perceptions of students, teachers and parents a thesis...
TRANSCRIPT
iii
PERCEPTIONS OF STUDENTS, TEACHERS AND PARENTS
REGARDING ENGLISH-MEDIUM INSTRUCTION AT SECONDARY EDUCATION
A THESIS SUBMITTED TO
THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF SOCIAL SCIENCES
OF
MIDDLE EAST TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY
BY
ŞAHİKA TARHAN
IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
DOCTOR IN PHILOSOPHY
IN
THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONAL SCIENCES
SEPTEMBER 2003
iv
Approval of the Graduate School of Social Sciences
____________________
Prof. Dr. Sencer Ayata
Director
I certify that this thesis satisfies all requirements as a thesis for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy.
____________________
Prof. Dr. Hasan Şimşek
Head of Department
This is to certify that we have read this thesis and that in our opinion it is fully
adequate, in scope and quality, as a thesis for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.
____________________
Assist. Prof. Dr.Ahmet Ok
Supervisor
Examining Committee Members
Prof. Dr. Fersun Paykoç ____________________
Prof. Dr. Hüsnü Enginarlar ____________________
Assist. Prof. Dr. Ahmet Ok ____________________
Assist. Prof. Dr. Paşa Tevfik Cephe ____________________
Assist. Prof. Dr. Cennet (Engin) Demir ____________________
v
ABSTRACT
PERCEPTIONS OF STUDENTS, TEACHERS AND PARENTS REGARDING
ENGLISH-MEDIUM INSTRUCTION AT SECONDARY EDUCATION
Tarhan, Şahika
Ph.D. , Department of Educational Sciences
Supervisor: Assist. Prof. Dr. Ahmet Ok
September 2003, 295 pages
The purpose of this study was to determine perceptions of students, teachers and
parents concerning English-medium instruction and their perceptions of English as a
foreign language. The research design of the study comprised a nation-wide
questionnaire survey and individual interviews. The sample for the survey consisted
of 982 students, 383 teachers and 988 parents in 42 Anatolian high schools across 32
provinces in Turkey selected using statified and criterion sampling. The participants
of the interviews were six students, four teachers and four parents. Two distinct
instruments were used for data collection; a survey questionnaire containing five-
point Likert scales and open-ended questions; and a semi-structured interview
schedule. To analyze quantitative data, descriptive statistics, one-way ANOVA and
bivariate correlations were conducted. The qualitative data of the interviews and
open-ended questions were analyzed via content analysis. Results indicated that
students, teachers and parents do not favor English-medium instruction at secondary
education. Regardless of their position on English-medium instruction, participants
underscored problems of implementation of English-medium instruction at Anatolian
high schools. A positive correleation was found between perceptions of English and
perceptions of English-medium instruction for each group. Results also showed that
all groups perceive English positively as a foreign language, and support the teaching
and learning of English. According to students’ and teachers’ perceptions, English-
vi
medium instruction influences the instructional process in math and science in
Anatolian high schools, and poses problems particularly in the learning of the subject
matter.
Keywords: English-medium instruction (EMI) ; immersion programs; English as a
foreign language (EFL); attitudes toward English-medium instruction; attitudes
toward English; content-based second language instruction
vii
ÖZ
ORTA ÖĞRETİMDE YABANCI DİLLE ÖĞRETİME İLİŞKİN ÖĞRENCİ,
ÖĞRETMEN VE VELİ GÖRÜŞLERİ
Tarhan, Şahika
Doktora, Eğitim Bilimleri Bölümü
Tez yöneticisi: Yrd. Doç. Dr. Ahmet Ok
Eylül 2003, 295 sayfa
Bu çalışmanın amacı yabancı dille (İngilizce) öğretim ve yabancı dil olarak
İngilizce’ye ilişkin, öğrenci, öğretmen, veli görüşlerini saptamaktır. Araştırma
deseni, yurt çapında uygulanan geniş kapsamlı bir anket çalışması ve bireysel
görüşmeler temeline dayanmaktadır. Çalışmanın örneklemi, 32 ilde bulunan 42
Anadolu lisesinden tabakalı ve kritere dayalı örneklem yöntemiyle seçilen 982
öğrenci, 383 öğretmen ve 988 veliyi kapsamaktadır. Buna ek olarak, görüşmelere altı
öğrenci, dört öğretmen ve dört öğrenci katılmıştır. Veri toplamak için öğrenci,
öğretmen ve veliler için ayrı düzenlenen ve farklı ve ortak sorulardan oluşan iki tür
araç kullanılmıştır. Birinci araç beşli altölçekler ve açık uçlu soruları içermektedir.
İkinci araç yarı yapılandırılmış mülakat formlarından oluşmuştur. Çalışmada
toplanan nicel verilerin analizi, tek yönlü varyans analizi, ikiyönlü korelasyon, t-testi
ve betimsel yöntemler kullanılarak yapılmıştır. Nitel veriler içerik analizine tabi
tutularak alt kategoriler ve temalar oluşturularak çözümlenmiştir. Bulgular öğrenci,
öğretmen ve velilerin çoğunluğunun orta öğretim düzeyinde yabancı dille (İngilizce)
öğretimi desteklemediklerini göstermiştir. Yabancı dille öğretime olumsuz bakan
öğrenci, öğretmen ve velilerin yanısıra olumlu bakanlar da uygulamaya yönelik
sorunlar, ve öğretim sürecindeki zorluklar üzerinde durmuşlardır. Yabancı dille
öğretimi tercih eden ve etmeyen grupların, yabancı dille öğretime yönelik algılarıyla,
yabancı dile yönelik algıları arasında olumlu bir ilişki bulunmuştur. Bulgular yabancı
viii
dil olarak İngilizce’nin olumlu algılandığını ve bu dilin öğretiminin desteklendiğini
göstermiştir. Öğretmen ve öğrencilere göre yabancı dille (İngilizce) öğretim,
Anadolu liselerinde matematik ve fen derslerinde öğretim sürecini etkilemekte,
özellikle konuları öğrenme bakımından sorun olabilmektedir.
Anahtar sözcükler: yabancı dille öğretim; İngilizce öğretim; İngilizce öğretimi;
yabancı dil öğretimi; yabancı dille öğretime ilişkin tutumlar/görüşler; İngilizce’ye
ilişkin tutumlar/görüşler; içerik ağırlıklı ikinci dil öğretimi
ix
To my parents,
x
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to express my deepest appreciation to my supervisor, Assist.
Prof. Dr. Ahmet Ok, who provided me with key considerations throughout the
research. Without his guidance and help this dissertation would not have been
possible.
I would like to thank my committtee members, Prof. Dr. Fersun Paykoç and
Prof. Dr. Hüsnü Enginarlar, who contributed to this study with their invaluable
comments and suggestions.
In addition, a thank you to Dr. James C. Stalker, the former MA TEFL
director, for providing feedback on the instruments. He and other MA TEFL
instructors introduced me to foreign language teaching research, which has had a
lasting effect.
I thank the EARGED for the financial support. Not only did EARGED
provide me with funding, but also performed the reproduction and mailing of the
questionnaire forms to be delivered to schools throughout the country.
I would like to express my gratitude to data recorders, Hilal Arslan, Figen
Uzar and Tuğba Körpe who diligently and devotedly worked for data recording.
Without their persevarance, data recording would have been practically impossible. I
also thank Prof. Dr. Ziya Özcan for referrring me to these professional people.
Finally, a heart-felt thank to my colleagues and friends, Yurdanur Özkan,
Zelal Akar, Fatma Mızıkacı, Hanife Akar for supporting me throughout and
proofreading the drafts. I also thank Semra Tican-Başaran for her help and support.
Special thanks go out to Erdem Berber for his technical and spiritual support, and to
my family and the many friends that made this happen.
xi
I hereby declare that all the information in this document has been obtained and
presented in accordance with academic rules and ethical conduct. I also declare that,
as required by these rules and conduct, I have fully cited and referenced all material
and results that are not original to this work.
