Evaluation of 6th grade English curriculum in terms of speaking skills and identifying causes of speaking problems students face

Ocak, Gürbüz; Kizilkaya, Hasan; Boyraz, Serkan

doi:10.7813/2075-4124.2013/5-3/b.55

Cited by 2 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The students' age, their low readiness level, unhappiness in the class, low level in language skills, lack of prerequisite knowledge, lack of effort, lack of expectation, unwillingness, incompetence in speaking, lack of vocabulary knowledge, low motivation level, lack of grammar knowledge, low participation in speaking activities, hatred for speaking activities, lack of parent involvement, and lack of practice were found to be other reasons behind the failure. These findings are consistent with the studies of Batdi (2015), Ocak, Kizilkaya and Boyraz (2013) who found out that the students have negative attitude towards English, while the students were found to have positive attitudes by Kaya (2018). Consistent with the studies of Erkan (2009), and Kaya (2018), low student participation remained a problem in this study as well.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 93%

“…Likewise, lack of materials which has been found to be one of the biggest factors behind failure in the studies conducted by Akuzel (2006), Dincer (2013), Donmez (2010), Er (2006), Erkan (2009), Ersen-Yanik (2007), Gunes (2009), Harman (1999, Incecay (2012), Kaya, Ok and Urun (2015), Mersinligil (2002), Ormeci (2009), Tekin-Ozel (2011), and Yaman (2010) has been found not to be a problem anymore. Lastly, with 15 class hours of English instruction, this study showed that time is enough to cover the content in contrast to the studies of Batdi (2015), Buyukduman (2005), Demirtas and Erdem (2015), Dincer (2013), Donmez (2010), Er (2006), Erdogan (2005), Harman (1999), Mersinligil (2002), Ocak, Kizilkaya and Boyraz (2013), Ormeci (2009), Tekin-Ozel (2011), and Yaman (2010 who suggested that there is insufficient time to cover all the content.…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 54%

“…The evaluation studies conducted on the English language curricula developed and implemented since 1997 indicated several problems in foreign language education in Turkey which are indicated to influence the implementation and the success of those curricula. These problems include social economic status differences (Buyukduman, 2005;Erkan, 2009;Tekin-Ozel, 2011); crowded classrooms (Akuzel, 2006;Buyukduman, 2005;Dincer, 2013;Donmez, 2010;Erkan, 2009;Ersen-Yanik, 2007;Harman, 1999;Kaya, 2018;Kozikoglu, 2014;Ocak, Kizilkaya & Boyraz, 2013;Ormeci, 2009;Tekin-Ozel, 2011;Yaman, 2010); lack of materials (Akuzel, 2006;Dincer, 2013;Donmez, 2010;Er, 2006;Erkan, 2009;Ersen-Yanik, 2007;Gunes, 2009;Harman, 1999;Incecay, 2012;Kaya, Ok & Urun, 2015;Mersinligil, 2002;Ormeci, 2009;Tekin-Ozel, 2011;Yaman, 2010); use of board and student course book as the only material (Er, 2006;Kaya, Ok, & Urun, 2015;Mersinligil, 2002); students' negative attitude towards English (Batdi, 2015;Ocak, Kizilkaya & Boyraz, 2013); insufficient time to cover the content (Akuzel, 2006;Batdi, 2015;Buyukduman, 2005;Demirtas & Erdem, 2015;…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

A Comparison between the Fifth Grade Intensive English Language Curriculum and the Fifth Grade English Language Curriculum: Students’ Achievement in Speaking

Kaya¹

2019

EUROPEAN J ED RES

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

It is aimed, in this study, to compare the achievement level of the students taught with the fifth grade intensive English language curriculum (IELC) and the ones taught with the fifth grade English language curriculum (ELC) in terms of their speaking skills. With this aim, it is also intended to find out the failure behind the students' speaking skills. Sequential explanatory strategy, which is one of the mixed-methods research designs, was used for this study as the aim was to further explain the quantitative findings. There were two groups of participants in this study. The first group included 64 fifth grade students selected from two different schools though simple random sampling, while the second group consisted of the five teachers teaching the fifth grade IELC. Two instruments developed by the researcher were utilized to collect data. The first instrument was an achievement test developed to measure students' success in speaking skills, while the second instrument was a semi-structured interview schedule developed to collect data from the teachers implementing the fifth grade IELC. The quantitative data collected through the achievement test were analyzed with descriptive statistics including means and standard deviations and inferential statistics through independent samples t-test which was used to compare the two groups of students' achievement levels, while the qualitative data gathered through the semi-structured interviews were analyzed with content analysis. The findings indicated that only one objective was attained by the students, the results of independent samples t-test indicated that there was not a significant difference in the achievement levels of the students taught with the fifth grade IELC and the ones taught with the fifth grade ELC. The reasons behind this failure was found to be resulting from teacher-related, student-related, and Ministry of National Education (MoNE)-related factors referring to implementation problems rather than curriculum design.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 93%

