Research Article
BibTex RIS Cite

Towards a Defensible Tertiary-level EAP Curriculum: A Needs Analysis Study

Year 2020, Volume: 13 Issue: 2, 424 - 439, 17.04.2020
https://doi.org/10.30831/akukeg.629689

Abstract

This paper reports on both the process and
findings of curriculum innovation towards a defensible EAP curriculum in
Eskisehir Osmangazi University Foreign Languages Department. In addition, it
illustrates the evaluation of the newly introduced innovations by the students.
Brown’s (2009) framework was used for NA studies. Needs analysis studies were
conducted in 2016-2017 academic year with the students and the teaching staff
employed in the department. Focus group technique was used to take views and
opinions of teaching staff about components of the curriculum and opinions of
the students were taken through workshop technique. In 2016-2017 academic year,
repeat students’ opinions regarding the curriculum in practice were taken
through an open ended questionnaire. The data was analyzed by using content
analysis technique. Emerging themes in the NA study are need for clarification
of the program objectives, need for revision of teaching materials, need for
improvement in teaching and learning practices, and need for improvement in
assessment practices. Last, emerging themes in open ended questionnaire
(evaluation of the NA study) are ‘materials’ and ‘assessment procedures’, and
‘overall structure of the EAP curriculum’.

References

  • Afshar, S.H., & Movassagh, H. (2016). EAP in Iran: Where does the problem lie? Where are we heading? Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 22, 132-151.
  • Benesch, S. (1996). Needs analysis and curriculum development in EAP: An example of a critical approach. TESOL Quarterly, 30(4), 723-738.
  • Braine, G. (2001). Twenty years of needs analysis: Reflections on a personal journey. In J. Flowerdew & M. Peacock (eds.), Research perspectives on English for Academic Purposes (pp. 195–207). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77-101.
  • Brown, J.D. (2009). Foreign and second language needs analysis. In M.H. Long & C. J. Doughty (Eds.), Handbook of language teaching (pp. 269-293). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
  • Chostelidou, D. (2010). A needs analysis approach to ESP syllabus design in Greek tertiary education: a descriptive account of students’ needs. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2(2), 4507-4512.
  • Dudley-Evans, T., & St John, M. J. (1998). Developments in English for specific purposes: a multi-disciplinary approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Fox, J.D. (2009). Moderating top-down policy impact and supporting EAP curricular renewal: Exploring the potential of diagnostic assessment. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 8, 26-42.
  • Helmer, K.A. (2013). Critical English for academic purposes: Building on learner, teacher, and program strengths. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 12, 273-287.
  • Henson, K.T. (1995). Curriculum development for education reform. New York: HarperCollins College.
  • Hyland, K., & Hamp-Lyons, L. (2002). EAP: issues and directions. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 1, 1-12.
  • Karatas, H., & Fer, S. (2009). Evaluation of English curriculum at Yıldız Technical University using CIPP model. Education and Science, 34(153), 47-60.
  • Kirkgoz, Y. (2009). The challenge of developing and maintaining curriculum innovation at higher education. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 1, 73-78.
  • Kirkgoz, Y. (2008). A case study of teachers’ implementation of curriculum innovation in English language teaching in Turkish primary education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24, 1859-1875.
  • Markee, N.(1997). Managing curricular innovation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Nation, I.S.P., & Macalister, J. (2010). Language curriculum design. New York: Routledge.
  • Ornstein, A., & Hunkins, F. (2009) Curriculum design. In Curriculum: Foundations, Principles and Issues (5th Ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson/Allyn and Bacon.
  • Richards, J.C. (2001). Curriculum development in language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Salter-Dvorak, H. (2016). Learning to argue in EAP: Evaluating a curriculum innovation from the inside. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 22, 19-31.
  • Schilling, J. (2006). On the pragmatics of qualitative assessment: Designing the process for content analysis. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 22(1), 28.
  • Stufflebeam, D.L. (2003) The CIPP Model for Evaluation. In: Kellaghan T., Stufflebeam D.L. (eds) International Handbook of Educational Evaluation. Kluwer International Handbooks of Education, vol 9. Springer, Dordrecht.
  • White, R.V. (1988). The ELT Curriculum: Design, innovation and management. New York: Basil Blackwell.

Yüksek Öğretim Düzeyinde Savunulabilir Akademik Amaçlı Bir İngilizce Öğretim Programı: İhtiyaç Analizi Çalışması

Year 2020, Volume: 13 Issue: 2, 424 - 439, 17.04.2020
https://doi.org/10.30831/akukeg.629689