Date: 5.9.2003 Signature:
xii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT ............................................................................................................. .iii
ÖZ ..................................................................................................... .......................... v
DEDICATION............................................................................................................vii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ......................................................................................viii
TABLE OF CONTENTS..............................................................................................x
LIST OF TABLES ....................................................................................................xv
LIST OF FIGURES ...............................................................................................xviii
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ...................................................................................xix
CHAPTER
1. INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................1
1.1 Background to the Study ...........................................................................1
1.2 Purpose of the study....................................................................................5
1.3 Research Questions.................................................................................. ...5
1.4 Significance of the Study........................................................................... 6
1.5 Definitions of Terms.................................................................................10
2. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ...................................................................... 15
2.1 Language Planning and Language Status .............................................. 15
2.1.1 Language, Ethnicity and Nationality ....................................... 16
2.1.2 Language, Power and Politics................................................... 16
2.1.3 Language Planning (Languageolicy)........................................ 17
2.2 Bilingualism and Bilingual Education..................................................... 18
2.2.1 Bilingualism and Some Types of Bilingualism ....................... 19
2.2.2 Bilingual Education.................................................................. 20
2.2.2.1 Typologies of Bilingual Education .......................... 21
xiii
2.2.2.2 Bilingual Education in North America .................... 22
2.3 Content-based Second Language Instruction .... ................................... 23
2.3.1 Immersion Approach and Canadian Immersion .................... 25
2.3.2 Research Issues in Bilingual Education and Immersion
Foreign Language Programs ................................................. 28
2.3.2.1 Bilingualism ............................................................. 29
2.3.2.2 Effectiveness of Bilingual and Foreign Language
Immersion Programs.................................................. 30
2.3.2.3 Effects of Bilingual Education Programs.................. 31
2.4 Attitudes toward Bilingual Education ............................................... 33
2.4.1 North America ....................................................................... 34
2.4.2 Language Policies and Attitudes towards EMI
in Other Settings .................................................................... 35
2.5 The Turkish Context .............................................................................. 41
2.6 Summary.................................................................................................. 47
3. METHOD ........................................................................................................... 51
3.1 Overall Design of the Study .................................................................. 51
3.2 Participants ............................................................................................. 54
3.2.1 Survey Participants ................................................................ 54
3.2.1.1 Students .................................................................... 56
3.2.1.2 Teachers .................................................................... 57
3.2.1.3 Parents ...................................................................... 57
3.2.2 Interview Participants .............................................................. 57
3.3 Data Collection Instruments .................................................................. 58
3.3.1 Pilot Work ................................................................................ 59
3.3.1.1 Survey Questionnaire .............................................. 61
3.3.1.2 Interview Protocols .................................................. 63
3.3.2 Instruments .............................................................................. 63
3.3.2.1 Survey Questionnaire .............................................. 63
3.3.2.2 Interview Protocol .................................................... 65
3.4 Validity and Reliability of Instruments ................................................. 66
3.5 Data Collection Procedure ...................................................................... 67
xiv
3.5.1 Survey ...................................................................................... 67
3.5.2 Interviews ................................................................................. 68
3.6 Data Analysis ................................................................................... 69
3.7 Limitations .............................................................................................. 70
4. RESULTS .......................................................................................................... 71
4.1 Characteristics of Participants ............................................................... 71
4.1.1 Students ................................................................................... 71
4.1.2 Teachers .................................................................................. 73
4.1.3 Parents ..................................................................................... 74
4.2 Perceptions of English-medium Instruction ............................................ 75
4.2.1 Position of Students, Teachers and Parents on
English-medium Instruction .....................................................75
4.2.2 Reasons for Favoring English-medium Instruction ................. 79
4.2.2.1 Summary of “Reasons for Favoring EMI”................ 92
4.2.3 Reasons for Not Favoring English-medium Instruction........... 95
4.2.3.1 Summary of the “Reasons for Not Favoring
EMI” ...................................................................... 105
4.2.4 Difference among Groups in Perceptions
of English-medium Instruction................................................108
4.3 The relationship between Groups’ Perceptions of English-medium
Instruction (EMI) and Their Perceptions of English as a Foreign
Language (EFL) ....................................................................................109
4.4 Perceptions of English as a Foreign Language ......................................110
4.4.1 The Language/s Associated with “Foreign Language”............110
4.4.2 How Groups Perceive English as a Foreign Language and
Teaching of Foreign Languages ..............................................110
4.4.3 Difference among Groups in Perceptions of English
as a Foreign Language ............................................................137
4.4.4 Summary of “Perceptions of English as a
Foreign Language” ..................................................................139
4.5 Students’ and Teachers’ Perceptions of the Influence of
English-medium Instruction (EMI) on the Instructional Process..........144
xv
4.5.1 Influence of EMI on Students’ Learning of the Subject
Matter ....................................................................................144
4.5.1.1 Summary of “ Perceptions of the Influence of EMI
on Learning of the Subject Matter”............................167
4.5.2 Perceptions of the Influence of EMI on Linguistics
Skills of Students ....................................................................169
4.5.2.1 Summary of “Perceptions of the Influence
of EMI on Linguistic Skills”.......................................174
4.5.3 Teachers’ Perception of the Influence of EMI on Their
Teaching Performance ...........................................................175
4 5.3.1 Summary of “Teachers’ Perceptions of the Influence
of EMI on their Teaching Performance”..................179
5. DISCUSSION, CONCLUSION, IMPLICATIONS ...........................................180
5.1 Discussion of Results and Conclusions .................................................180
5.1.1 Perceptions of English-medium Instruction ......................... 180
5.1.2 Relationship between Perceptions of English-medium
Instruction and Perceptions of English as a Foreign
Language ............................................................................... 188
5.1.3 Perceptions of English as a Foreign Language .................... 190
5.1.4 Perceptions as to the Influence of the English-medium
Instruction on the Instructional Process ............................... 194
5.2 Implications ..........................................................................................201
5.2. 1 Educational Implications ......................................................201
5.2.2. Implication for Further Research .........................................204
REFERENCES ....................................................................................................... 207
APPENDICES.........................................................................................................215
A. Survey Sampling Table for Anatolian High Schools ......................... 216
B. Interview Participants .......................................................................... 219
C. Student Questionnaire Form .................................................................220
D. Teacher Questionnaire Form ..................................................................229
E. Parent Questionnaire Form.....................................................................237
xvi
F. Interview Protocol for Students............................................................. 242
G. Interview Protocol for Teachers..............................................................245
H. Interview Protocol for Parents................................................................248
I. Instructions on How to Administer the Survey Questionnaire................251
J. Coding of the Interview Data...................................................................253
K. Indexing of the Interview Codes.............................................................254
L. Table 1: Correlations between the EFL Items and EFL
Components ...........................................................................................255
Table 2: Rotated Sum of Squared Loadings ..........................................256
M.Table 3: Students’ Perceptions of English-medium Instruction ...........257
Table 4: Students’ Perceptions of English-medium Instruction ...........259
N. Table 5: Teachers’ Perceptions of English-medium Instruction ............261
Table 6: Teachers’ Perceptions of English-medium Instruction ............263
O. Table 7: Parents’ Perceptions of English-medium Instruction .............. 265
Table 8: Parents’ Perceptions of English-medium Instruction ...............267
P. Table 9: Students’ Perceptions of English as a Foreign
Language (EFL)....................................................................... 269
Table 10: Students’ Perceptions of English as a Foreign
Language (EFL).......................................................................270
Q. Table 11: Teachers’ Perceptions of English as a Foreign
Language (EFL).....................................................................271
Table 12: Teachers’ Perceptions of English as a Foreign
Language (EFL)..................................................................... 272
R. Table 13: Parents’ Perceptions of English as a Foreign
Language (EFL)..................................................................... 273
Table 14: Parents’ Perceptions of English as a Foreign
Language (EFL).......................................................................274
S. Table 15: Current Intensity of Exposure of Students to
English-medium Instruction ...................................................................275
T. Turkish Summary ...................................................................................276
VITA........................................................................................................................295
xvii
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE 3.1 Group’s Sample Size by Data Collection Method.........................................54
3.2 Cronbach Alpha Values for Pilot Survey Questionnaire Scales.....................62
3.3 Cronbach Alpha Values for Survey Questionnaire Scales.............................67
4.1 Students’ Distribution According to Grade Level .........................................73
4.2 Parents’ Level of Education...........................................................................74
4.3 Position of Groups on English-medium instruction.......................................75
4.4 Students’ Desired Intensity of Overall English Use in Math and Science
Classes in High School .................................................................................77
4.5 Students’ Desired Intensity of Overall English Use in Math and Science
Classes in Middle School ...............................................................................77
4.6 Teachers’ Desired Intensity of Overall English Use
by Area of Specialization................................................................................78
4.7 Parents’ Desired Intensity of Overall English Use in Math and Science
Classes in High School ..................................................................................78
4.8 Groups’ Reasons for Favoring English-medium Instruction..........................81
4.9 Groups’ Reasons for Not Favoring English-medium Instruction...................96
4.10 Analysis of Variance for Perceptions of English-medium Instruction .......108
4.11 Differences among Groups on Perceptions of English-medium
Instruction....................................................................................................109
4.12 Correlations between Perceptions of English-medium Instruction
and Perceptions of English as a Foreign Language.....................................110
4.13 Groups’ Approach to English as a Foreign Language ................................111
4.14 Groups’ Most Favorable Perceptions of English as a Foreign
Language......................................................................................................112
xviii
4.15 Groups’ Most Unfavorable Perceptions of English as a Foreign Language.....................................................................................................113
4.16 Groups’ Position on Teaching a Foreign Language at Schools..................115
4.17 Students’ Reasons for Supporting Teaching of a Foreign Language
at Schools ..................................................................................................115
4.18 Teachers’ Reasons for Supporting Teaching of a Foreign Language
at Schools ..................................................................................................116
4.19 Parents’ Reasons for Supporting Teaching of a Foreign Language
at Schools....................................................................................................117
4.20 Students’ Reasons for Not Supporting Teaching of a Foreign Language
at Schools. ..................................................................................................119
4.21 Teachers’ Reasons for Not Supporting Teaching of a Foreign Language
at Schools ...................................................................................................119
4.22 Parents’ Reasons for Not Supporting Teaching of a Foreign Language
at Schools ...................................................................................................120
4.23 Analysis of Variance for Perceptions of English
as a Foreign language................................................................................138
4.24 Differences among Groups on Perceptions about English
as a Foreign Language...............................................................................138
4.25 Students’ Perceptions of Influence of English-medium Instruction
on Learning of the Subject Matter in Science............................................146
4.26 Students’ Perceptions of Influence of on English-medium Instruction
on Learning of the Subject Matter in Math.............................................147
4.27 Teachers’ Perceptions of Influence of English-medium Instruction
on Learning of the Subject Matter ...........................................................149
4.28 Students’ Perceptions of Influence of English-medium Instruction
on their Linguistic Skills in Science Courses...........................................170
4.29 Students’ Perceptions of Influence of English-medium Instruction
on their Linguistic Skills in Math.............................................................170
4.30 Teachers’ Perceptions of Influence of English-medium Instruction
on Students’ Linguistic Skills....................................................................171
4.31 Teachers’ Perception of Influence of English-medium Instruction
on their Teaching Performance..................................................................176
1. Correlations between the EFL Items and EFL Components....................255
xix
2. Rotated Sum of Squared Loadings ...........................................................256
3. Students’ Perceptions of English-medium Instruction ............................257
4. Students’ Perceptions of English-medium Instruction ............................259
5. Teachers’ Perceptions of English-medium Instruction .............................261
6. Teachers’ Perceptions of English-medium Instruction .............................263
7. Parents’ Perceptions of English-medium Instruction .................................265
8. Parents’ Perceptions of English-medium Instruction .................................267
9. Students’ Perceptions of English as a Foreign Language .........................269
10. Students’ Perceptions of English as a Foreign Language .........................270
11. Teachers’ Perceptions of English as a Foreign Language ........................271
12. Teachers’ Perceptions of English as a Foreign Language ........................272
13. Parents’ Perceptions of English as a Foreign Language ...........................273
14. Parents’ Perceptions of English as a Foreign Language .......................... 274
15. Current Intensity of Exposure of Students to English as a Foreign
Language......................................................................................................275
xx
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE
1. Research Design ....................................................................................................53
2. Overview of Development of Instruments, Piloting,
Validity & Reliability...........................................................................................60
3. A Scheme for Presentation of Results ................................................................. 72
4. Distrubution of Teachers by Content-area ........................................................... 92
5. Summary of Results to the Second Sub-question –Underlying Reasons
for Favoring EMI ................................................................................................94
6. Summary of Results to the Third Sub-question – Underlying Reasons
for Not Favoring EMI ........................................................................................107
7. Summary of Results to the Second Sub-question –Positive Perceptions
of English as a Foreign Language.......................................................................141
8. Summary of Results to the Second Sub-question – Positive Perceptions
of English as a Foreign Language .......................................................................142
9. Summary of Results to the Second Sub-question – Negative Perceptions
of English as a Foreign Language ......................................................................143
xxi
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
EMI : English-medium instruction
FLMI: Foreign language-medium instruction
EFL: English as a foreign language
ESL: English as a second language
ELT: English language teaching
FL: foreign language
CLBSI: Content-based second language instruction
AHS: Anatolian high school
ÖSS: University Entrance Exam
EARGED: Research and Development Center for Education
1
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background to the Study
After the World War Two, the spread of English has become more visible as
a result of sociopolitical and economic events. In addition to its dominance in
colonized areas of the world, it began to spread in non-colonized countries and
eventually English has become the world-wide lingua franca, a language used for
communication between people whose first languages differ (Holmes, 1997). The
unique case of the English language often attributed to its being the predominant
language of international diplomacy, business, commerce, popular media, education,
science and technology in the twentieth and twenty-first century (Fishman 1992;
Master, 1998). Today, for transmission of information, English is mainly used,
accelerating its spread and making it the international language of knowledge and
information, which are recognized as the tools of political and economic power of
our age.
