İngilizce ‘İletişim Becerileri II’ Programının Hedefler, Avrupa Diller Ortak Başvuru Metni ve Öz-Yeterlik Düzeyi Bakımından İncelenmesi

Abstract

The aim of this study was to reveal the level of goal achievement and the relationship between four language skills in the English “Communication Skills II” course offered at the Foreign Languages Department of a private university in Ankara, as well as to analyze the effects of the course on students’ self-efficacy perceptions for learning English, and student and instructor views about it. The study was descriptive in nature since it was aimed to describe an existing situation. The study group consisted of 197 first-year students from departments that admit students based on their numeric and equal weight scores and 12 instructors teaching the English ‘Communication Skills II’ course. Of the student participants, 122 were from the Engineering Faculty that admits students based on their numeric scores and 75 were from the Faculty of Arts and Science, Faculty of Management and the School of Civil Aviation which admit students based on their equal weight scores. Data were collected by using the ‘Level Diagnostic Test’, ‘Self-Efficacy Scale for English’ and ‘interview forms’. Data from these tools were analyzed on the SPSS package by using appropriate statistical methods. Content analysis was used to interpret the interview data as well as to identify the common qualities between the target behaviors listed in the English ‘Communication Skills II’ course program and Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR). Content analysis was used for qualitative data and for quantitative analysis comparison of mean and median and also correlations were applied. Concerning research questions and data distribution Wilcoxon, Mann Whitney U, and for dependent groups t-test and Ancova tests were employed. The scores of pretest were taken as covariance variable to employ Ancova test which was used to compare the x reading and listening scores of students who study at different departments. The scores of students from different faculties were compared by correcting the posttest scores with relation to pretest scores. For mean corrections Bonferroni statistics were used. At the development stage of self-efficacy scale as data reduction method factor analysis was applied. To measure speaking and writing skills students’ written and oral products were marked by two independent markers. Consistency between markers were calculated by Krippendorf Alpha Coefficient. Even though the CEFR and the English ‘Communication Skills II’ course program were parallel overall, the findings hinted at a need to consider students’ individual needs, improve their listening and speaking skills, promote intercultural awareness, and present students with opportunities to use English effectively as a tool of interaction and communication in their academic, professional and social lives. The English ‘Communication Skills II’ course program was found to contribute to the development of the four language skills in students at departments whose admission criteria are based on numeric and equal weight scores. Students’ pre and posttest scores from the four language skills revealed that regarding pretest scores listening skill and regarding posttest scores reading skill were less developed than the other skills . Students at departments with numeric admission criteria had a higher difference between their self-efficacy pre and posttest mean scores. This suggests that the program better increased the self-efficacy beliefs of students at departments with numeric admission criteria. Students and instructors agreed that the ideal teacher motivated and guided students and was aware of their needs, while the ideal student was active, responsible and autonomous. They also agreed that informative and constructive feedback contributing to the instructional process was important for evaluation. Similarly, they had consensus that students’ speaking and listening skills needed to be developed and their individual needs taken into consideration. On the other hand, some students stated that they could not obtain sufficient support to develop their academic skills at their departments, while instructors confessed that xi differences between student levels and crowded classrooms made it hard to meet individual needs.