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 54%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A Comparison between the Fifth Grade Intensive English Language Curriculum and the Fifth Grade English Language Curriculum: Students’ Achievement in Speaking

Kaya¹

2019

EUROPEAN J ED RES

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Arıbaş Büge, 2005;Büyükduman, 2005;Harman, 1999;İğrek, 2001;Koydemir, 2001;Mersinligil, 2002;Mirici, 2000;Nasman, 2003;Orhan, 2001;Tok, 2002;Yanık, 2007;17 2006ELTP Arı, 2014Gökler, Aypay & Arı, 2012;Cihan & Gürlen, 2009;Çelen, 2011;Demirlier, 2010;Erkan, 2009;Erkan, 2015;Demirel, Gümüştekin & Yazgünoğlu, 2010;Güneş, 2007;İnam (Çelik), 2009;Kalkan, 2010;Küçük, 2008;Ocak, Kızılkaya & Boyraz, 2013;Orakcı, 2012;Örmeci, 2009;Özbay, 2009;Özel, 2011;Sak, 2008;Seçkin, 2011;Şad, 2011;Topkaya & Küçük, 2010;Üner, 2010; As Table 1 shows, the 1997 ELTP was evaluated by 17 and the 2006 ELTP was evaluated by 27 studies while the number of studies which evaluated the recent 2013 ELTP was 19.…”

Section: Eltpmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Alkan & Arslan, 2014; Arı, 2014; Aybek, 2015;Bayraktar, 2014;Büyükduman, 2005;Bulut & Atabey, 2016;Cihan & Gürlen, 2009;Erarslan, 2016;Harman, 1999;İnam, 2009;İyitoğlu &Alcı, 2015;Kandemir, 2016;Küçük, 2008;Mersinligil, 2002;Ocak, Kızılkaya & Boyraz, 2013;Orakçı, 2012;Örmeci, 2009;Özüdoğru & Adıgüzel, 2015;Tok&Kandemir, 2015;Topkaya & Küçük, 2010;Yanık, 2007;Yıldıran & Tanrıseven, 2015;Yörü, 2012;Content Arı, 2014Alkan & Arslan, 2014;Bayraktar, 2014;Büyükduman, 2005;Cihan& Gürlen, 2009;Demirlier, 2010;Erarslan, 2016;Harman, 1999;Küçük, 2008;Mersinligil, 2002;Ocak, Kızılkaya & Boyraz, 2013;Orakçı, 2012;Örmeci, 2010;Topkaya& Küçük, 2010;Yanık, 2007 Material & Classroom Equipment Arı, 2014;Alkan & Arslan, 2014;Aybek, 2015;Bayraktar, 2014;Bozavlı, 2015;Bulut & Atabey, 2016;Büyükduman, 2005;Cih...…”

Section: Aims and Outcomesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Strengths and Weaknesses of Primary School English Language Teaching Programs in Turkey: Issues Regarding Program Components

Erarslan¹

2018

Eurasian Journal of Applied Linguistics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Today, the ability to communicate in English is a need brought about by the globalization process encompassing developments in many fields such as science and technology. To address this need, English language teaching programs in Turkey (henceforth ELTP) underwent substantial changes within the larger curriculum reform movements taking place in 1997, 2006 and 2013, the last of which is also called the 4+4+4 education system. In these ELTPs, major differences were based on primary school English language teaching and learning. However, there is a growing claim that these ELTPs did not achieve the intensions in equipping primary school students with the necessary communicative skills in English. Thus, this integrative literature review study aims to explore the results of the evaluation studies so as to understand the strengths and weaknesses of each ELTP regarding such program components as aims and outcomes, content, materials, and testing and assessment. In line with this, studies conducted to evaluate the 1997, 2006 and 2013 ELTPs were examined thoroughly, and their findings were identified for the analysis. The analysis of the studies showed that problems with the ELTPs under evaluation included not carefully written aims and outcomes failing to include all domains. It also reveals problems with the selection and design of the content and materials which failed to be adequate and effective. Lastly, reliance on paper-based assessment even failing to include productive skills is seen to be another problem. All these issues seem to be persistent over all the ELTPs, thus they call for careful consideration and action for the improvement of further program changes.

show abstract

Evaluation of 6th grade English curriculum in terms of speaking skills and identifying causes of speaking problems students face

Cited by 2 publications

References 0 publications

A Comparison between the Fifth Grade Intensive English Language Curriculum and the Fifth Grade English Language Curriculum: Students’ Achievement in Speaking

A Comparison between the Fifth Grade Intensive English Language Curriculum and the Fifth Grade English Language Curriculum: Students’ Achievement in Speaking

Strengths and Weaknesses of Primary School English Language Teaching Programs in Turkey: Issues Regarding Program Components

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About