This being the case, it is no wonder that English is becoming more and more
integrated into the field of education all over the world. The overwhelming spread of
English necessitates countries to review their language policies in connection with
education. The two outstanding phenomena in this respect are English-medium
instruction and the teaching of English as a second/foreign language. The former is
known to be prevalent in former colonies of Britain and U.S., where English had an
official/semi-official status at some or all levels of education. Although there is now
a tendency to revert back to the education-in-the-mother tongue in some of these
countries due to social and political restructuring subsequent to political
independence, English-medium instruction perpetuates. (Evans, 2002; Flowerdew;
1998; Rahman; 1997; Ramanthan, 1999; Tickoo, 1996). Among the countries that
2
use English as instructional language in some of schools are China, Denmark,
Poland, Turkey, Czechoslovakia (Crystal, 1987), where English does not have
official/semi-official status. In addition to the spread of English-medium higher
education institutions throughout the continental Europe, English-medium secondary
schools exist in countries such as Sweden (Winsa, 1999) and the Netherlands
(Dronkers, 1993; Huibregste, de Bot, Coleman, & Westhoff, 1998/1999).
The spread of English is viewed by three concentric circles, each representing
type of spread, patterns of acquisition and functional domains in which English is
used: the inner circle, the outer circle and expanding circle. The inner circle refers to
traditional basis of English, where it is the primary language (e.g. UK., US, Ireland,
Australia, Canada and New Zealand); the outer circle includes over 50 countries
where English is institutionalized (e. g. Singapore, India, Malawi) as a result of
colonization; and the expanding circle refers to countries that recognize the
importance of English as an international language but has no colonial history (e.g.
China, Japan, Israel, Greece) (Kachru , 1985, as cited in Crystal, 1987, p.107).
In outer circle countries English is learned and taught as a "second" language
at schools (ESL), whereas in expanding circle countries English is learned and taught
as a "foreign" language (EFL) and studied as a regular subject at schools. In terms of
language instruction, EFL/ESL is an important distinction (Strevens, 1992). English-
medium instruction (EMI) is an issue often addressed in connection with the outer
circle countries, which are ESL contexts, where the major language of education is
not the native language of students. In these countries, most of which are
multilingual and multicultural, EMI concerns a huge mass of people as it is a part of
the national educational policy and is not solely a matter of concern for private
schools. On the other hand, EMI is not a major concern of expanding circle countries
that have adopted education-in-the-mother-tongue policy at national level and EMI
appears to be a rare educational practice rather than a common one in monolingual
areas of the world.
Turkey falls under the "expanding circle". It has its share of the ongoing
spread of English both by planned and unplanned means just like all the countries of
the world. Yet, Turkey is one of the few monolingual nations in the world with no
colonial past linked to the Western nations (Bear, 1985, p.29). As opposed to the
case of multilingual former Western colonies, no language other than Turkish has
3
been needed as lingua franca for trade or education within the country. Nor has
English or another Western language ever enjoyed official status over the history of
the country. Therefore, except for ethnic minority languages, other languages than
Turkish have foreign language status in Turkey and Turkey is largely monolingual..
As is the case with many monolingual countries, English is the dominant
foreign language in Turkey. After the Second World War, especially in the 1950's,
English replaced formerly dominant foreign languages -French and German- of the
new Republic. English gradually became the most popular foreign language in
Turkey in congruence with Turkey's military, political and economic alliance with
the U .S. during this period (Demircan, 1988). The governments of "the developing
Turkey readily adopted English for the sake of modernization and westernization"
(Doğançay-Aktuna, 1998, p.27). Consequently, foreign language policy within the
framework of national education was altered and there has been a major shift in favor
of English. This process was accelerated in the 1980' s, the era of liberal import
policy of the prime minister Turgut Özal, when stronger international ties were
established to keep up with the globalizing world (Doğançay-Aktuna, 1998, p.28).
As a result, the role of English in national education has become more prominent
than ever.
Educational institutions, particularly secondary schools, which offer
instruction in a foreign language has a long history that dates back to the Ottoman
reign. During the late Ottoman period and the early years of the new Republic, there
were foreign schools established by state and minority schools owned by ethnic
minorities (Ertuğrul, 1998). (The Turkish equivalent of "minority" is not a pejorative
term as it connotes communities, mostly residents of Istanbul and vicinity who
enjoyed a privileged socio-economic status). These institutions were known to be as
the very places offering the best opportunities to learn a foreign language. As an
alternative to the schools of private enterprise, the first state-owned school, T.E.D.
Ankara Koleji, was founded in 1932 in Ankara. The school had the mission of
intensive foreign language (English) teaching so that Turkish youth wou1d not have
to go to minority schools thereafter. Partial English-medium instruction was
launched in this school in the year 1951 (Demircan, 1988, p. 119). In 1955, five
English-medium secondary schools namely, "Maarif Koleji"s, were established by
the government. These were special schools with one year of intensive English
4
preparatory program prior to the 6th grade and subjects such as science, math, logic,
physics, chemistry, biology were being taught in English. Similar private and state-
owned French/German-medium schools were established later on. The tuition-free
"Maarif Koleji"s that spread over various provinces of the country were later
renamed as "Anadolu Lisesi" (Anatolian high schools) and in 1981 their number
reached 22. In 1988, there were 221 private and state-owned schools offering foreign
language-medium instruction. Ninety of them were the state-owned Anatolian high
schools (AHS) and in 193 of them the medium of instruction was English (Demircan,
1988, p. 119).
Presently, there is an ever more growing demand from the society for AHSs.
This might account for the current figures regarding foreign language medium
schools at secondary education. According to the 2002-2003 statistics of Ministry of
National Education, 424 of 2559 secondary schools are Anatolian high schools. This
means that %16.5 of high schools is foreign-language-medium instruction schools.
The same set of data shows that, of 2053735 secondary school students, 218222
(10.6%) are currently enrolled in AHSs. In addition to the state-owned AHSs, there
are 154 private foreign language-medium high schools with 28017 students (Sayısal
Veriler Milli Eğitim, 2003).
These figures point to four important facts about English-medium instruction
in Turkey. First, the number of AHSs has increased exponientially over the past two
decades, therefore these schools have been gaining ground. Secondly, English-
medium instruction is not uncommon in Turkish secondary education. Thirdly,
stated-owned schools (AHSs) have outnumbered private foreign language-medium
schools. Lastly, English is the preferred foreign language and has dominated the
other Western languages in AHSs.
Not only secondary education but also higher education seems to be under the
influence of the growing trend. In addition to relatively old and highly prestigious
English-medium universities (Middle East Technical University and Bosphorus
University), some departments at other state-owned universities such as Marmara
University and Hacettepe University offer partial or total English immersion. Also,
many private sector universities, under the title of foundation-sponsored universities,
Bilkent, Koç and Sabancı Universities being just a few to mention, have chosen their
medium of instruction to be English.