Abstract

Bu çalışma Eskişehir Osmangazi Üniversitesi Yabancı Diller Bölümü
İngilizce Hazırlık Programında program geliştirme çalışmaları kapsamında
gerçekleştirilen ihtiyaç analizi çalışması sonuçlarını ve ihtiyaç analizi
sonucunda yapılan yeniliklerin değerlendirilmesi için yapılan açık uçlu anket
çalışmasının sonuçlarını açıklamaktadır. İhtiyaç analizi çalışması Brown (2009)
modeli kullanılarak gerçekleştirilmiştir. İhtiyaç analizi çalışmaları 2016-2017
akademik yılında bölümde öğrenim gören öğrenciler ve öğretim elemanları ile
gerçekleştirilmiştir. Öğretim elemanlarının öğretim programına ilişkin görüşleri
odak grup görüşmeleri yolu ile alınırken, öğrenci görüşlerinin alınabilmesi
için çalıştay tekniği kullanılmıştır. Ayrıca, ihtiyaç analizi sonucunda
gerçekleştirilen yeniliklerin değerlendirilmesi için 2016-2017 akademik yılının
sonunda tekrar öğrencilerine açık uçlu bir anket uygulanmıştır ve tekrar
öğrencilerinin görüşleri alınmıştır. Çalışmanın verilerinin analizinde içerik
analizi yöntemi kullanılmıştır. İhtiyaç analizi çalışmasının sonuçları 4 tema
altında sunulmuştur. Bu temalar şu biçimdedir: programın amaçlarının
belirlenmesine ilişkin ihtiyaçlar, öğretim materyallerinin yeniden
düzenlenmesine ilişkin ihtiyaçlar, öğrenme öğretme süreçlerinin
iyileştirilmesine ilişkin ihtiyaçlar ve ölçme değerlendirme süreçlerinin
iyileştirilmesine ilişkin ihtiyaçlar. Son olarak, açık uçlu anket sonuçlarına
göre ortaya çıkan temalar şu biçimdedir: öğretim materyalleri, ölçme
değerlendirme süreçleri ve öğretim programının genel yapısı.

References

  • Afshar, S.H., & Movassagh, H. (2016). EAP in Iran: Where does the problem lie? Where are we heading? Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 22, 132-151.
  • Benesch, S. (1996). Needs analysis and curriculum development in EAP: An example of a critical approach. TESOL Quarterly, 30(4), 723-738.
  • Braine, G. (2001). Twenty years of needs analysis: Reflections on a personal journey. In J. Flowerdew & M. Peacock (eds.), Research perspectives on English for Academic Purposes (pp. 195–207). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77-101.
  • Brown, J.D. (2009). Foreign and second language needs analysis. In M.H. Long & C. J. Doughty (Eds.), Handbook of language teaching (pp. 269-293). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
  • Chostelidou, D. (2010). A needs analysis approach to ESP syllabus design in Greek tertiary education: a descriptive account of students’ needs. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2(2), 4507-4512.
  • Dudley-Evans, T., & St John, M. J. (1998). Developments in English for specific purposes: a multi-disciplinary approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Fox, J.D. (2009). Moderating top-down policy impact and supporting EAP curricular renewal: Exploring the potential of diagnostic assessment. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 8, 26-42.
  • Helmer, K.A. (2013). Critical English for academic purposes: Building on learner, teacher, and program strengths. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 12, 273-287.
  • Henson, K.T. (1995). Curriculum development for education reform. New York: HarperCollins College.
  • Hyland, K., & Hamp-Lyons, L. (2002). EAP: issues and directions. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 1, 1-12.
  • Karatas, H., & Fer, S. (2009). Evaluation of English curriculum at Yıldız Technical University using CIPP model. Education and Science, 34(153), 47-60.
  • Kirkgoz, Y. (2009). The challenge of developing and maintaining curriculum innovation at higher education. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 1, 73-78.
  • Kirkgoz, Y. (2008). A case study of teachers’ implementation of curriculum innovation in English language teaching in Turkish primary education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24, 1859-1875.
  • Markee, N.(1997). Managing curricular innovation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Nation, I.S.P., & Macalister, J. (2010). Language curriculum design. New York: Routledge.
  • Ornstein, A., & Hunkins, F. (2009) Curriculum design. In Curriculum: Foundations, Principles and Issues (5th Ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson/Allyn and Bacon.
  • Richards, J.C. (2001). Curriculum development in language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Salter-Dvorak, H. (2016). Learning to argue in EAP: Evaluating a curriculum innovation from the inside. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 22, 19-31.
  • Schilling, J. (2006). On the pragmatics of qualitative assessment: Designing the process for content analysis. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 22(1), 28.
  • Stufflebeam, D.L. (2003) The CIPP Model for Evaluation. In: Kellaghan T., Stufflebeam D.L. (eds) International Handbook of Educational Evaluation. Kluwer International Handbooks of Education, vol 9. Springer, Dordrecht.
  • White, R.V. (1988). The ELT Curriculum: Design, innovation and management. New York: Basil Blackwell.
There are 22 citations in total.

Details

Primary Language English
Subjects Studies on Education
Journal Section Articles
Authors

Onur Ergünay 0000-0002-1688-0458

Derya Uysal 0000-0001-5393-5211

Publication Date April 17, 2020
Submission Date October 5, 2019
Published in Issue Year 2020 Volume: 13 Issue: 2

Cite

APA Ergünay, O., & Uysal, D. (2020). Towards a Defensible Tertiary-level EAP Curriculum: A Needs Analysis Study. Journal of Theoretical Educational Science, 13(2), 424-439. https://doi.org/10.30831/akukeg.629689