Hazırlık eğitimi İngilizce öğretim programında ilerlemeli ve modüler sistem: Bir sistem değişikliği incelemesi

Bilim, teknoloji, eğitim ve ticaret gibi önemli alanlardaki öneminden dolayı İngilizce Türkiye’de eğitimin her kademesinde zorunlu ders olarak okutulmaktadır. Yükseköğretim kademesinde ise birçok üniversitede eğitim dili İngilizce olan bölümlerin öğrencileri için bir yıllık zorunlu hazırlık eğitimi verilmektedir. Türkiye’de hazırlık okullarında genellikle ilerlemeli ve modüler sistem adı altında iki farklı sistem uygulanmaktadır. İlerlemeli sistemde öğrenciler yıl boyunca yerleştirme sınavı sonucunda yer aldıkları seviyede ilerlemeli olarak öğrenim görürken, modüler sistemde ise öğrenciler dil öğrenmedeki seviye gelişimine göre seviye atlayabilmekte veya mevcut seviyede 8 haftalık eğitimi tekrar almaktadırlar. Öğrencilerin istenilen düzeyde İngilizce bilgisine sahip olmadan hazırlığı tamamlamaları ve konu ile ilgili artan olumsuz geri bildirimler sonucunda bir devlet üniversitesinde 2015-2016 öğretim yılında ilerlemeli sistemden modüler sisteme geçiş yapılmıştır. Bu bağlamda bu çalışma hem ilerlemeli hem de modüler sistemde hazırlık sınıflarında görev almış akademisyenlerin her iki sistemin güçlü ve zayıf yanları ile ilgili görüş ve değerlendirmelerini almayı amaçlamıştır. Çalışmaya 23 akademisyen katılmış ve yarı-yapılandırılmış görüşme formu aracılığıyla veriler toplanmıştır. Çalışmanın bulgularına göre her iki sistemin de olumlu ve olumsuz yönleri bulunduğu ancak akademisyenler tarafından modüler sistemin tercih edildiği sonucuna ulaşılmıştır.

Progressive vs modular system in preparatory school English language teaching program: A case of system change at a state university in Turkey

Due to its importance in almost all significant fields such as science, technology, education and trade, Englishlanguage is offered as a compulsory course in all levels of formal education in Turkey. In the higher educationcontext, most universities offer one-year compulsory English preparatory education for students enrolled indepartments whose medium of instruction is in English. Commonly, the two systems existing in preparatoryprograms known as modular system and progressive system enact the legislation and organization of courses aswell as the assessment, classroom procedures and material design. In progressive system, English education isoffered throughout the year based on learners’ level of English according to the placement test given at thebeginning of the education year; on the other hand, in modular system English is taught in different modules at thesame time allowing learners to move forward or fall behind their current levels. Because of the poor English levelsof the preparatory class students at a state university in Turkey, a system change from a progressive system to amodular one took place which started to be implemented from 2015-2016 academic year onwards. For the purposeof evaluating both systems, English language instructors’ views related to strengths and weaknesses of the modularand progressive systems were gathered through a semi-structured opinion form. The data were gathered from 23participants who actively taught English in the both systems and were analysed through inductive content analysis.Findings of the study show that the participants found the modular system effective and efficient since studentswere placed in their correct levels of English unlike in the progressive system and since they were assessed basedon their current level of English, Additionally, the participants favoured the modular system due to well-plannedplacement system in each module although they reported that modular system caused confusion on the part of theinstructors because of the frequent exams and quizzes applied within a limited period. Besides, delivering Englishin more than one module at a time also caused the instructors to feel under pressure and a burden. As for progressivesystem, it was found that it was practical in terms of planning and organization in spite of decreasing studentmotivation. These findings indicate that although instructors find modular system effective and efficient, it needsa good planning and organization.