5
The official language in Turkey is Turkish by law. In fact, the Turkish
language is under the protection of the Constitution according to main Article 3,
(T.C. Anayasası). Turkish underwent a period of purification and corpus planning
during the first few decades of the new Republic (Eastman, 1983). In line with the
republican language policy, it was imperative that the medium of instruction in
Turkish schools be Turkish. The private minority schools and foreign schools have to
abide by this rule with an exception of so-called non-culture-laden subjects such as
science and mathematics (Demircan, 1988, p.118). The current state is in no way
different with these schools. In AHSs, English medium instruction is also restricted
only to mathematics and science, although it extends to teaching of all of the core
subjects in English at tertiary level.
Despite the non-official status of English in Turkey, and choice of Turkish as
the language of national education, the increasing adoption of English as an
instructional mode at state-owned secondary schools and universities, in addition to
its adoption by private educational institutions, has been a matter of controversy in
public opinion. For this reason, EMI, and in connection with this practice, foreign-
language learning and teaching are under scrutiny in Turkey.
1.2 Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this research study is to determine the position of students,
teachers, and parents on English-medium instruction (EMI) and to describe their
perceptions of EMI at secondary school level in Turkey as well as to delineate the
underlying reasons behind these perceptions. It also purports to describe students’,
teachers’, parents’ perceptions of learning English as a foreign language (EFL) in
Turkey. The relationship between perceptions of EMI and perceptions of EFL is also
explored. Another question that the study seeks an answer to is whether the
instructional process is influenced by EMI according to students and teachers.
1.3 Research Questions
The main research questions of the present study and the related sub-
questions are:
1. What are the perceptions of students, teachers, and parents regarding English-
medium instruction at secondary education?
6
a. Do students, teachers and parents favor English-medium instruction at
secondary education?
b. What are the underlying reasons of students, teachers and parents for
favoring English-medium instruction at secondary level?
c. What are the underlying reasons of students, teachers and parents for
not favoring English-medium instruction at secondary level?
d. Do the students, teachers and parents differ in their perceptions of
English-medium instruction?
2. Is there a relationship between perceptions of students, teachers and parents
regarding English-medium instruction at secondary level and their
perceptions of English as a foreign language?
3. What are the perceptions of students, teachers, and parents of English as a
foreign language?
a. What language/s do they associate “foreign language” with?
b. How do students, teachers and parents perceive English as a foreign
language and teaching of foreign languages?
c. Do the students, teachers and parents differ in their perceptions of
English as a foreign language?
4. According to the perceptions of students and teachers, does English-medium
instruction influence the instructional process at secondary education?
a. Does English-medium instruction influence students’ learning of the
subject matter/content?
b. Does English-medium instruction influence students’ linguistic skills?
c. Does English-medium instruction influence teachers’ teaching
performance?
1.4 Significance of the Study Since language choice in education is inherently a political matter, and is
closely related to the sociolinguistic phenomena, with the new sociopolitical and
sociolinguistic changes, foreign language education and hence English-medium
instruction (EMI) has been a matter of societal and political concern of Turkey.
Despite the popularity of English-medium schools and universities in some sections
of the society -presumably among parents and investors in particular-, there appears
7
to be discontentment to some degree. In fact, "EMI" receives a great deal of criticism
by some circles ranging from politicians to educators on ideological and/or
pedagogical grounds.
The big controversy over foreign language medium-instruction flared up in
January 2001, when a parliament member proposed drastic modification in "Foreign
Language Education and Instruction Act", which will ban foreign language medium-
instruction in Turkey, arguing that this practice is a threat to national identity as it
jeopardizes the linguistic integrity of the Turkish language. It was also argued that
education should be in the mother tongue and subject matter is best learned in one' s
native language.
The perceptions and attitudes, especially those of opponents are frequently
expressed through the print and visual media and at other platforms. (The related
articles and papers were compiled by Kilimci [1998] and Sinanoğlu [2000] and
summarized by Görgülü [1998]). Although the opponents make a case against EMI,
they often support English as a Foreign Language Instruction at all levels of
education, making a distinction between foreign language education and foreign-
language medium instruction. They state that what they disapprove is the instruction
through a foreign language, not foreign language teaching and learning.
Apparently, there is a conflict between the perceptions of the politicians and
educators and the preferences of parents, students and other stake-holders because
the number of these institutions is increasing rather than decreasing. Teachers,
students and parents are the groups who are directly involved in foreign language-
medium instruction. However, it is not known what position they hold about EMI
and how they perceive it. There is limited academic work that presents the
perspectives of the student, teacher and parent triangle. Most of what prevails is the
opinions of the educators and politicians expressed via the print and visual media.
Concerning the perceptions about EMI, there has been little research effort
that would result in a full portray of parents, students, teachers and public attitudes
and perceptions in general. English-medium education concerns both tertiary
education and secondary education in the Turkish context. As to the opinions about
EMI at tertiary level a few studies have been conducted (Kalfazade, Oran, Sekban, &
Tınaz, 1989; Somer, 2001). As regards secondary education, the point of reference
has been Anatolian high schools (AHS) since they are the major nation-wide
8
institutions that have implemented foreign language-medium instruction,
predominantly in English, at secondary level of education. Likewise, about these
schools, the number of studies is somewhat limited: a study by Mirici, Arslan,
Hoşgörür, & Aydın (2000), and a ministerial report based on a survey of opinions of
teachers, parents and school principals and expert opinion (Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı,
1997).
Rather than the perceptions and attitudes about EMI, the quality of instruction
in these schools, particularly effectiveness of instruction in a foreign language has
been a challenging area for Turkish educators and researchers. The common
characteristics of the most of the existing studies (Aksu 1990; Aksu and Akarsu,
1985; Erdem, 1990) is that they are focused on the investigation of the "instructional"
or "curricular" problems in AHSs.
According to the ministerial report prepared by Directorate of Secondary
Education (Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı, 1997), 85% of instruction in math and science
courses is conducted in Turkish (p.5). In 1999, Ministry of National Education laid
down a regulation that allowed reversion to Turkish-medium instruction in
mathematics and science courses in AHSs without English-speaking content-area
teachers (Resmi Gazete, Nov. 5, 1999). Apparently, in recent years there has been a
tendency to revert back to Turkish, due to lack of teachers proficient in the target
language. The report suggests EMI is losing support at policy-making level.
Nevertheless, decision-makers abstain from taking drastic decisions, reporting that
they need substantial research before making adjustments about EMI at secondary
education.
In conclusion, English-medium instruction concerns a considerably large
section of society. In the educational arena students, parents and teachers are
admittedly among the top groups that are directly influenced by decision-making.
Attitudes and perceptions of these groups are crucial for success of any educational
practice, especially for countries such as Turkey where the educational system is
highly centralized and nationalized. Policy-makers are also concerned about the
current controversy and need to base their decision about English-medium/foreign
language medium on substantial research. As regards English-medium instruction, as
explained above, a large-scale study that explores the current perceptions of all the
concerned parties has not been conducted at all. Nor is there sufficient research to
9
provide an in-depth analysis of what reasons people may have for favoring or
disfavoring EMI.
It has been pointed out that opponents of EMI do not oppose the learning and
teaching of a foreign language or English in Turkey. Despite the seemingly positive
perceptions of English as a foreign language, the present study is not built on any
assumptions of this sort. For this reason, students’, teachers’, and parents’
perceptions of English as a foreign language are also included into the scope of the
study and have been explored accordingly. What is available in the academic context
about the perceptions of English as a foreign language is mainly the opinions of
scholars, literature reviews and observations expressed in articles and papers. A
nation-wide survey that portrays perceptions and attitudes of students, teachers and
parents regarding English has not been conducted either. Therefore, there is a real
need to explore EMI and the related issues.
This study aims to bring deep insights into the contentious practice of EMI on
societal and educational bases because it assumes a broad perspective that extends
from a social-psychological to an educational one: It sets out to explore and describe
the perceptions of the members of society that are directly involved in an educational
context. This will help us understand the response of a wider section of society to
EMI. It will also explore how English and foreign language learning and teaching are
perceived by people in the educational arena. Owing to this broad perspective and
the targeted groups, it is hoped that the results will also provide clues to future
researchers, who want to take up the same debated issue, to formulate questions for
further research. The implications of the study may lead the key decision-makers in
the Turkish Ministry of Education. It may also help scholars and educationists to
understand the effects and dynamics of EMI in education and in society at large.
Furthermore, the study may also provide data as to the educational and
instructional problems in secondary school education, particularly in Anatolian high
school context; investigating the underlying reasons behind the student and teacher
perceptions and instructional aspects of EMI may lead us to curricular issues.
Another contribution of the study is that it will throw light on the ongoing
debate about English-medium or co-medium instruction in former colonial countries,
where the students are non-native speakers of English, like the Turkish students and
10
teachers, and are reported to be experiencing similar difficulties in the classroom
such as limited English proficiency.
1. 5 Definitions of Terms
English-medium Instruction (EMI): Refers to instruction of mathematics and
science subjects (Natural science in grades 6, 7, 8; Physics, Chemistry and Biology
in grades 9, 10, 11) through the medium of English. In the wording of the data
collection instruments, namely both the survey questionnaire and interview
protocols, English-medium instruction and foreign language medium instruction has
been used interchangeably with the latter being more frequently used because
“yabancı dille öğretim”, meaning foreign language medium instruction in Turkish is
largely associated with English-medium instruction due to the predominance of
English-medium schools in Turkey over the schools where the medium of instruction
is another Western language. Operationally, perceptions about English-medium
instruction are measured on students’, teachers’ and parents’ scores on a 5 point
Likert type scale consisting of 28 items.
