EVALUATION OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE PREPARATORY SCHOOL CURRICULUM IN THE LIGHTS OF ILLUMINATIVE EVALUATION MODEL

Mustafa Gültekin, Cavide Demirci

Abstract


The study aims to evaluate the curriculum implemented at the School of Foreign Languages at a public university in Turkey. In accordance with this purpose, it is aimed to evaluate whether the objectives of the preparatory school are appropriate for low-level students’ expectations of general English, departmental English and vocational English. The method of the study is designed according to Illuminative Evaluation Model, complying with mixed method using both quantitative and qualitative data sources. For this purpose, it is aimed to evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of the program in the light of the data obtained from the students and instructors about the instructional system of the program through observations, a questionnaire and semi-structured interviews. The findings indicate that the objectives are appropriate for low level students’ expectations of general English, but they do not adequately meet their expectations of departmental English and vocational English.

 

Article visualizations:

Hit counter

DOI

Keywords


Illuminative Evaluation Model, preparatory school English curriculum, low level students

Full Text:

PDF

References


Arlı, M. ve Nazik, H. (2001). Bilimsel Araştırmaya Giriş. Gazi Kitabevi. Ankara.

Arslan, A. ve Coşkun, A. (2012). Avrupa Dilleri Ortak Çerçeve Programı: Türkiye ve Dünyada neler Oluyor? Abant İzzet Baysal Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi. Vol: 2. No: 4. 1-7.

Aygün, Ö. (2017). A Scale of Turkish Preparatory School University Students’ Demotivational Factors Towards Learning English. Yayınlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi. Eskişehir.

Byram, M., Zarate, G. & Neuner, G. (1997). Sociocultural Competence in Language Learning and Teaching. Studies towards a Common European Framework of Reference for Language Learning and Teaching. Council of Europe Publishing. Strasbourg.

Çağatay, S. ve Gürocak, F. Ü. (2016). Is CEFR over there? International Conference on Teaching and Learning English as an Additional Language, GlobELT 2016, 14-17, Antalya.

De Jong, J. H. A. L., Mayor, M. & Hayes, C. (2016). Developing Global Scale of English Learning Objectives Aligned to the Common European Framework. pearson.english.com/gse

Demirel, Ö. (2013). Kuramdan uygulamaya eğitimde program geliştirme. Pegem Yayıncılık. Ankara.

Demirezen, M. ve Bakla, A. (2007). Testing the Efficiency of a CEF-Based Waystage (A2-Level) Syllabus. The Reading Matrix. Vol. 7, No. 2, August 2007. 81-96.

Ediger, M. (2006). Organizing the Curriculum. Discovery Publishing House. New Delhi.

Ergunay, O. Erenoğlu, Ç. and Demirbilek, G. (2015). Evaluation of the English Preparatory Curriculum at Eskisehir Osmangazi University (ESOGU) Based on the Views of the Students. 2nd Teaching & Education Conference. Florence. 12-16. https://ideas.repec.org/p/sek/itepro/2904443.html#cites

Fitzpatrick, J. L., Sanders, J. R. & Worthen, B. R. (2004). Program Evaluation: Alternative Approaches and Practical Guidelines. Pearson. New York.

Gerede, D. (2005). A Curriculum Evaluation through Needs Analysis: perceptions of Intensive English Program Graduates at Anadolu University. (Yayınlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi). Anadolu University.

Güler, G. (2005). Avrupa Konseyi Ortak Dil Kriterleri Çerçeve Programı ve Türkiye’de Yabancı Dil Öğretim Süreçleri. Trakya Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi Cilt:6 Sayı.1. 89-106.

Harden, R. M. (2002). Learning Outcomes and Instructional Objectives: is there a difference. Medical Teacher, 24:2, 151-155, DOI: 10.1080/0142159022020687

Inan, B. Yuksel, D. Gurkan, S. (2012). Expectations of department lecturers and/or proffesors from prep school education and preparatory English language lessons. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 46 (2012) 3164 – 3171.

Küçükoğlu, H. (2015). An Evaluation of Phd ELT Programs in Turkey. Yayınlanmamış Doktora Tezi. Hacettepe Üniversitesi. Ankara.

Marsh, C. J. & Willis, G. (2007). Curriculum: Alternative Approaches, Ongoing Issues. Pearson. U.S.A.

Mayring, P. (2007). On generalization in qualitatively oriented research. Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 8(3). 1-10.

