An Evaluation of In-Service Training Curriculum for Practitioners of English for Academic Purposes
Abstract
This study evaluated a draft curriculum designed in a preliminary study to help practitioners of EAP (English for Academic Purposes) overcome affective problems in higher education language classes. Participatory evaluation model was used to evaluate the draft curriculum practiced with six EAP practitioners in a SFL (School of Foreign Languages) at a state university in Türkiye. A sequential explanatory mixed methods approach was employed. While quantitative data were gathered via a questionnaire, qualitative data were gathered via open ended question test, semi-structured interviews, in-field notes of the curriculum practitioner and the participant observer, and self-reflections of the participants. Findings presented in line with the strengths and weaknesses of the draft curriculum demonstrated that four components of the draft curriculum (ojectives, learning experiences and materials, content and assessment and evaluation processes) functioned well. In addition, the weaknesses inspired the researchers to develop the draft curriculum. The current study contributes to institutional and national policies of in-service training for EAP practitioners. Developing a curriculum that targets a common problem represents an important innovation towards standardization in training EAP practitioners and fills in a crucial gap in the field of EAP.
Downloads
References
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). Wiley Blackwell.
Collins, B. A. (2010). English-medium higher education: Dilemma and problems. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 39, 97-110.
Cousins, J. B., & Earl, L. M. (1992). The case for participatory evaluation. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 14(4), 397-418.
Cousins, J. B., & Whitmore, E. (1998). Framing participatory evaluation. New Directions For Evaluation, 80, 5-23.
Creswell, J. W. (2014). A concise introduction to mixed methods research. Sage.
Dhungana, P., Luitel, B. C., Gjøtterud, S., & Wagle, S. K. (2021). Context-responsive approaches of/for teachers’ professional development: A participatory framework. Journal of Participatory Research Methods, 2(1), 18869.
Ding, A., Bruce, I. (2017). Entering the field of EAP. In The English for academic purposes practitioner (pp 93-115). Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-59737-9_4
Erdogan, G., & Mede, E. (2021). The evaluation of an English preparatory program using CIPP Model and exploring A1 level students’ motivational beliefs. Journal of Education and Educational Development, 8(1). https://doi.org/10.22555/joeed.v8i1.109.
Fitzpatrick, D., Costley, T., & Tavakoli, P. (2022). Exploring EAP teachers’ expertise: Reflections on practice, pedagogy and professional development. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 59, 101-140.
Koçyiğit, M., & Erdem, C. (2018). A content analysis of graduate research on English preparatory programs at universities. Journal of Human Sciences, 15(3), 1466–1480.
Sharpling, G. (2002). Learning to teach English for academic purposes: Some current training and development issues. English Language Teacher Education and Development, 6, 82-94.
Uysal, D (2019). Yükseköğretim öğrencilerinin İngilizce öğrenme sürecindeki duyuşsal engelleri ve öğretim elemanlarına yönelik hizmet-içi eğitim programı tasarısı. Anadolu Üniversitesi. Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü
Uysal, D., & Guven, M. (2019). Development and validation of teacher oriented affective barriers scale for EFL Context, International Online Journal of Educational Sciences, 11 (4).
Wiggins, G., Wiggins, G. P., & McTighe, J. (2005). Understanding by design. ASCD.