English as a Foreign Language (EFL): Refers to the English language in a foreign
language (EFL) context. In operational terms, perceptions of English as a foreign
language are measured on scores of students’, teachers’ and parents’ on a 5 point
Likert scale consisting of 16 items.
Perceptions: Refer to evaluative concepts encompassing opinions and beliefs.
Attitudes, opinions, beliefs, intentions, evaluative beliefs are interrelated
concepts that have been areas of study for social psychologists. A conceptual
overview of the umbrella term “attitude” in the literature is presented below:
About “attitude” attitudes have varied widely. While some social scientists
challenged the value of attitudes, laymen as well as scientists frequently used the
concept in their descriptions and explanations of human behavior. (Oskamp, 1977, p
5). Differing definitions of attitudes have been offered. For example, in the early
1930’s the attitude construct was seen as readiness to act, (Allport, 1935, as cited in
Oskamp, 1977), which implies a predisposition to respond in a particular way to the
11
“attitude object”, including things, people, places, ideas, situations (p.8). Evaluative
nature of attitudes took prominence over other features as in Osgood’s Semantic
Differential studies, where evaluative dimension is used as the sole measure of
attitudes. In this view, attitudes were seen as a disposition to respond in a favorable
or unfavorable manner (Oskamp, 1977, p.9). Eiser and Van der Plight (1988)
contend that an attitude is a form of experience and refers to specific objects, events,
people or issues. It is not a good or a bad feeling but a feeling that something is good
or bad or whatever. Therefore attitudes are essentially evaluative (p.1) Some regard
focusing on the essential evaluative nature of attitudes as “too narrow” (Fiske &
Taylor, 1991, p. 463). Contrasting views of attitudes were brought forth later on. For
example, according to Oppenheim (1992) “attitude” is a psychological construct, “a
dormant tendency to respond in a certain manner when confronted with certain
stimuli”. However, it should not be treated as “linear continuum, running from
positive, through neutral to negative feeling”, but as an abstraction reinforced by
beliefs, feelings and intents (p.175).
The view that studying attitudes is meaningful is connected to its relation to
overt behavior. Many social scientists believe if it attitudes cannot predict behavior;
it is futile to study attitudes in its own right. The studies that examine the relationship
between these two constructs conclusively indicate only a weak relationship. Ajzen
and Fishbein (1975, as cited in Eiser, 1994) proposed “Theory of Reasoned Action”
with an attempt to analyze the causal relationships between behavior and attitudes.
“They argue that the effect of attitude on behavior is mediated by “intention”.
Intention does not guarantee behavior. Intention is not only affected by attitude but
by “subjective norm”, which refers to beliefs about how others whose opinion you
value would view your act. While subjective norms pull on one side, your attitude
pulls you on the other (p.22). In general it has been assumed attitudes often influence
behavior (Baron & Bryne, 1997).
It was proposed that attitudes should not be regarded as a simple unitary
concept because it entails three components; affect (e. g feelings and emotions),
cognition (e.g. beliefs) and behavior (e.g. overt actions) (Rosenberg and Hovland,
1960, as cited in Eiser, 1994, p. 20). The empirical validity of this distinction referred
to as The Three-Component Model of Attitude Organization, and its usefulness was
questioned (Oskamp, 1977). Another criticism was that the interrelationships among
12
the components were not clearly defined (Eiser, 1994). Broadening these categories,
Fishbein and Ajzen (1975) came up with a four category model: affect (feeling,
evaluations), cognition (opinion, beliefs), conation (behavioral intention) and
connation (observed overt acts). The first term, “affect”, denotes attitude, while the
second term, “cognition” refers to beliefs. And “affect” is the indispensable feature
of the concept attitude.
The concept “attitude” should be used only when there is strong evidence that the measure employed places an individual on bipolar affective dimension. When the measure places the individual on a dimension of objective probability relating an object to an attribute, the label ‘belief’ should be applied. When the probability links the person to a behavior, the concept “behavioral intention” should be used ( p.13). According to (Oskamp, 1977) these authors claim that people may have the
same belief about the same object and these beliefs are not necessarily related. For
behavioral intentions the same holds true. However, all measures of a person’s affect
toward a particular object are highly related. They also contend that there is not
necessarily congruence between beliefs, attitudes and behavioral intentions and they
are not components of the same attitude. Furthermore, it was subsequently stated that
the three component model assumes that affective, cognitive and behavioral parts
necessarily be consistent with each other (Zanna & Rempel, 1988, as cited in Fiske
and Taylor, 1991), which is not always the case. Eiser and Van der Plight (1988)
report that studies have shown “affect, behavior, and condition are interrelated,
although still distinguishable from each other” (p.23).
Fiske and Taylor (1991) outline the recent definitions. One definition by
Zanna & Rempell combines both the evaluative nature of attitudes and the three
components, defining attitudes as “a categorization of a stimulus along an evaluative
dimension, based on cognitive, affective and behavioral information”. The other is
Ajzen’ s and Breckler & Wiggins’ that view attitudes hierarchically, “as a broad
disposition to respond positively or negatively, inferred from more specific
cognitive, affective and behavioral responses” (p. 463). The evaluative nature of
attitudes stands out in subsequent definitions as in Fazio and Roskes-Ewoldsen’s,
which is as follows: “Attitudes are associations between attitude objects (virtually
any aspect of the social world) and evaluations of those objects” (Baron & Byrne,
1997, p.112).
13
As for the definition of opinions, as Oskamp (1977) points out, one viewpoint
is to equate opinions with beliefs and they are narrower in content and scope than
attitudes. He cites Mc Guire’s viewpoint, which states that opinions primarily
cognitive rather than emotion-laden. While attitudes involve a person’ desire and
wishes about events and relationships, opinions involve judgements about the
likelihood of these. For example, “I think this book is interesting” is an opinion but
“I want to buy this book” is an attitude (p.12). Oskamp (1977) quotes earlier
distinctions drawn between attitudes and opinions: 1) Opinions are verifiable dealing
with matters, while attitudes deal with unverifiable matters involving personal taste
and preference [by Osgood, Suci & Tannenbaum] , 2) an opinion is overt verbal or
written expression of an underlying covert attitude [by Childs] (p. 12-13).
Beliefs are regarded as cognitive dimension of attitudes and defined “as
indicating a person’s subjective probability that an object has a particular
characteristics”, i. e. “This book is interesting,”, or “Smoking marijuana is no more
dangerous than drinking alcohol” (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1972, as cited in Oskamp,
1977, p. 11). Beliefs are seen cognitive --thoughts and ideas whereas attitudes are
affective. The intermediary category called evaluative beliefs state a value judgement
about an object, i.e. “My boss is a nice guy” or, “Freedom of press is a good thing”.
Evaluative beliefs entail liking and disliking. Being closely linked to attitudes, they
may not always be distinguished from attitudes. For example, while “My boss is a
nice guy” denotes an evaluative belief, “I like my boss” indicates an attitude
(Oskamp, 1977, p.12).
All of these concepts are closely interrelated and are difficult to measure in
isolation. Besides, these distinctions are instrumental insofar they have empirical
consequences. The tripartite model of attitude has been traditionally preferred for
empirical validity (Fiske & Taylor, 1997). Rather than measuring attitudes of
participants toward the attitude object (i. e. , English-medium instruction), the
present study), the present study attempts to describe the “perceptions” described as
opinions and beliefs, which are related to attitudes and are not easily distinguishable
from them as explained above.
14
Instructional Process:
Although instructional process is a broad term that covers various aspects of
instruction, within the boundaries of the present study instructional process has been
used to refer to learning of the subject matter, linguistic skills and teacher’s teaching
performance. Conceptual definitions of each of these terms are presented below:
a. Learning of the subject matter/ content: refers to the degrees to which
learning takes place during the process of instruction. This covers the extent
of student’s comprehension of the subject matter as delivered in class by the
teacher; the ability to express the content orally and in written form during
class interaction and assessment (use of academic skills); learning of
concepts; retention of content vs. memorization; student achievement in
exams; and the use of academic sources conducive to learning of the subject
matter in out-of-class tasks.
b. Linguistic skills: refers to 1) language ability of students’ in the
target language in terms of four language skills; listening, reading, writing,
speaking, as well as of language areas such as vocabulary and grammar, and
2) overall proficiency in Turkish.
c. Teacher’s teaching performance: refers to the teachers’ self-
perception of 1) as a teacher in general and as a teacher in an EMI context,
and 2) ability to perform teaching tasks in the target language.
Operationally, perceptions regarding a, b, c are measured on students’,
teachers’ and parents’ scores on three 5 point Likert type scales consisting of 19, 6,
12 items respectively.
Secondary Education:
Secondary education institutions that adopt foreign language medium
instruction in Turkey are not restricted to Anatolian high schools (AHS).
However, as explained before, state-owned mainstream AHSs that offer EMI
constitute the greatest bulk of institutions of this kind. For this reason,
secondary education has been used synonymously with AHSs with a present
and/or past EMI experience.
15
CHAPTER 2
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
In this chapter, the relevant literature to EMI is reviewed. EMI encompasses a
number of aspects of two major disciplines: education and linguistics. The scope of
this review is the most pertinent aspects of these disciplines, namely language
planning/ policies and educational policies; bilingualism and bilingual education;
and content-based second language instruction. In the first part of this review,
language planning and its relation to medium of instruction are described. The
second part focuses on bilingualism and bilingual education, which impinge on
educational policies regarding medium of instruction and language learning. The
third part is devoted to the theoretical basis of content-based language instruction as
it is the prevailing instructional mode in bilingual and English-medium schools.
