Is It Time to Consider Science High School-Specific English? A Quantitative Case Study

Abstract

The unique nature of each context has been recognized in applied linguistics to particularly address the specific needs of learners. This research aims to elucidate the specific requisites pertaining to English language skills within the cohort of high school science students. This quantitative study consists of 156 English as a foreign language students studying in high schools of science. The assembly of this study cohort was accomplished through the application of criterion sampling. Data pertinent to the study were gathered through a 28-item Likert-scale questionnaire. The analysis of the dataset was conducted employing descriptive statistical methods. Study results reveal that the majority of students at high schools of science desire to hone their speaking and reading skills to facilitate day-to-day interactions. However, a distinctive inclination surfaces in favour of scholarly and professional linguistic domains for the purpose of listening and writing. The findings underscore a compelling need for high school of science students to cultivate autonomy in their pursuit of EFL mastery, while engaging in collaborative endeavours with their peers. In light of the findings, the thoughtful restructuring of English language skill materials and activities is recommended. This restructuring should also be underpinned by a deliberate incorporation of the distinct requirements unique to high school science students. Pedagogical implications are discussed.

Keywords

• english language teaching
• needs analysis
• genre theory
• high school students

References

1. Ahmetović, E., & Dubravac, V. (2021). Elementary school EFL learning experience: A needs analysis. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 11(12), 1515-1525. https://doi.org/10.17507/tpls.1112.02
2. Alderson, J. C. & Alan B. (1992). Evaluating Second Language Education. Cambridge University Press.
3. Alkan, M. F., & Kartal, Ş. (2018). Comparison of teaching English as a foreign language in Turkey with Denmark, Hungary, and Portugal. Turkish Online Journal of English Language Teaching, 3(1), 10-23.
4. Anthony, L. (2018). Introducing English for specific purposes. Routledge.
5. Arslan, A., & Coskun, A. (2014). A needs analysis study for the English curriculum of the teaching staff training program in a Turkish university. Modern Journal of Language Teaching Methods, 4(1), 283. https://avesis.akdeniz.edu.tr/yayin/848bc0ec-8d85-4ffa-a1b7-006bd212ef9c/a-needs-analysis-study-for-the-englishcurriculum-of-the-teaching-staff-trainingprogram-in-a-turkish-university
6. Ataberk, B., & Mirici, I. H. (2022). An Investigation of the 21st Century Skills in English Language Teaching (ELT) Programs in Turkey. International Online Journal of Education and Teaching, 9(4), 1513-1544.
7. Avcı, N., & Engin-Demir, C. (2021). Promoting the vocational English language competences of students in an English student for specific purposes context: A needs of assessment. Psycho-Educational Research Reviews, 10(3), 125–139.
8. Balint, M.(2004). Assessing Students’ Perceived Language Needs in a Needs Analysis. Proceeding of the 9th Conference of Pan-Pacific Association of Applied Linguistics. (pp:26-43). Available from http://www.paaljapan.org/conferences/proceedings/archives/4

