The identification of difference between achievement levels of optional and compulsory English preparatory class students

Abstract

Please fill up the following information accurately. (Please use Times New Roman, 12 pt.
The identification of difference between achievement levels of optional and compulsory English preparatory class students
The purpose of the study is to identify the difference between achievement levels of students in optional and compulsory English preparatory classes at the School of Foreign Languages at the University of Nevşehir Hacı Bektaş Veli. In accordance with this purpose, the mean scores of overall English achievement levels that optional and compulsory preparatory students get are compared. In line with this objective, the mean scores of assessment grades of active participation and portfolio that optional and compulsory preparatory students get through the academic year are compared. Besides, it is also aimed to find the reasons of this difference through views of the English instructors. The study is a qualitative research using the document analyses and interview method. The population of the study consists of 170 students who are studying at the optional English preparatory class in the School of Foreign Languages at Nevsehir Haci Bektas Veli University in 2017-2018 academic year and 559 compulsory English preparatory class students in the School of Foreign Languages at Nevsehir Haci Bektas Veli University in 2015-2016 academic year. The qualitative data about the views of the English instructors were gathered through semi-structured interviews conducted to 30 instructors. Frequency and percentage distributions of descriptive statistical techniques were used to compare mean scores of the study group and content analysis method was used to analyze the questions of the semi-structured interviews. It is concluded that compulsory preparatory class students’ level of English achievement, active participation score and portfolio assessment score is lower than that of optional preparatory class students. Besides, according to the qualitative data, it is found out that the change in preparatory class system from compulsory to optional is believed to cause negative results in teaching English by the instructors. Finally, the instructors have evaluated student motivation level to be lower than before since the preparatory class system changed from compulsory to optional in 2015.
Information about Author(s)*
Author 1
Author (Last name, First name)	Ataç Aksu, Bengü
Affiliated institution (University)	Nevşehir Hacı Bektas Veli University
Country	Turkey
Email address	[e-mail]
Department & Rank
Corresponding author (Yes/No) Write only one corresponding author.	Yes
Author 2
Author (Last name, First name)	Özgan Sucu, Hatice
Affiliated institution (University)	Nevşehir Hacı Bektas Veli University
Country	Turkey
Email address	[e-mail]
Department & Rank
Corresponding author (Yes/No)	No
Author 3
Author (Last name, First name)	Eriçok, Barış
Affiliated institution (University)	Nevşehir Hacı Bektas Veli University
Country	Turkey
Email address	[e-mail]
Department & Rank
Corresponding author (Yes/No)	No
Author 4
Author (Last name, First name)	Bulut, Merve
Affiliated institution (University)	Nevşehir Hacı Bektas Veli University
Country	Turkey
Email address	[e-mail]
Department & Rank
Corresponding author (Yes/No)	No

Keywords

• Optional and compulsory preparation class; English achievement levels; portfolio; active participation

Kaynakça

1. Aydın, E. (2007). An analysis of motivations, attitudes, and perceptions of the students at Tobb University of Economics and Technology toward learning English as a foreign language, Unpublished Master’s Thesis, Bilkent University, Ankara.
2. Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative and Mixed Methods Approaches. London:Sage Publications.
3. Fishman, J. A., & García, O. (2010). Handbook of language and ethnic identity. Oxford University Press, USA.
4. Gerede, D. (2005). A curriculum evaluation through needs analysis: Perceptions of intensive English program graduates at Anadolu University, Unpublished Master’s Thesis, Anadolu University, Eskişehir.
5. Gottlieb, M. (1995). Nurturing student learning through portfolios. TESOL Journal, 5 (1), 12-14.
6. Günday, R. (2015). Approaches, methods, technique and multimedia tools in foreign language teaching. Ankara: Favori Publishing.
7. Harmer, J. (2001). The practice of English language teaching. Edinburgh Gate: Pearson.
8. İnal, B., & Aksoy, E. (2014). Evaluation of Çankaya University preparatory school curriculum, Journal of Research in Education and Teaching, 3(3), 85-98.

9. Long, M. H. (2009). Language teaching. In Long, M.H., & Doughty, C.J. (eds.), The Handbook of Language Teaching (pp.3-5) Oxford: Blackwell.
10. Şen Ersoy, N., & Kürüm Yapıcıoğlu, D. (2015). Evaluation of optional English preparatory program based on student and lecturer views. Journal of Qualitative Research in Education, 3(3), 7-43. http://dx.doi.org/10.14689/issn.21482624.1.3c3s1m [Online] www.enadonline.com
11. 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.
12. Whong, M. (2011). Language teaching: Linguistic theory in practice. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.