lecturers' perceptions of english abilities and language use in english-medium universities
Post on 17-Jul-2015
58 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
Ali Karakaş
Southampton University, UK
LECTURERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF ENGLISH
ABILITIES AND LANGUAGE USE IN ENGLISH-
MEDIUM UNIVERSITIES
2014
Antalya
outline
Introduction
Bakcground to the study
Purpose of the study
Method
Research design
Setting and participants
Data collection and analysis
Results & Discussion
Conclusion
References
Background to the study
Globalization + Internationalization English : language of Higher Education
(Brumfit, 2004; Coleman, 2007)
Increased use of EMI in non-English speaking contexts (Europe)
(Wachter & Maiworm, 2008)
Turkey: EMI programs on the rise
Approaches to EMI (partially or fully) (Alexander, 2008)
EMI trend spearheaded by private universities
Entry requirements for
Students
Certification of their English skills
e.g. TOEFL, IELTS, Universities’ own exams
Remedial language teaching Preparatory schools (one year)
Language support (academic writing centers)
Deficit
approach
Any requirements for academic staff?
Previous studies
Students’ perceptions of their English skills (Kırkgöz, 2005)
less positive about speaking skills
Students and lecturers’ view of their English skills (Byun et al, 2010)
not satisfactory with their English skills
Problems observed in language use (Klaassen & Graaf, 2001; Ball & Lindsay, 2013; Jensen et al, 2011)
oral production (e.g. accent, pronunciation, fluency)
diffculty coping with EMI
Students: more positive
Purpose of the study
…to study lecturers’ self-perceptions of their
English abilities and language use.
… to learn about what goals they have with
respect to academic speaking and writing skills
…to explore what they think about their
students’ English skills
Method
Research Design:
Descriptive + quantitative approach
Setting & Participants
Three EMI universities : Fatih, Boğaziçi (İstanbul), Metu (Ankara)
A total of 33 academic staff (i.e. Lecturers)
Faculty of economoics and administrative sciences
Faculty of Engineering
Data collection tool
Online questionnaires
Closed-ended items
November-December 2013
Data analysis
SPSS used for data analysis
Descriptive & Inferential
statistics
The Results & Discussion
Background of participants
Frequency
(f)
Percentage
(%)
Gender Male 24 72,7
Female 9 27,3
University Fatih 5 15,5
Boğaziçi 10 30,3
METU 18 54,5
Faculty Economics and
Administrative Sciences
15 45,5
Engineering 18 54,5
Being abroad Yes 32 97,0
No 1 3,0
Background of
participants
Research question 1:
Lecturers’ self-evaluation of their English skills
Writing Listenin
g
Vocabular
y
Speakin
g
Overall
proficiency
f % f % f % f % f %
Poor - - - - 1 3,0 1 3,0 - -
Satisfactor
y
1 3,0 3 9,1 2 6,1 1 3,0 2 6,1
Good 16 48,5 10 30,3 16 48,5 1
7
51,5 15 45,5
Excellent 16 48,5 20 60,6 14 42,4 1
4
42,4 16 48,5
The relationship between English Proficiency and other
variables
Gender and proficiency (Mann-Whitney U test)
English
skills
Gender n X SD Σrank Xrank U Z P
1. Writing Male 24 3.41 .58 16.48 395.
595.5 -.57 .619
Female 9 3.55 .52 18.39 165.
5
2.
Listening
Male 24 3.41 .71 15.81 379.
579.5 -1.33 .254
Female 9 3.77 .44 20.17 181.
5
3.Vocabula
ry
Male 24 3.12 .74 14.69 352.
552.5 -2.49
.023
*Female 9 3.77 .44 23.17 208.
5
4.
Speaking
Male 24 3.29 .75 16.67 400.
0100 -.36 .238
(U=52.5, p= 0.023)
The relationship between English Proficiency and other
variables
University and proficiency (Kruskal-Wallis H test)
Skills Universities N Xrank X2 SD Sig.