Here, different forms of content-based foreign language instruction will be explained
with special emphasis on immersion education. A review of the relevant research on
immersion programs has also been included in this part. In the fourth part, studies
about the problems and the controversy over EMI in similar settings to Turkey are
summarized. Lastly, summaries of the studies on foreign-language medium
instruction in Turkey are given. The chapter finishes with a summary of the review.
2.1 Language Planning and Language Status
Language choice in education is related to language planning and language
status, which are closely linked to the relation of language to concepts such as
“ethnicity and nationality” and “power and politics”. In this section the relation of
language to these concepts are presented first, for a clear understanding of language
planning and its functions.
16
2.1.1 Language, Ethnicity and Nationality
Since “language is identified as an important part of one's nationality” and/or
ethnicity (Hoffman, 1991, p.199), there is a strong link between language, ethnicity
and nationalism. Being one of the most noticeable markers of group identity,
language is functional in shaping and maintaining such feelings as group identity and
solidarity. In the eyes of members of a group --whether an ethnic group or a nation--
the survival of a language is often equated with the continued existence of a nation
(Hoffmann, 1991). “Most ethnic groups believe that their language is the best
medium for preserving and expressing their traditions" (Spolsky, 1998, p57). Any
threat to linguistic identity is associated with ethnic or national identity and thus
arouses sentiments of hostility across nations or ethnic groups. For these reasons,
language is viewed as an inherently political issue.
2.1.2 Language, Power, and Politics
The politics of language is not only related to emotional responses of our
ethnicity or nationality. It is a tool when in hands of governments, a means to
exercise political power on minorities. Some governments ban or discourage use of
minority languages by legislation designed to promote linguistic and cultural
assimilation. (Spolsky, 1998; Romaine, 1995). Educational policies play a crucial
role in the process of such assimilation. Educational policies or federal attitudes
toward bilingualism and bilingual education, which concern bilingual/multilingual
societies at large, are closely associated with political ideology (see section 2. 4). In
other words, in almost every country all the groups that have economic and political
power exert some linguistic influence on less powerful groups although this
influence may not manifest itself as in extremities as military or political oppression.
Also, the superiority of one country over the other may have prominent linguistic
consequences. The changing linguistic, and hence cultural, profiles of some Asian
and African countries throughout Western colonization account the role of language
as a political tool of power. Further again, the spread of English in expanding circle
countries (see chapter 1.1) as well as in inner and outer circle countries is attributed
to the U. S. and Great Britain's being the military, economic and political power of
the 19th and 20th centuries (Fishman, 1996; Pennycook 1994).
17
2.1.4 Language Planning (Language Policy)
Language planning, or language policy, is related to political decisions and is
a major activity especially for newly emerging nations, most of which are former
colonies because it is a part of nation-building and independence efforts. In fact,
although few countries in the world are in the position of selecting a national
language except for these nations, many countries review their language policies in
accordance with the societal and linguistic dynamics within their territories.
In fact, it is the language policy of a country that determines the corpus and
the status of the language/s spoken within their territories. "Language planning is
concerned both with the symbolic function of language within a society and with the
instrumental use that its speakers make use of that language" (Hoffman, 1991, p.
205). Corpus planning and status planning are the two interlinked aspects of
language planning. The former refers to the plans of change directed towards the
linguistic systems, whereas the latter refers to "allocation of language use which
deals with language selection and attribution of status to particular
languages"(Hoffmann, 1991, p. 207). The relationship between the two is that once a
language is chosen for use in a specific situation such bureaucracy or education,
there may be an effort to fix or modify it. Some examples of corpus planning are the
language purification movement of the Young Turkish republic and French
government’s efforts to rid French off the English words (Spolsky, 1998; Eastman,
1983).
Status planning is "planning decisions intended to enhance or diminish the
status of a language" (Kloss 1968, as cited in Hoffmann, 1991, p.207). The four
categories Kloss lists to relate to the language status are: 1) The origin of the
language used officially, 2) the developmental status of a language, 3) the legal
position of the language, and 4) the ratio of users of a language to total population.
An additional category that Hoffman (1991) pinpoints is language function, or the
uses of the language that are put in such areas as education and religion. He quotes
Mackey’s definition of language status:
The status of a language depends on the number of people using it, their relative wealth, the importance of what they produce, their social cohesiveness and acceptance by others of their right to be different. In other words, the faces of language status are demographic, economic, cu1tural, politica1 and juridical (p.173).
18
The status decision determines which language or languages are to be used in
various public functions, by government, the legal system, the media and the
educational system. This decision may be relatively easy for basically monolingual
or endoglossic countries but is harsh for multilingual or exoglossic countries where
the national/official language is an imported one. Most of the post-colonial countries
fall under the latter group. What language or languages will be chosen as the basic
medium of instruction for which level/s of education? What language/s will be taught
as foreign languages in schools? These involve language acquisition planning or
language education policy, which refers to the governments’ decision of which
foreign language or languages must be taught at schools by other means. To
illustrate, if in Finland, Swedish is recognized as an official language, then all the
Finns must learn to speak Swedish in addition to Finnish, and vice versa (Spolsky,
1998, chap7).
Language status is very important for the field of education because language
planning involves language choice in bilingual and multicultural settings. The
medium of instruction at any level of education is an aspect of language planning and
inherently a political decision made by the governments. In post-colonial countries of
Asia and Africa, language planning and language choice constitute a major part of
educational planning. Some of these countries tend to revert back to vernacular after
their political independence is gained, but English is not totally dispensed with in
education; on the contrary, it is still prevalent especially in higher education
(Fishman, 1996).
2.2 Bilingualism and Bilingual Education
Bilingual education and immersion programs are closely linked to language
planning because they exist in bilingual and multilingual settings and evolved from
the educational needs of linguistic minorities especially. Also, they constituted a
model for second language instruction that combines language teaching with content
teaching. For a full understanding of the relevant literature on bilingual education to
second language teaching contexts, a definition of bilingualism and certain types of
bilingualism need to be reviewed. For this reason, in this section, a brief review of
bilingualism precedes bilingual education and its typologies.
19
2.2.1 Bilingualism and Some Types of Bilingualism
Bilingualism denotes the situation of knowing two or more languages.
Researchers and scholars of various disciplines who study this so-called fascinating
and interdisciplinary phenomenon have not agreed on one single definition of
bilingualism. Because bilingualism may exist in varying "degrees" in one or more
language domains, multiple definitions of bilingua1ism have been offered by
linguists, which resulted in a terminology covering categories, scales and
dichotomies, or, types of bilingualism. Of particular relevance to bilingual and
immersion education are early vs. late bilingualism and additive vs. subtractive
bilingualism, which are types of individual’s bilingualism (Hakuta, 1990a) that refers
to individuals who develop some knowledge and ability in a second language
(Spolsky, 1998, p.45).
Early and late dichotomy takes into account the age factor, which may result
in considerable differences. An early/child bilingual may be the case of infant or
child bilingual “who has been in contact with two languages from birth” (Lambert,
1985, as cited in Hoffman, 1991, p.33). Late bilingualism may be the result of either
L2 (second language) acquisition in a natural setting as (i. e., the migrant Turkish
worker who takes up a job in Germany without any previous knowledge of German)
or of a second language learning, as with the person who has studied L2 for years,
using graded language-teaching materials, attending courses, etc. (Hoffman, 1991,
p.33).
A qualitative and quantitative judgment brought about the nature of additive
and subtractive bilingualism, which was put forth by Lambert. Additive bilingualism
means an addition of a second language with positive linguistic consequences as well
as enriched social and cognitive abilities, as in the case of Franco-Russian
bilingualism under the Tsars, or contemporary Singapore, where Mandarin and
English are given complementary positive status. Subtractive bilingualism implies
that L2 is learnt at the expense of the aptitudes already acquired in Ll. This situation
is brought about by schooling and upward social mobility for ethno linguistic
minorities that need to master the socio-economically prestigious language. Some
examples are Welsh speakers in the United Kingdom and the speakers of the
vernacular in former English/French colonies (Beardsmore, 1982; Hoffman, 1991).
An extreme form of subtractive bilingualism is semilingualism, a stigmatized notion,
20
often causing polemics in education of immigrant children in some bilingual
education programs. It refers to retardation of ability of the bilingual speaker in both
languages (Beardsmore, 1982, p.19-20).
In contrast to the common belief, individual bilingualism is a complex issue
and “equilinguals” who have perfect mastery of performing the same functions in
both languages are few and far between. Today most researchers prefer the term
“balanced bilinguals” to refer to individuals who are roughly equally skilled in both
languages (Saunders, 1983, as cited in Spolsky, 1998). Romaine (1995) argues that
notion of balanced bilingualism is an “implicit synonym for good and complete
bilingualism, which is subjective (p. 280). Besides, complete acquisition has not been
clearly defined She concedes that concept of bilingualism is relative as previously
expressed by such renowned sociolinguists as Mackey. Likewise, Hoffman (1991)
suggests that it is unrealistic to expect a 100 percent mastery of two languages
(ambilingualism).
2.2.2 Bilingual Education
In 1951 UNESCO specialists conducted a worldwide survey of language
education and recommended that “every effort should be made to provide education
in the mother tongue” regardless of the function/status of the language in question
(Eastman, 1983, p. 83). The assumption is that people may lose ability to express
themselves or “never achieve adequate self-expression in their native language”.
Nevertheless, the status of a language often determines whether it can be a
language of education or not. In countries where the two or more spoken languages
have official and hence equally respected status, such as Switzerland, Belgium and
Canada, children hold the opportunity to get schooling in their native language.
