The Effect of Action-Oriented Approach on Low-Performing Students’ Achievements

Abstract

Teaching a foreign language to low-performing students necessitates thinking multi-dimensionally. It is not only to convey the knowledge to the students, but also it is to be able to take into consideration their needs, expectations, interests, and backgrounds. Thus, educators use some approaches as a base and apply a lot of teaching methods to provide learning in the best way according to their students. However, it is not easy to reach all of the students. Thanks to the CEFR (Common European Framework of Reference)’s Action Oriented Approach (AOA), educators can reach the objectives of their curriculum even by considering Inclusive Education and increasing the active participation of low-performing students. In this study, it is aimed to determine how an AOA is effective in low-performing students’ achievements. This study was conducted during 4 weeks with a 1-hour duration of 12 classes. A quasi-experimental method with one pretest-posttest group and the sequential explanatory pattern was employed to explain and narrate quantitative results of the effect of the AOA on low-performing students’ achievements. There were 9 students 3 girls, and 6 boys who were in 8th grade (13-14 years old). They were chosen according to their cumulative grade point average (GPA) in English lessons the previous year. All of the students had a standardized achievement pretest and posttest. The data were supported by a parental questionnaire which was prepared by taking an expert opinion. At the end of the study, it was observed that there is a significant difference between the previous and current achievements of the students. Moreover, according to the parents’ interview forms, it was understood that there has been a positive change in the attitudes of students toward English lessons and learning English.

Keywords

• Action Oriented Approach
• CEFR
• Low Performing Students

References

1. Acar, A. (2020a). Social-action-based textbook design in ELT. ESBB, 6(1). https://www.researchgate.net/publication/343509817
2. Acar, A. (2020b). Transforming communicative tasks into mini-projects. Elementary Education Online, 19(3), 1660–1668. https://doi.org/10.17051/ilkonline.2020.734694
3. Ahearn, L. M. (2001). Language and Agency. Annual Review of Anthropol, 30, 109–137. www.AnnualReviews.org
4. Aydınalp, E. B., Binali, E., Üniversitesi, Y., & Language, F. (2020). The Role of Pedagogical Translation on The Development of Intercultural Communicative Competence in Language Teaching. Journal of Language Research, 4(1), 69–85.
5. Barriball, K. L., & While, A. (1994). Collecting data using a semi-structured interview: a discussion paper. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 19, 328–335.
6. Bérešová, J. (2019). AUTHENTIC MATERIALS-A SOURCE FOR INFORMAL ENGLISH ACQUISITION. Journal of International Scientific Publications, 13, 1314–7250. www.scientific-publications.net
7. Carman, L. K. (2015). Low-achievıng students’ perspectives itheır experiences as recipıents of instructional support delivered in a general education setting [In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Education]. Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey.
8. Coşkun, O. (2017). Yabancı Dil Öğretiminde Eylem Odaklı Yaklaşım. Dil ve Edebiyat Araştırmaları, Güz, 16, 83101.