Writing
Fatih University 5 9.50
5.20 .56 .074Bogazici
University10
16.65
METU 18 19.28
Listening
Fatih University 5 13.20
1.31 .66 .518Bogazici
University10
18.35
METU 18 17.31
Vocabulary
Fatih University 5 12.40
2.57 .72 .277Bogazici
University10
15.70
METU 18 19.00
Speaking
Fatih University 5 9
6.07 .69 .048Bogazici
University10
16.3
METU 18 19.61
Speakin
g
Universitie
s
n X SD Σrank Xrank U Z P
Fatih Uni 5 2.60 .89 6.20 31.0
016.0
0
-
2.45.030METU 18 3.55 .51 13.6
1
245.
0
Mann-Whitney U test
Use of Skills in Practice Statements (N=33) SA A D SD
f % f % f % f %
1. I have adequate vocabulary to write in
English.
21 64 10 30 1 3 1 3
2. I make basic grammatical errors in
speaking.
4 12 12 36 17 52 - -
3. My English sounds like native English. 3 9 10 30 18 55 2 6
4. I experience some difficulties in writing
for publication.
- - 6 18 15 46 12 36
5. I can communicate successfully in
English.
22 67 11 33 - - - -
6. I lack fluency in English. 1 3 - - 15 46 17 52
7. I have good English pronunciation. 11 33 19 58 3 9 - -
8. I have a foreign (i.e. Turkish) accent. 3 9 20 60 5 15 5 15
9. My English is difficult to understand. - - 1 3 11 33 21 64
Research question 2:
Goals in academic writing
30%
37%
12%
21%
to be a competent writer, thatis, it's OK to make somegrammatical mistakes aslong as my writing isunderstood.to write like Americanspeakers.
to write like British speakers.
Research question 2:
Goals in academic speaking
64%15%
3%
9%
9%
To be a competent speaker; itis ok to have a Turkish accentand make mistakesTo speak like Americanspeakers
To speak like other nativespeakers (Canadians,Australians)To speak like British speakers
Other
Groups n Xrank Σrank z P
Goal in
speaking 33 10.23 20.50
-2.679 0,007Goal in writing
33 8.83 132.50
Research question 2:
Difference between Lecturers’ Orientations to Speaking
and Writing
Research question 3:
Lecturers’ views on students’ English skills
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Excellent Good Satisfactory Poor
0%
12%
55%
33%
0%
40%
55%
7%
Turkish Students' English Non-Turkish Students' English
Groupsn
Xrank Σrank z P
Turkish
students’
English
33 .00 .00
-3.819
0,000Non-Turkish
students’
English
33 8.50 136.00
Difference between lecturers’ rating of Turkish & Non-Turkish Students’
English
Conclusion
English skills to be of a high level No problems reported concerning the micro skills
Gender & the university they work at affect their ratings
Male & female lecturers differed in vocabulary knowledge
Goals Spoken English: 64% aspire for competency
Written English: 49% aspire for native-like proficiency
Students’ English
Turkish students’ English v.s. Non-Turkish students
ReferencesAirey, J. & Linder, C. (2006) Language and the experience of learning university physics in Sweden. European Journal of Physics 27, 553–560.
Ball, B. & Lindsay, D. (2013). Language demands and support for English medium instruction in tertiary education. Learning from a specific context. In A. Doiz, D. Lasagabaster, & J. M. Sierra. English-medium instruction at universities: Global Challenges. (pp. 44-61). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Brumfit, C. J. (2004). Language and higher education: Two current challenges. Arts and Humanities in Higher Education, 3(2), 163–173.
Byun, K., Chu, H., Kim, M., Park, I., Kim, S., & Jung, J. (2010). English-medium teaching in Korean higher education: policy debates and reality. Higher Education, 62, 431–449. doi:10.1007/s10734-010-9397-4
Coleman, J. A. (2006). English-medium teaching in European higher education. Language Teaching, 39(1), 1–14. doi:10.1017/S026144480600320X
Klaassen, R. G. (2001). The international university curriculum: Challenges in English-medium engineering education. Doctoral thesis, Department of Communication and Education, Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands.
Klaassen, R., & Graaff, E. De. (2001). Facing innovation: Preparing lecturers for English-medium instruction in a non-native context. European journal of engineering Education, 26(3), 281–289. Retrieved from http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/03043790110054409
Vinke, A.A., Snippe, J. and Jochems, W. (1998) English-medium content courses in non-English higher education: A study of lecturer experiences and teaching behaviours. Teaching in Higher Education, 3, 383–394.
Wächter, B. & F. Maiworm (2008). English-taught Programmes in European Higher Education. The Picture in
top related