9. Ball, S. (2011). Evaluating educational programs. ETS R&D scientific and policy contributions series. A research report. https://www.ets.org/Media/ Research/pdf/RR-11-15.pdf
10. Barton, D., Hamilton, M., & Ivanic, R. (Eds.). (2000). Situated literacies: Reading and writing in context. Routledge.
11. Belcher, D. D. (2006). English for specific purposes: Teaching to perceived needs and imagined futures in worlds of work, study, and everyday life. TESOL Quarterly, 40(1), 133-156. https://doi.org/10.2307/40264514
12. Bhatia, V. K. (2004). Worlds of written discourse: A genre-based view. London: Continuum International.
13. Braun, V., Clarke, V., Boulton, E., Davey, L., & McEvoy, C. (2021). The online survey as a qualitative research tool. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 24(6), 641-654.
14. Brown, J.D. (1995). The elements of language curriculum: a systematic approach to program development. Heinle & Heinle Publishers.
15. Brown, J.D. (2016). Introducing needs analysis and English for specific purposes. Routledge.
16. Büyükduman, F. I. (2001).The opinions of primary school teachers of English on the syllabus of English as a second language in primary school fourth and fifth grades. (Unpublished MA Thesis). Yıldız Teknik University.
17. Büyükduman, F.I. (2005). ilkögretim Okulları İngilizce Ögretmenlerinin Birinci Kademe İngilizce Ögretim Programına İliskin Görüsleri. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Egitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 28(28), 55-64.http://193.140.216.63/200528F%C4%B0GEN%20%C4%B0LKE%20B%C3%9CY%C3%9CK DUMAN.pdf
18. Byrnes, H. (2006). Advanced language learning: The contributions of Halliday and Vygotsky. Continuum.
19. Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2000). Research methods in education (5th ed.). Routledge Falmer
20. Cook, D. A. (2010). Twelve tips for evaluating educational programs. Medical Teacher, 32, 296–301. https://doi.org/10.3109/01421590903480121
21. Creswell, J.W. (2015). Educational Research: Planning, Conducting, and Evaluating Quantitative and Qualitative Research. Pearson Ltd.
22. Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. (2017). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Sage publications.
23. Çimen, S. S. (2022). Exploring EFL Assessment in Turkey: Curriculum and Teacher Practices. International Online Journal of Education and Teaching, 9(1), 531-550.
24. Demir, Y. (2015). All or nothing: English as a foreign language (EFL) student teachers’ and teacher trainers’ reflections on a pre-service English teacher education program in Turkey. The Anthropologist, 19(1), 157-165.
25. Demir-Ayaz, A., Ozkardas, S. & Ozturan, T. (2019). Challenges with English language teaching in high schools in Turkey and possible suggestions to overcome them. Eurasian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 5(1), 41-55. https://doi.org/10.32601/ejal.543778
26. Duran Güler, G. (2021). A needs analysis study in ESP context: Addressing perceived opinions of teachers and learners in vocational secondary education (Master’s Thesis). Çanakkale Onsekiz Mart University.
27. Durmuşoğlu Köse, G., Yüksel, İ., Öztürk, Y., & Tömen, M. (2019). Turkish academics’ foreign language academic literacy: A needs analysis study. International Journal of Instruction, 12(1), 717-736.
28. Eisner, E.W. (2002). The Educational Imagination: On the Design and Evaluation of School Programs.Merrill Prentice Hall.
29. Elisha-Primo, I., Sandler, S., Goldfrad, K., Ferenz, O., & Perpignan, H. (2010). Listening to students’ voices: A curriculum renewal project for an EFL graduate academic program. System, 38(3), 457-466.
30. Erarslan, A. (2018). Strengths and Weaknesses of Primary School English Language Teaching Programs in Turkey: Issues Regarding Program Components. Eurasian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 4(2), 325-347. https://doi.org/10.32601/ejal.464194
31. Erdoğan, G., & Mede, E. (2021). The evaluation of an English preparatory program using CIPP Model and exploring A1 level students’ motivational beliefs. Journal of Education and Educational Development, 8(1). 53-76. https://doi.org/10.22555/joeed.v8i1.109
32. Flowerdew, L. (2013). Needs Analysis and Curriculum Development in ESP. In B. Paltridge & S. Starfield (Eds.), The Handbook of English for Specific Purposes (1st ed., pp. 325–346). John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
33. Gebhard, M. (2005). School reform, hybrid texts, and second language literacies. TESOL Quarterly, 39(2), 187–209.
34. Gerede, D. (2005). A curriculum evaluation through needs analysis: Perceptions of intensive English program graduates at Anadolu University (Master's thesis, Anadolu Üniversitesi). Anadolu University.
35. Gürsoy, E. (2018). English teachers’ understanding of the new English language teaching program and their classroom implementations. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 14 (2), 18-33.