Language and educational policies reflect the positive approach to bilingualism and
recognition of the legitimacy of pupils’ mother tongue. However, formal education in
one’s mother tongue is not possible in all countries of the world. More often than not,
pupils who need literacy skills and knowledge through instruction are not provided
instruction solely in their mother tongue because they belong to a linguistic minority
group. Due to the non-official status of their native language, most of them are
deprived of their so-called fundamental right to education in mother tongue. They
either receive no instruction in the mother tongue or partial instruction. One such
21
example is the case in the United States, where children of diverse linguistic
communities --Hispanics being the major community-- undergo various special
programs. In some of these programs, dual media are used for instruction: child's
native language and English. “Bilingual education”, as a term, has traditionally been
used to refer to the latter context rather than to the former.
2.2.2.1 Typologies of Bilingual Education
Bilingual education has existed in many different forms for 5000 years
(Mackey, 1967, as cited in Romaine, 1995). It encompasses various organizational
procedures of instruction in two languages. Implementation of bilingual education
varies in keeping with the specific language educational policies determined by the
relationship between the group that speaks the minority language and the
government. There have been many typologies of bilingual education as immersion,
transitional bilingual education (compensatory or assimilation bilingualism),
submersion, full immersion, and so forth. The three general-type models proposed by
Skutnabb-Kangas (1984) are immersion, submersion and maintenance. The purpose
of the immersion program is the enrichment of the majority children through
instruction in a second language and the outcome is additive bilingualism as in
French and English immersion programs in Canada. If the aim is assimilation, a
submersion program is chosen. This sink–or-swim approach has been adopted by
many countries with immigrant children such as Germany and the Netherlands. The
outcome is usually subtractive bilingualism, which means retardation of the mother
and less prestigious language of the minority children. A less direct and extreme
variant of submersion program is transitional bilingualism whose aim is to provide
children instruction in the mother tongue only as an aid to proceed into mainstream
classes in the majority language. A good example is the provision made in the United
States under the Bilingual Education Act. In maintenance programs, also called
“language shelter”, children are taught through the medium of their first language in
order to maintain and further develop their language and culture in interaction with
the majority. Another example is Swedish school system in Finland; a Swedish-
speaking child can start and continue his education through the university in Swedish
while receiving Finnish at school as a second language (Romaine, 1995).
22
2.2.2.2 Bilingual Education in North America
Bilingual education appears to be a basically North American educational
practice in the literature although such instances are widespread in countries that face
multilingualism as a result of one or more of the afore-listed political and social
factors. As a layman term in the United States bilingual education is perceived as
educating the minorities by teaching them English (Hakuta, 1990a). Despite its
seemingly homogeneous linguistic profile, U.S. is one example of countries that
embody multicultures and multilanguages to face the challenges of multilingualism.
Though they may maintain their ethnic language, the members of social groups,
regardless of their linguistic and ethnic background, have to be able to function and
communicate in English. Therefore, they are to receive education in the dominant
language. Bilingual education came into existence because minority children with
limited English proficiency enrolled in US schools needed development in all ranges
of proficiency skills. Consequently, schools began to offer instruction in two
languages, not in all-English medium programs. Transitional bilingual programs, in
particular, are often perceived as instrumental to this end. Pupils needed a curriculum
in two languages until they could attain the proficiency in English to be able to keep
up with regular instruction. Hakuta (1990a) states that the majority of bilingual
education programs are “instrumental insofar as it is helpful in the acquisition of
English proficiency and keep the pace with the learning of academic matter while
they acquire sufficient skills in English” (p.2). In Canada, the implementation of
bilingual education is totally different because of the equally respected status of
French and English and different socio-political dynamics of the country. Here
bilingual education appeals to middle class language majority children and has
yielded relatively positive results, particularly in French immersion programs. For
this reason, it is not as controversial as it is in the United States (The Canadian
program is further described in section 2.3.1 of this chapter).
Just as English-medium instruction in Turkey, bilingual education is a
controversial issue in many countries because it concerns many sections of society.
Bilingual education has considerable implications for language planning and
educational policy in cross-linguistic contexts. Because it is closely associated with
23
ethnicity, ethnic identity and related phenomena, political attitudes are involved. This
may be defined as the socio-political dimension of bilingual education. Bilingual
education is also an area of concern for some educationists and applied linguists who
investigate learning, acquisition of a second language and the relationship between
the latter two. For this reason, bilingual education is an extensive area of research.
About the pedagogical dimension of bilingual education, research has been
illuminating.
Due to their relevance to foreign language immersion programs and specific
context of the present study, the research perspective of some pedagogical and
linguistic aspects of bilingual education and other immersion programs are presented
in further sections both “within the context of Canadian immersion program” and as
“a separate section that summarizes relevant research findings”. The theoretical
underpinnings of foreign language immersion programs will be discussed as a
preliminary step to show the reader the link between bilingual education and foreign
language instruction.
2.3 Content-based Language Instruction
The view that second or a foreign language is best learned in natural settings
finds support not only among laymen but also among a vast majority of educationists
and language teaching specialists, where there is a real need to communicate in the
target language to be able to perform in the purposeful and meaningful life activities.
(Brinton, Snow & Wesche, 1989). Many language learners, however, have to study
a foreign language in a formal school environment as a distinct subject and find very
few opportunities to use the target language outside school walls. This leaves
foreign language learning and teaching within a limited context and hence less
meaningfull.
Content-based (second) language instruction (CBLI) emerged as a result of
language teaching methodologists' effort to contextualize foreign language lessons.
The widely held belief was that language is not efficiently learned through lessons
organized around languages and structures. Using authentic texts appeared to be a
good starting point because they inherently “provide in concrete form the structures,
functions and discourse features to be taught” (Brinton et al., 1989, p.1-2). However,
there were two different beliefs that shaped approaches to CBLI. One belief was that
24
overt teaching of language forms, functions and patterns is needed; the other belief
was that the effective means of foreign language teaching necessitates an emphasis
on the informational content itself, which would provide incidental acquisition of
forms and aspects of the target language. The instructional models for classroom
application of CBLI were often based on the first view containing parallel language
teaching aims. Some models of content-based language instruction currently
implemented in native, foreign and second language settings are language across the
curriculum, language for specific purposes and immersion education.
Language across the curriculum is a movement for post-secondary
instruction for native speakers of English which views language and content learning
to have a reciprocal relationship; students both read to learn and write to learn
throughout the educational process. The model which prevailed in British secondary
school curricula necessitated cooperation between language teachers and subject-
matter teachers.
Language for specific purposes (LSP), the best known content-based
language instruction model, was developed in Britain. It particularly catered to the
needs of learners at university level and in occupational settings, where the
characteristics, needs and purpose of a group of learners are homogeneous (Brinton
et al., 1989, p.7). LSP courses are known not to lend themselves to the teaching of
language through subject matter presentation because specific language elements that
were targeted needed to be reorganized for instructional purposes. Still, its emphasis
on context and experiential learning, use of authentic materials and attention to real
life purposes of learners make LSP methodology similar to that of CBLI models.
Other models of content-based language instruction emerged in the United
States in bilingual education contexts. Most of the developed models catered for the
needs of language minority children who had difficulty with cognitively complex
academic language. Content-based language instruction was also implemented in
English as a second language (ESL) contexts, which refer to teaching of English in
an English-speaking country, and in foreign language (FL) contexts, which involved
teaching non-English languages to American pupils.
As in the case of Britain, the integration of content and language was the
fundamental aspect of content-based language instruction models. Crandall and
Tucker (1990) define this approach as:
25
Content-based language instruction is an approach to language instruction that integrates the presentation of topics from subject matter classes (e.g. math, social sciences studies) within the context of teaching a second or a foreign language (p.187).
He maintains that such integration enhances students’ proficiency in the second
language in addition to equipping them with the knowledge needed in a scholastic
environment. Besides, it is beneficial both for language minority and language
majority individuals. The design of the models varies according to the domain of the
teacher. In the first some content-based language programs, language teacher, with
the assistance of content-area teacher, develops a language class that adopts
materials, task and concepts of the content-area. The second model is known as US
immersion or sheltered programs. They are language-sensitive content programs
conversely placing the subject matter teacher in the center. In these programs, which
are the most widespread ones, subject matter teachers may adapt their instruction to
accommodate different levels of language proficiency in class. The language teacher
acts as a resource for other content-area teachers. The third type of programs are
based on a model that has parallel instructional designs. These are common at
tertiary level and referred to as paired or adjunct courses. Both the language and the
content teachers act in a way to compliment one another. While the language teacher
may focus on the reading and writing for a particular course, the professor who
teaches that course focuses on the conceptual development while promoting the
targeted skills of the language teacher by collaborating with him/her. A program that
combines all three approaches also exists and is known as CAL (Center for Applied
Linguistics) in the United States (Crandall & Tucker, 1990).
2.3.1 Immersion Approach and Canadian Immersion
Immersion approach is the content-based language instruction model that is
most relevant to this review and study since it resembles the English-medium
phenomenon in Turkey the most. There are two major variants of immersion
programs; the afore-mentioned US immersion or the sheltered programs and the
Canadian immersion. US immersion differs from the Canadian immersion in that it is
designed to develop proficiency only in English where limited English proficiency
students are grouped and instructed by bilingual teachers. In US immersion,
instruction is carried out in English and native language is used to enhance
26
communication. It was designed for language minority children with low socio-
economic status (SES). On the other hand, the goal of Canadian immersion was to
produce French-English bilinguals and implemented with majority language among
middle-class children who had no pressure to abandon their own language. (Malakoff
& Hakuta, 1990). The Canadian immersion is the program that has been most
inspiring to foreign language theoreticians and specialists.
In fact, immersion approach originated in a bilingual setting, Canada, as an
educational experimentation with pre-primary and primary English speaking children
in the Francophone dominant state of Quebec in 1965. The Anglophone parents in St.