Neuman, W. L. (2006). Socail Research Methods: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches. Sixth Edition. Pearson U.S.A.

Ornstein, A. C. & Hunkins, F. P. (2004). Curriculum foundations, principles and issues. Allyn and Bacon. United States.

Öner, G. ve Mede, E. (2015). Evaluation of A1 level program at an English preparatory school in a Turkish university: a case study. International Association of Research in Foreign Language Education and Applied Linguistics ELT Research Journal 2015,4(3). 204-226.

Özdoruk, P. (2016). Evaluation of the English Language Preparatory School Curriculum at Yıldırım Beyazıt University. Yayınlanmamış Yüksek Lisans tezi. METU.

Özkanal, Ü. ve Hakan, A. G. (2010). Effectiveness of University English Preparatory Programs: Eskisehir Osmangazi Univesrity Foreign languages Department English Preparatory Program. Journal of Language Teaching and Research. Vol 1 No.3. 295-305.

Özüdoğru, F. ve Adıgüzel, O. C. (2016). Aydınlatıcı Program Değerlendirme Modeli. Anadolu Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi. Cilt: 16. Sayı: 5 (Özel Sayı). 24-34.

Parlett, M. & Hamilton, D. (1972). Evaluation as Illumination: A New Approach to the Study of Innovatory Programs. U.S. Department of Health, Education &Welfare. National Institute of Education. 2-35.

Patton, M. Q. (2001) The CEFP as a Model for Integrating Evaluation within Organizations. Cancer Practice, 9(1). 11-16.

Pearson. (2016). On Raising English Standards with a Single Global Framework. https://www.english.com/gse/resources.

Soruc, A. (2012). The Role of Needs Analysis in Language Program Renewal Process. Mevlana International Journal of Education (MIJE) Vol. 2(1). 36-47, 30.

Sülü, A. ve Kır, E. (2014). Language Teachers’ Views on CEFR. International Online Journal of Education and Teaching /ISSN: 2148-225X. 356-364.

Teahen, R. C. (1996). Curriculum Models: Integration of Academic and Occupational Content. Eric.

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.

Topper, A. ve Lancaster, S. (2016). Online Graduate Educational Technology Program: An Illuminative Evaluation. Funded Articles. 76. http://scholarworks.gvsu.edu/oapsf_articles/76

Tunç, F. (2010). Evaluation of an English Language Teaching Program at a Public University Using CIPP Model. Yüksek Lisans Tezi. Ankara

Üstünoğlu, E. (2011). Developing a New Test Culture: The Art of Possible. Eğitim Bilimleri Eğitim Dergisi; Uluslararası E-Dergi. Cilt:1 Sayı:1.

Üstünoğlu, E., Zazaoğlu, K. F. A., Keskin, M. N., Sarayköylü, B. ve Akdoğan, G. (2012). Developing A CEF Based Curriculum: A Case Study. International Journal of Instruction. E-ISSN:1308-1470. www.e-iji.net.

Student Handbook. (2019). Yabancı Diller Yüksekokulu Öğrenci El Kitabı (2019) https://ydyo.anadolu.edu.tr/sites/ydyo.anadolu.edu.tr/files/files/manuals/2019-2020%20%C3%96%C4%9Fretim%20Eleman%C4%B1%20El%20Kitab%C4%B1%20T%C3%BCrk%C3%A7e_v7.pdf

Staff Handbook. (2019). Yabancı Diller Yüksekokulu Öğretim Elemanı El Kitabı (2019). https://ydyo.anadolu.edu.tr/sites/ydyo.anadolu.edu.tr/files/files/manuals/2019-2020%20O%CC%88g%CC%86renci%20El%20Kitab%C4%B1_vx2.pdf

Yıldırım, A. ve Şimşek, H. (2008). Sosyal Bilimlerde Nitel Araştırma Yöntemleri. Ankara: Seçkin Yayıncılık.


Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Copyright © 2015. European Journal of English Language Teaching (ISSN 2501-7136) is a registered trademark of Open Access Publishing GroupAll rights reserved.

This journal is a serial publication uniquely identified by an International Standard Serial Number (ISSN) serial number certificate issued by Romanian National Library (Biblioteca Nationala a Romaniei). All the research works are uniquely identified by a CrossRef DOI digital object identifier supplied by indexing and repository platforms.

All the research works published on this journal are meeting the Open Access Publishing requirements and can be freely accessed, shared, modified, distributed and used in educational, commercial and non-commercial purposes under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0).