36. Hutchinson, T., & Waters, A. (1987). English for specific purposes: A learning-centered approach. Cambridge University Press.
37. Hyland, K. (2003). Second Language Writing. Cambridge University Press.
38. Hyland, K. (2004). Genre and second language writing. University of Michigan Press.
39. İlgör, B (2019). English Language Needs of Vocational and Technical Anatolian High School Students. Journal of Language Research (JLR), 3(1), 14-25.
40. Isık, E. (2019). Güncellenen 5. sınıf İngilizce öğretim programının (2017) Eğitsel eleştiri modeliyle değerlendirilmesi: Bir durum çalışması [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Firat University.
41. Ivankova, N. V., Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2007). Foundations and approaches to mixed methods research. In K. Maree (Ed.), First steps in research (pp. 253-282). Van Schaik.
42. Jackson, J. (2005). An Inter-university, cross-disciplinary analysis of business education: Perceptions of business faculty in Hong Kong. English for Specific Purposes, 24(3), 293- 306.
43. Janks, H. (2010). Literacy and power. Taylor Francis.
44. Johns, A. (Ed.). (2002). Genre in the classroom: Multiple perspectives. Erlbaum Associates.
45. Kali, Y., & Linn, M. (2010). Curriculum design – as subject matter: Science. In B. McGraw, E. Baker & P. Peterson (Eds.), International encyclopedia of education (3rd ed., pp. 468–474). Elsevier Science Pub.
46. Kandemir, A., & Tok. Ş. (2017). İlkokul 2. sinif ingilizce öğretim programinin katilimci odakli program değerlendirme yaklaşimiyla değerlendirilmesi. Milli Eğitim Dergisi, 46(215), 27-67.
47. Karcı, C. (2012). Ortaöğretim dokuzuncu sınıf İngilizce öğretim programının öğretmen görüşlerine göre değerlendirilmesi (Unpublished MA thesis), Adnan Menderes University.
48. Karim, A., Shahed, F. H., Mohamed, A. R., Rahman, M. M., & Ismail, S. A. M. M. (2019). Evaluation of the Teacher Education Programs in EFL Context: A Testimony of Student Teachers' Perspective. International Journal of Instruction, 12(1), 127-146.
49. Kırkgöz, Y., (2008). Curriculum innovation in Turkish primary education. Asıa-Pacıfıc Journal of Teacher Educatıon, 36(4), 309-322.
50. Koç, E. (2018). Exploring collaborative learning with a focus on group activities in EFL classrooms. İnönü Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 19(3), 582-597.
51. Koc, E. S. (2016). An analysis of dissertations written about evaluation of the primary education curricula in Turkey (2005-2014). Abant İzzet Baysal Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 16(1)126-149.
52. Lynch, B. K. (1997). Language program evaluation: theory and practice. Cambridge University Press.
53. Mappiasse, S. S., & Sihes, A. J. B. (2014). Evaluation of English as a Foreign Language and Its Curriculum in Indonesia: A Review. English Language Teaching, 7(10), 113-122.
54. MEB (2018). 2023 Education Vision Document https://www.gmka.gov.tr/dokumanlar/yayinlar/2023_E%C4%9Fitim%20Vizyonu.pdf
55. Mersinligil, G. (2002). Evaluation of the English language curriculum for the fourth and fifth grade students in elementary education: a sample of Adana province. (Unpublished MA Thesis). Fırat University.
56. Nunan D. (1988). Syllabus Design. Oxford University.
57. Ozer, O., & Yukselir, C. (2023). ‘Am I aware of my roles as a learner?’ The relationships of learner autonomy, self-direction and goal commitment to academic achievement among Turkish EFL learners. Language Awareness, 32(1), 19-38.
58. Öz, H. (2015). Investigating pre-service English teachers’ metacognitive awareness. In H. Öz (Ed.), Language and communication research around the globe: Exploring untested ideas (pp. 35-58). Untested Ideas Research Center.
59. Özen, E. N., Bilgiç Alpaslan, I., Çağlı, A., Özdoğan, İ., Sancak, M., Dizman, A. O., & Sökmen, A. (2013). Turkish national needs assessment of state school English language teaching..TEPAV. https://www.britishcouncil.org.tr/sites/default/files/turkey_national_needs_assessment_of_state_school_english_language_teaching.pdf
60. Özüdoğru, F. (2018). Analysis of curriculum evaluation studies conducted in foreign language education: 2005-2016. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 14(2), 113-134.
61. Padmadewi, N. N., Artini, L. P., Ratminingsih, N. M., Utami, I. L. P., & Marsakawati, N. P. E. (2022). Needs analysis of literacy assessment using blended learning for beginner EFL learners. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 13(2), 441-452. https://doi.org/10.17507/jltr.1302.27
62. Pennycook, A. (1997). Vulgar pragmatism, critical pragmatism, and EAP. English for Specific Purposes, 16, 253–269.
63. Renukadevi, D. (2014). The role of Listening in Language Acquisition; the Challenges & Strategies in Teaching Listening. International Journal of Education and Information Studies, 4(1), 59-63.