PDF

___

Alkan, M. F., & Arslan, M. (2014). Evaluation of the 2 nd Grade English Language Curriculum. Uluslararası Eğitim Programları ve Öğretim Çalışmaları Dergisi, 4(7), 87–99.
Arı, A. (2014). Teacher Opinions About Evaluation of 6th Grade English Lesson Curriculum in Primary Schools. Journal of Theoretical Educational Science, 7(4), 172–194.
British Council-TEPAV. (2015). The state of English in Higher Education in Turkey: A Baseline Study. British Council.
Brown, J. (1995). The elements of language curriculum A Systematic Approach to Program Development. Boston: Heinle & Heinle Publishers.
Cephe, P. T., & Toprak, E. T. (2014). The Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Insights for language testing. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 10(1), 79– 88.
Cholakova, M. (2015). The Influence of the English Language in a Multilingual and a Monolingual Environment – A Comparative Approach. International Journal of English Language Teaching, 3(4), 35–78.
Cihan, T., & Gürlen, E. (2009). Teachers’ Opinions on the English Language Curriculum of the 5 th Grade of Primary Education. Anadolu Universitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 13(1), 131-146.
Coşkun, A. (2013). An investigation of the effectiveness of the modular general English language teaching preparatory program at a Turkish university. South African Journal of Education, 33(3), 1–18.
Damirchili, F., & Tajari, M. (2011). Explaining internal factors effective on educational quality improvement based on views of students from Zanjan Azad universities. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 30, 363–366. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.10.071
Dogancay-Aktuna, S. (1998). The Spread of English in Turkey and its Current Sociolinguistic Profile. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 19(1), 24–39. https://doi.org/10.1080/01434639808666340
Frye, A. W., & Hemmer, P. A. (2012). Program evaluation models and related theories: AMEE guide no. 67. Medical Teacher, 34(5), 288-99. https://doi.org/10.3109/0142159X.2012.668637
Gerede, D. (2005). A Curriculum Evaluation Through Needs Analysis: Perceptions of Intensive English Program Graduates at Anadolu University (Unpublished MA Thesis). Anadolu University, Eskişehir.
Gonzales, E. F. (2011). An EFL placement test and its use in a private high school. Open Distance Learning Master of Arts in Teaching English as a Foreign/Second Language (MA TEFL / TESL). University of Birmingham.
İnal, B., & Aksoy, E. (2014). Çankaya Üniversitesi Hazırlık Sınıfı İngilizce Öğretim Programının Değerlendirilmesi. Journal of Research in Education and Teaching, 3(3), 119–134.
İyitoglu, O., & Alci, B. (2015). A Qualitative Research on 2nd Grade Teachers ’ Opinions about 2nd Grade English Language Teaching Curriculum. Elementary Education Online, 14(2), 682–696.
Karakaş, A. (2015). Orientations towards English among English-medium Instruction Students Abstract. Englishes in Practice, 2(1), 1–38. https://doi.org/10.1515/eip-2015-0001
Kir, E., & Sülü, A. (2014). Language Teachers ’ Views on Cefr. International Online Journal of Education and Teaching, 1(5), 358–364. Retrieved from http://iojet.org/index.php/IOJET/article/view/69/97
Kirkgoz, Y. (2007). English Language Teaching in Turkey: Policy Changes and their Implementations. RELC Journal, 38(2), 216–228. https://doi.org/10.1177/0033688207079696
Kirkgöz, Y. (2014). Students’ Perceptions of English Language versus Turkish Language Used as the Medium of Instruction in Higher Education in Turkey. Turkish Studies, 9(12), 443–459.
Lynch, B. K. (1996). Language program evaluation: Theory and practice. Melbourne Australia: Cambridge University Press. Retrieved from https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=uhE0gJlvcoMC&pgis=1
Mede, E., & Akyel, A. S. (2014). Design of A Language Preparatory Program : A Case Study. Journal of Theory and Practice in Education, 10(3), 643–666.
Mede, E., & Serkan, U. (2014). Evaluation of a language preparatory program : A case study. ELT Research Journal, 3(4), 201–221.
Nunan, D. (2003). The Impact of English as a Global Language on Educational Policies and Practices in the Asia-Pacific Region. TESOL Quarterly, 37(4), 589. https://doi.org/10.2307/3588214
Öner, G., & Mede, E. (2015). Evaluation of A1 level program at an English preparatory school in a Turkish university: a case study. ELT Research Journal, 4(3), 204–226.
Özkanal, Ü., & Hakan, A. G. (2010). Effectiveness of University English Preparatory Programs. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 1(3), 295–305. https://doi.org/10.4304/jltr.1.3.295- 305
Sarıçoban, G., & Sarıçoban, A. (2012). Atatürk and the History of Foreign Language Education in Turkey. The Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 8(1), 23–26.
Seçkin, H. (2010). İlköğretim 4. Sınıf İngilizce dersi öğretim programının değerlendirilmesi (Unpublised Doctoral Thesis). Hacettepe University, Ankara.
Tunç, F. (2010). Evaluation of an English Language Teaching Program at a Public University Using CIPP Model (Unpublished MA Thesis). Middle East Technical University, Ankara.
West, R., Güven, A., Parry, J., Ergenekon, T., Aşık, G., Aydın, İ., & Başıhoş, S. (2015). The state of English in higher education in Turkey:A baseline study. British Council & TEPAV. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004
Yıldıran, Ç., & Tanrıseven, I. (2015). Teachers’ opinions on the English Curriculum of the 2nd Grade Primary Education. International Journal of Language Academy, 3(1), 210–223.