İstanbul Medeniyet Üniversitesi İngilizce Hazırlık Programının Değerlendirilmesi

Year 2020, Volume: 3 Issue: 1, 94 - 115, 17.06.2020

Cihat Atar , Elif Kır , Ferdane Denkci Akkaş

https://doi.org/10.35207/later.714457

Cited By: 1

Abstract

Türkiye’deki üniversitelerde, hazırlık okulları öğrencilere lisans eğitimine başlamadan önce zorunlu ve isteğe bağlı dil eğitimini vermektedir. Bu çalışma İstanbul Medeniyet Üniversitesi Yabancı Diller Yüksekokulu’nda 2016-2017 eğitim öğretim yılında verilen İngilizce hazırlık eğitimini değerlendirmeyi amaçlamaktadır. Çalışma karma desendedir. 131 öğrenci ve 4 öğretim görevlisi verilen eğitimi ders materyalleri, ders içerikleri, ölçme yöntemleri, ödevler ve öğretim görevlileri gibi açılardan değerlendirmiştir. Veri bir anket ve yarı yapılandırılmış görüşme soruları aracılığıyla toplanmıştır. Anketin analizi betimsel istatistiklerle yapılmıştır ve görüşme verileri betimsel analiz ile incelenmiştir. Bulgular göstermektedir ki öğrenciler genel manada programın etkinliği konusunda kararsızdır. Ayrıca, kadın öğrencilerin, orta seviye (intermediate level) öğrencilerin ve isteğe bağlı olarak programa katılan öğrencilerin memnuniyetinin erkeklere, başlangıç seviyesi (elementary level) öğrencilere ve zorunlu olarak programa katılan öğrencilere göre daha yüksek olduğu görülmüştür.

Keywords

İngilizce hazırlık sınıfları, program değerlendirme, yükseköğretim, yabancı dil olarak İngilizce

An Evaluation of the English Preparatory Program at İstanbul Medeniyet University

Abstract

At Turkish universities, schools of foreign languages provide compulsory and voluntary language education for college students before they start their programs. This study aims to evaluate the program implemented for the English preparatory classes at Istanbul Medeniyet University, School of Foreign Languages during 2016-2017 academic year. This study has a mixed approach. 131 students and four instructors evaluated the program in terms of aspects such as the course materials, course contents, testing methods, assignments and the instructors. The data were collected via a questionnaire and semi-structured interview questions. The analysis of the questionnaire data was conducted via descriptive statistics and a descriptive analysis was carried out with the data from the interviews. The findings revealed that the participant students were indecisive about the effectiveness of the language program in general. Moreover, it was seen that the mean scores of the female students, the intermediate level students and the ones attending the program voluntarily were higher when compared with the males, the elementary level students and the ones attending the program obligatorily.  

Keywords

English preparatory classes, program evaluation, higher education, English as a foreign language

References

• Atar, C. & Erdem, C. (2018). An evaluation of the compulsory English lessons in higher education according to instructors’ views. Paper presented at International Congress on Political, Economic and Social Studies, Venice, Italy, 1-15.
• Brown, H, D. (2007). Teaching by principles: An interactive approach to language pedagogy. USA: Pearson Education.
• Brown, J. D. (2009). Language curriculum development: mistakes were made, problems faced, and lessons learned. Second Language Studies, 28(1), 85-105.
• Çetinavcı, U. R. & Zehir-Topkaya, E. (2012). A contrastive qualitative evaluation of two different sequential programs launched at the school of foreign languages of a Turkish university, Turkish Online Journal of Qualitative Inquiry, 3(3), 82-101.
• Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2005). Research methods in education. New York: Routledge.
• Coşkun, A. (2013). English language teaching preparatory program at a Turkish university. South African Journal of Education,33(3), 1-18.
• Creswell, J. W. (2013). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. USA: Sage publications.
• Demirel, Ö. (2004). ELT methodology. Ankara: Pegem A Yayıncılık.
• Demirtaş, İ. & Sert, N. (2010). English education at university level:Who is at the centre of the learning process?. Novitas-ROYAL (Research on Youth and Language), 4(2), 159-172.
• Dinçer, A., Takkaç, M. & Akalın, S. (2010). An evaluation on English language education process in Turkey from the viewpoints of university preparatory school students. Paper presented at 2nd International Symposium on Sustainable Development, Sarajevo, 235-242.
• Etikan, I., Musa, S. A., & Alkassim, R. S. (2016). Comparison of convenience sampling and purposive sampling. American Journal of Theoretical and Applied Statistics, 5(1), 1-4.
• Harrison, I. (1996). Look who’s talking now: Listening to voices in curriculum renewal. In Voices from the language classroom, Bailey, M. K. & Nunan, D. (ed.), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Hesse-Biber, S. N. (2010). Mixed methods research: Merging theory with practice. New York: Guilford Press.
• Kırkgöz, Y. (2006). Developing a corpus-based academic reading course. In Developing a new course for adult learners, Kathleen, G. (ed.), Colorado: TESOL.
• Kırkgöz, Y. (2009). Students’ and lecturers’ perceptions of the effectiveness of foreign language instruction in an English-medium university in Turkey, Teaching in Higher Education, 14(1), 81-93.
• Lee, C. L. (2016). Principles and practices of esp course design - a case study of a university of science and technology, International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research, 15(2), 94-105.
• Nunan, D. (1988). The learner centred curriculum.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Nunan, D. (2002). Syllabus design. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Öz, S., & Atay, D. (2017). Turkish EFL instructors’ in-class language assessment literacy: Perceptions and practices. ELT Research Journal, 6(1), 25-44.
• Öztürk, M. (2014). Yükseköğretimde modüler yabancı dil eğitim programı: Hacettepe üniversitesi örneği, Uluslararası Eğitim Programları ve Öğretim Çalışmaları Dergisi, 4(8), 113-128.
• Quicke, J. (1999). A curriculum for life: Schools for a democratic learning society. Buckingham: Open University Press.
• Rea-Dickins, P. & Germaine, K. (2003). Evaluation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Singh, A. S. (2017). Common procedures for development, validity and reliability of a questionnaire. International Journal of Economic, Commerce and Management, 5, 790-801.
• Sullivan, J. H. (2006). The importance of program evaluation in collegiate foreign language programs. The Modern Language Journal, (90)4, 590-593.
• Tekin, M. (2015). Evaluation of a preparatory school program at a public university in Turkey,The Journal of International Social Research, 8(36), 718-733.
• Tollefson, J. W. (1991). Planning language, planning inequality: Language policy in the community. New York:Longman.
• Tunç, F. (2010). Evaluation of An English Language Teaching Program at a Public University Using CIPP Model. (Unpublished M.S. Thesis). Middle East Technical University/Institute of Social Sciences, Ankara.
• Ünal, S., İrfan S. & M. Gürol (2017). Evaluation of the English Language Teaching Curriculum. In Küreselleşen dünyada eğitim, Demirel, Ö. & Dinçer, S. (ed.), Ankara: PegemYayıncılık.
• Vaske, J. J., Beaman, J., & Sponarski, C. C. (2016). Rethinking internal consistency in cronbach’s alpha. Leisure Sciences, 39(2), 163–173.
• Widdowson, H. G. (1984). Teaching language as communication. Oxford: Oxford University Press.