64. Richards, J. C. (2001). Curriculum Development in Language Teaching. Cambridge University Press.
65. Richards, J. C. (2002). Curriculum Development in Language Teaching. Cambridge University Press.
66. Rolstad, K., Mahoney, K., & Glass, G. V. (2005). The big picture: A meta-analysis of program effectiveness research on English language learners. Educational Policy, 19(4), 572–594.
67. Rossi, P. H., Lipsey, M. W., & Freeman, H. E. (2004). Expressing and assessing program theory. In P.H. Rossi (Ed), Evaluation: A Systematic Approach (pp. 133-152). Sage.
68. Sabuncuoğlu, A. (2010). Practice of needs analysis for English for specific purpose in vocational high schools [Unpublished Master Thesis]. Ankara University.
69. Solak, E., & Semerci, H. (2015). The views of English teachers and students towards learning English at the second grade of elementary schools. Dil ve Edebiyat Eğitimi Dergisi, 3(16), 1-25.
70. Soruc, A. (2012). The role of needs analysis in language program renewal process. Mevlana International Journal of Education, 2(1), 36-47.
71. Seedhouse, P. (1995). Needs analysis in the general English classroom. ELT Journal, 49,59-65.
72. Smith, G. F., Jung, H., & Zenker, F. (2022). From task-based needs analysis to curriculum evaluation: Putting methodological innovations to the test in an English for academic purposes program. English for Specific Purposes, 66, 80-93.
73. Stufflebeam, D. L. (1971). The relevance of the CIPP evaluation model for educational accountability. Journal of Research and Development in Education,5(1), 19–25.
74. Süer, S. (2022). A content analysis of English curriculum evaluation studies in Turkey (between 2005- 2021). E-Kafkas Journal of Educational Research, 9(2), 528-544. https://doi.org/10.30900/kafkasegt.963984
75. Swales, J. M. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge University Press.
76. Swales, J. M. (2004). Research genres: Exploration and applications. Cambridge University Press.
77. Topkaya, E. Z., & Küçük, Ö. (2010). An evaluation of 4th and 5th grade English language teaching program. Ilkogretim Online, 9(1), 52-65.
78. Tunc, F. (2010). Evaluation of an English language teaching program at a public university using CIPP model (Unpublished master’s thesis). Middle East Technical University.
79. Tuzcu Eken, D. (2021). English education in Turkey: Why are we ‘very low level’?. RumeliDE Dil ve Edebiyat Araştırmaları Dergisi, (23), 804-822. https://doi.org/10.29000/rumelide.949700.
80. Ulum, Ö. G. (2015). A needs analysis study for preparatory class ELT students. European Journal of English Language Teaching, 1(1), 14–29.
81. Ulum, Ö. G. (2020). ESP needs analysis of Turkish learners of English in architecture. RumeliDE Dil ve Edebiyat Araştırmaları Dergisi, (18), 443-456.
82. van Ek, J. (1975). Systems Development in Adult Language Learning: The Threshold Level in a European Unit Credit system for Modern language Learning by Adults. Council of Europe.
83. Weissberg, B. (1993). The graduate seminar: Another research-process genre. English for Specific Purposes, 12, 23-35. https://doi.org/10.1016/0889-4906(93)90025-J
84. Widodo, H. P. (2017). Approaches to needs analysis in ESP curriculum development. The European Journal of Applied Linguistics and TEFL, 6(1), 127-146.
85. Wood, C. L. (2001). Program evaluation of the Diploma in Adult Education at the University of Prince Edward Island. (Unpublished master‟s thesis),University of Prince Edward Island.
86. Yalden, J. (1987). Principles of Course Design for Language Teaching. Cambridge University Press.
87. Yanık, A. (2007). A study of English language curriculum implementation in 6th, 7th and 8th grades of public primary schools through teachers’ and students’ perceptions (Unpublished master’s thesis). Middle East Technical University.
88. Yaşar, Ö. (2015). İlkokul 2. sınıf Fun with Teddy İngilizce ders kitabının öğretmen görüşleri doğrultusunda değerlendirilmesi. Türkiye Sosyal Araştırmalar Dergisi, 19(1), 329-348.
89. Yılmaz, F. (2009). English language needs analysis of university students at a voluntary program. Sosyal Bilimler Araştırmaları Dergisi, 4(1), 148-166.
90. Yin, R. K. (2014). Case study research: Design and methods. SAGE Publications.
91. Yüksel, A. (2001). An evaluation of English teaching programme and implementations in primary schools (4th grade) (Elazıg sample). (Unpublished MA Thesis), Fırat University.
92. Yüzlü, M. Y., & Arslan, A. (2017). The effect of Universal Design for Learning on the academic achievement and self-regulation skills of high school students in English Course. Journal of Education and Practice, 8(18), 66-70.
93. Yüzlü, M. Y. (2023). Learner Agency Transforming into Autonomy in Discussion Skills Course via Moodle. Novitas-ROYAL (Research on Youth and Language), 17(1), 47-61.
94. Yüzlü, M. Y. (2024). Embracing ELF through Erasmus+ mobility: A case study. Asian Englishes, 26(1), 124-139.