. Yıldıran, Ç., & Tanrıseven, I. (2015). Teachers ’ Opinions on the English Curriculum of the 2nd Grade Primary Education. International Journal of Language Academy, 3(1), 210–223.