9. Council of Europe. (2001). Common European framework of reference for languages: learning, teaching, assessment. Cambridge University Press. www.coe.int/lang-CEFR
10. Council of Europe. (2001). Common European Framework of Reference for Languages : learning, teaching, assessment: Vol. Companion volume. Council of Europe Publishing.
11. Council of Europe. (2018). Council of Europe. https://rm.coe.int/cefr-companion-volume-with-new-descriptors-2018/1680787989.
12. Creswell, J. (2014). Research design qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (4th ed.). SAGE Publications Inc.
13. Curriculum Service Canada. (n.d.). Practice /Module3_ActionOrientedApproach_English. In A guide to reflective practice for core French teachers: The action-oriented approach. . Retrieved January 26, 2023, from http://www.edugains.ca/resourcesFSL/PDF/AGuideToReflective
14. Dawson, T. E. (97 C.E.). A primer on experimental and quasi-experimental design. Educational Resources Information Center.
15. Doç. Dr. İlter, B., İzgi, İ., Özdemir Çavuşer, E., Yeter Türkeri, A., & Çavuşer Yünlü, Z. T. (2019). Mastermind Ortaokul ve İmam Hatip Ortaokulu İngilizce 8 Ders Kitabı (2th ed.). Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı Yayınları. https://www.mebkaynak.com/8sin/8ingmeb/
16. Faez, F., Majhanovich, S., Taylor, S. K., Smith, M., & Crowley, K. (2011). The power of “Can Do” statements: Teachers’ perceptions of CEFR-informed instruction in French as a second language classrooms in Ontario. In Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics (Vol. 14, Issue 2). https://ir.lib.uwo.ca/edupub.https://journals.lib.unb.ca/index.php/CJAL/article/view/19855/21653
17. Fischer, J. (2020). The underlying action-oriented and task-based approach of the CEFR and its implementation in language testing and assessment at university. Language Learning in Higher Education, 10(2), 301–316. https://doi.org/10.1515/cercles-2020-2021
18. FSL (French as a second language), A guide to Reflective Practice for Core French Teachers, Module 3, The Action OrientedApproach, http://www.edugains.ca/resourcesFSL/PDF/AGuideToReflectivePractice/Module3_ActionOrientedApproach_English.pdf
19. Hendrickson, J. M. (1978). Error Correction in Foreign Language Teaching: Recent Theory, Research, and Practice. The Modern Language Journal, 62(8), 387–398. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.1978.tb02409.x
20. Ivankova, N. V, Creswell, J. W., & Stick, S. L. (n.d.). Using Mixed-Methods Sequential Explanatory Design: From Theory to Practice.
21. Kaliska, M. (2016). An Action-Oriented Approach to Language Corpora in Foreign Language Teaching. Lingwistyka Stosowana, 17(2), 29–41. www.ls.uw.edu.pl
22. Kallio, H., Pietilä, A. M., Johnson, M., & Kangasniemi, M. (2016). Systematic methodological review: developing a framework for a qualitative semi-structured interview guide. In Journal of Advanced Nursing (Vol. 72, Issue 12, pp. 2954–2965). Blackwell Publishing Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1111/jan.13031
23. Lier, L. van. (2007). Action-based Teaching, Autonomy and Identity. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 1(1), 46–65. https://doi.org/10.2167/illt42.0
24. Little, D. (2007). The Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Perspectives on the Making of Supranational Language Education Policy. The Modern Language, 91(4), 645–655.: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4626091
25. Nath, P. R., Mohamad, M., & Yamat, H. (2017). The Effects of Movies on the Affective Filter and English Acquisition of Low-Achieving English Learners. Creative Education, 08(08), 1357–1378. https://doi.org/10.4236/ce.2017.88096
26. Puren, C. (2021). Information Literacy in a Social Action-Oriented Approach:From Communicative Competence to Informational Competence. English Scholar Beyond Borders, 1(1), 50–62. www.christianpuren.comwww.englishscholarsbeyondborders.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/Christian-Puren.pdf-www.christianpuren.com/mes-travaux/2021g-en/
27. Rosito, A. C. (2020). Academic achievement among university students: The role of causal attribution of academic success and failure. HUMANITAS: Indonesian Psychological Journal, 17(1), 23. https://doi.org/10.26555/humanitas.v17i1.11719
28. Sarı, Ş. (2020). The effects of action- oriented approach on teaching english to students with mild specific language learning difficulties. Hacettepe Universitesi, Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitütü, ANKARA
29. Sharma, S., Devi, R., Kumari, J., Rohtak, M. D. U., & Sonipat, K. (2018). Pragmatism in Education. International Journal of Engineering Technology Science and Research, 5(1). www.ijetsr.com
30. Suaykratok, P., Manosuthikit, A., Kanchai, T., & Trakantalerngsak, T. (2019). Thai EFL university lecturers’ viewpoints towards impacts of the CEFR on their English language curricula and teaching practice. NIDA Journal of Language and Communication, 24(35), 23–58. http://lcjournal.nida.ac.th
31. Supunya, N. (2022). Towards the CEFR Action-Oriented Approach: Factors Influencing its Achievement in Thai EFL Classrooms. 3L: Language, Linguistics, Literature, 28(2), 33–48. https://doi.org/10.17576/3L-2022-2802-03
32. Tabachnick, B. G. ve Fidell, L. S. (2013). Using Multivariate Statistics. 6. Baskı. Boston, MA: Pearson.
33. Zaki, A. W., & Darmi, R. (2021). The implementation of CEFR in ESL Learning: Why does it matter to the Malaysian Education System. Asian Journal of Assessment in Teaching and Learning, 11(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.37134/ajatel.vol11.2.1.2021
34. Zhang, L. J. (2010). A Dynamic Metacognitive Systems Account of Chinese University Students’ Knowledge About EFL Reading. TESOL Quarterly, 44(2), 320–353. https://doi.org/10.5054/tq
35. Zorba, M. G., & Arikan, A. (2012). A study of Anatolian High Schools’ 9th grade English language curriculum in relation to the CEFR. Uşak Üniversitesi Eğitim Araştırmaları Dergisi, 2(2), 13–24. http://dergipark.ulakbim.gov.tr/usakead/