Research Article
BibTex RIS Cite
Year 2018, Volume: 14 Issue: 3, 269 - 280, 15.09.2018

Abstract

References

  • 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of the students at Tobb University of Economics and Technology toward learning English as a foreign language, Unpublished Master’s Thesis, Bilkent University, Ankara.
  • Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative and Mixed Methods Approaches. London:Sage Publications.
  • Fishman, J. A., & García, O. (2010). Handbook of language and ethnic identity. Oxford University Press, USA.
  • 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curriculum evaluation through needs analysis: Perceptions of intensive English program graduates at Anadolu University, Unpublished Master’s Thesis, Anadolu University, Eskişehir.
  • Gottlieb, M. (1995). Nurturing student learning through portfolios. TESOL Journal, 5 (1), 12-14.
  • Günday, R. (2015). Approaches, methods, technique and multimedia tools in foreign language teaching. Ankara: Favori Publishing.
  • Harmer, J. (2001). The practice of English language teaching. Edinburgh Gate: Pearson.
  • İnal, B., & Aksoy, E. (2014). Evaluation of Çankaya University preparatory school curriculum, Journal of Research in Education and Teaching, 3(3), 85-98.
  • Long, M. H. (2009). Language teaching. In Long, M.H., & Doughty, C.J. (eds.), The Handbook of Language Teaching (pp.3-5) Oxford: Blackwell.
  • 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
  • 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.
  • Whong, M. (2011). Language teaching: Linguistic theory in practice. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

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

Year 2018, Volume: 14 Issue: 3, 269 - 280, 15.09.2018

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



 aksubengu@gmail.com

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



 haticeozgan@nevsehir.edu.tr

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



 barisericok@nevsehir.edu.tr

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



 mervebulut@nevsehir.edu.tr

Department
& Rank



 



Corresponding
author (Yes/No)



 No



 


References

  • 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.
  • Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative and Mixed Methods Approaches. London:Sage Publications.
  • Fishman, J. A., & García, O. (2010). Handbook of language and ethnic identity. Oxford University Press, USA.
  • 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.
  • Gottlieb, M. (1995). Nurturing student learning through portfolios. TESOL Journal, 5 (1), 12-14.
  • Günday, R. (2015). Approaches, methods, technique and multimedia tools in foreign language teaching. Ankara: Favori Publishing.
  • Harmer, J. (2001). The practice of English language teaching. Edinburgh Gate: Pearson.
  • İnal, B., & Aksoy, E. (2014). Evaluation of Çankaya University preparatory school curriculum, Journal of Research in Education and Teaching, 3(3), 85-98.
  • Long, M. H. (2009). Language teaching. In Long, M.H., & Doughty, C.J. (eds.), The Handbook of Language Teaching (pp.3-5) Oxford: Blackwell.
  • 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
  • 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.
  • Whong, M. (2011). Language teaching: Linguistic theory in practice. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
There are 12 citations in total.

Details

Primary Language English
Journal Section Research Article
Authors

Bengü Aksu Ataç This is me

Hatice Özgan Sucu

Barış Eriçok

Merve Bulut This is me

Publication Date September 15, 2018
Published in Issue Year 2018 Volume: 14 Issue: 3

Cite

APA Aksu Ataç, B., Özgan Sucu, H., Eriçok, B., Bulut, M. (2018). The identification of difference between achievement levels of optional and compulsory English preparatory class students. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 14(3), 269-280.
AMA Aksu Ataç B, Özgan Sucu H, Eriçok B, Bulut M. The identification of difference between achievement levels of optional and compulsory English preparatory class students. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies. September 2018;14(3):269-280.
Chicago Aksu Ataç, Bengü, Hatice Özgan Sucu, Barış Eriçok, and Merve Bulut. “The Identification of Difference Between Achievement Levels of Optional and Compulsory English Preparatory Class Students”. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies 14, no. 3 (September 2018): 269-80.
EndNote Aksu Ataç B, Özgan Sucu H, Eriçok B, Bulut M (September 1, 2018) The identification of difference between achievement levels of optional and compulsory English preparatory class students. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies 14 3 269–280.
IEEE B. Aksu Ataç, H. Özgan Sucu, B. Eriçok, and M. Bulut, “The identification of difference between achievement levels of optional and compulsory English preparatory class students”, Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 269–280, 2018.
ISNAD Aksu Ataç, Bengü et al. “The Identification of Difference Between Achievement Levels of Optional and Compulsory English Preparatory Class Students”. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies 14/3 (September 2018), 269-280.
JAMA Aksu Ataç B, Özgan Sucu H, Eriçok B, Bulut M. The identification of difference between achievement levels of optional and compulsory English preparatory class students. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies. 2018;14:269–280.
MLA Aksu Ataç, Bengü et al. “The Identification of Difference Between Achievement Levels of Optional and Compulsory English Preparatory Class Students”. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, vol. 14, no. 3, 2018, pp. 269-80.
Vancouver Aksu Ataç B, Özgan Sucu H, Eriçok B, Bulut M. The identification of difference between achievement levels of optional and compulsory English preparatory class students. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies. 2018;14(3):269-80.