Lambert put their children through a kindergarten with a French-speaking teacher
giving instruction entirely in French. Therefore in this experiment, language majority
(Anglophone) children were geared toward bilingualism. At the core of this approach
lay the theory on how second or foreign languages are best acquired as discussed in
earlier work of Lambert and Tucker (as cited in Brinton et al., 1989). According to
this approach, successful language learning occurs at an early age and intensive
exposure is essential as well as interaction with the native speakers of that language
Genesee (1985) describes immersion approach as “not much a method of second
language teaching as it is a pedagogical approach that promotes second language
learning” (p.541). Linguistic development in the second language is perceived as a
by-product of school education, rather than a means to teach a second language.
Genessee, Holobow, Lambert & Chartrand (1989) explained the pedagogical
approach of Canadian immersion as such:
The rationale was that the second language would be acquired incidentally as a part of students’ general, cognitive, academic and social development in school. In other words, the students would acquire the target language in order to get on with their education. This approach was consistent with the themes of first language, without direct or systematic tuition, in the context of significant and meaningful communication with native speakers of the language (p. 250). Since 1965 in Canada and 1971 in the U.S. immersion programs have
become a mass educational movement. Two decades later than the ST. Lambert
experiment, there were over 240.000 Canadian students enrolled in bilingual
programs (Brinton, et al., 1989, p.8). In the Canadian context, a multitude of
research studies on program effectiveness consistently yielded positive results. With
the rising popularity and success of Canadian immersion various types of immersion
27
programs emerged in North America and elsewhere, but the unifying feature was that
instruction was focused on teaching the regular subject matter through the "medium"
of a second language. During the process language is learned largely incidentally and
there is some explicit focus on language rules and forms as in regular native
language medium instruction in regular schools (Brinton et al., 1989).
Canadian immersion programs made a big impact on language teaching
pedagogy and were largely promoted by renowned applied linguists such as Krashen,
(as cited in Hammerly, 1987) who said “it may be the most successful program ever
recorded in the professional language teaching literature” (p. 395). Nonetheless, the
success of Canadian immersion programs is often attributed to the specific setting.
According to Akünal (1993), its economic, political, socio-cultural and
sociolinguistic circumstances were favorable for second language learning.
Similarly, Brinton et al. (1989) point out that in the Canadian version of immersion
education, the students were the children of the language minority groups, and hence
their native language was not at risk beyond the wa1ls of school. In the same vein,
Genessee (1985) draws the attention of the educationists to the very specific context
the experiment was made: the typical pupils in the program were middle to upper
class English-speaking monolingual students taught by natively Francophone
teaching staff. In addition, participating children valued their home and culture
usually with the target language and culture. Also, both parents and children had a
positive attitude and high motivation toward the acquisition of a second language.
These English-speaking children needed to function communicatively in an
increasingly French-speaking community.
Hammerly (1987) argues that the context-bound nature of the success of
immersion education does not validate the theoretical foundations of pedagogical
approach referred to as Communicative/ Acquisitionist Naturalistic (CAN) or Second
Language Acquisition Through Classroom Communication (SSLAC). Holding a
skeptical approach to immersion education, he argues that “immersion programs may
be culturally successful and politically very successful, but “linguistically they are a
failure” (p. 399). He converges on this conclusion on the basis of a number of
research studies that inquire into the linguistic competence and bilingualism of
immersion children. The children in these programs, he contends, often commit
unnegligible errors of grammar and lexicon when writing and speaking in French
28
after 13 years and 7000 hours of instruction in the second language. This suggests
that so-called successful programs do not produce “balanced bilinguals” competent
in both languages.
As pointed out by Genesee et al. (1989) the goal of the Canadian immersion
was additive bilingualism (see section 2.2.1). This refers to native-like competence in
the second language, which is French in this case. Regarding the second language
acquisition, the attained level of competence in productive and receptive skills varies.
While productive skills (speaking and writing) of students may not have reached the
native-like competence, their speaking and writing may have ended in faulty usages
(Harley & Swain, 1977, as cited in Akünal, 1993). Reportedly, English-speaking
children in French immersion schools display an initial lag in their native language
skills. Yet, they catch up with their peers in regular schools as soon as English is
begun to be taught as a subject matter (Swain & Lapkin, 1982). More recent
research reviewed by Snow (1990) reports native-like competence of children in
receptive skills by the end of the elementary school and non-native competence in
speech and writing, which lack the lexical variety and accuracy of the native
speakers.
Another issue about immersion programs concerned the timing of the
introduction of instruction through L2. It was popularly believed that early
immersion would yield optimum linguistic results. However, as Swain and Lapkin
(1982) maintain that there is research evidence to suggest that younger learners are
not as effective language learners as are older students. Therefore, the widely
adopted assertion that "the earlier the better" for early immersion programs "which
received the widest attention from public” (p.151) is not valid.
2.3.2 Research Issues in Bilingual Education and Immersion Foreign Language
Programs
Casanova (1991) reviewed research on bilingual education under three
categories: research about bilingualism, research about bilingual education and
research about the effects of bilingual education. In other sources that report research
findings, these areas overlap. The review of the present study encompasses all these
areas and has been organized according to this categorization. For example, while in
many other sources cognitive functioning and academic achievement are treated
29
within the same source, in her framework, the former falls under “bilingualism” and
the latter falls under “effects of bilingual education”.
2.3.2.1 Bilingualism
Hakuta (1990b) maintains: “Any decision about the soundness of pedagogical
approaches involving two languages should be informed by the body of research on
the issues of bilingualism and cognitive development” (p.47).
Although early research concluded that bilingualism was a language
handicap, Casanova (1991) pinpoints Lambert and Peal’s study that suggested
bilingualism is an asset since bilingual children performed better in a series of
cognitive tests, when sex, age and socioeconomic status were appropriately
controlled. Thenceforth, advantages of bilingualism were shown on measures of
conceptual development, creativity, meta-linguistic awareness, semantic
development, and analytical skills. In the solution of science problems, higher quality
scientific hypotheses, complex metaphors and syntactically complex statements were
produced by bilingual 5th and 6th graders by Kessler and Quinn’ s study (as cited in
Casanova, 1991). Other studies showed that bilinguals can have a diversified
intellectual structure and are advantageous in terms of abstract thinking. Later
research confirmed that bilinguals outperformed monolinguals on measures of
cognitive flexibility, divergent thinking and higher levels of general reasoning and
verbal abilities (Ramirez, 1985).
Two hypotheses that relate to cognitive development and linguistic
development of the bilingual are threshold hypothesis and developmental hypothesis.
Investigating the relationship between cognitive development and bilingualism,
Cummins (as cited in Cummins, 1979) proposed threshold hypothesis, which
assumes there may be threshold levels of linguistic competence, which can be an
intervening variable in mediating the effects of learning two languages on cognitive
and academic functioning. In other words, a minimum level in both languages is
needed for positive effects of bilingualism to appear in long-term because, otherwise,
interaction with the environment through the weaker language will be limited and
there will not be any positive effect on cognitive development (Cummins, 1987,
Toukoma & Skutnabb-Kangas, 1977, as cited in Lindholm, 1991). Kessler and
30
Quinn (as cited in Casanova, 1990) found confirming results of the threshold
hypothesis. In their study, the groups that exhibit highest degree of cognitive
functioning are additive bilinguals but even in its non-balanced subtractive form
bilingualism has positive consequences under an “inquiry based” educational form.
Moreover, according to Malakoff and Hakuta (1990), basic research on bilingualism
has shown “the stronger the native language of children, the more efficiently they
will learn English” (p.42). Recent research of Cummins and two studies in Italy and
Australia reported by Ricciardelli lend support to threshold hypothesis (as cited in
Devlin, 2003). Lindholm (1991) found that not only the level, but also the type of
language proficiency skills (academic vs. conversational) makes a difference. Today,
the two kinds of proficiency that were distinguished are termed “cognitive academic
language proficiency” (CALP) and 'basic interpersonal communicative skills (BICS)
in applied linguistics (Devlin, 2003).
The developmental interdependence hypothesis by Cummins (1979) is that
the “development of second language competence is a function of the level of the
child’s first language competence already attained at the time when intensive
exposure to the second language begins” (p. 222). This suggests that competence of
the child in the first language is positively correlated with his competence in the
second language.
2.3.2.2 Effectiveness of Bilingual and Foreign Language Immersion Programs
The number of research studies on the effectiveness of bilingual programs is
overwhelming. However, in various reviews, only less than 10% of the studies are
found methodologically adequate (Willig, 1985). Concerning the effectiveness,
Grosjean (1982, p. 80) cites the same studies as Willig and argues that research
findings have not been consistent; some show bilingual education is extremely
effective, some show it is not effective. This is because the evaluation standards and
criteria for effectiveness have not been agreed upon. He concludes that bilingual
programs need much improvement and programs should first set their educational,
cultural, linguistic and attitudinal goals clearly. Similarly, Casanova (1991) points to
scarcity of rigorous, comprehensive studies and quotes Pauston, who argues for
broader criteria for program effectiveness and longitudinal studies. The same holds
31
for foreign language immersion programs with language majority learners (Snow,
1990).
Cummins and Swain (1986) report, for many years, bilingua1 education
research centered on the question: “Is bilingual education effective? (p. xiv) instead
of trying to make sense of the patterns existent in the research data. Although
bilingual education still stirs up controversy at public level, what concerns the
educationists most today is the how the effectiveness of bilingual programs can be
maximized “so that all students acquire linguistic skills in English while retaining
their home languages” (Padilla, 1990, p.21).
2.3.2.3 Effects of Bilingual Education Programs
The research on the consequences on bilingualism and bilingual education
includes aspects such as transfer of knowledge and academic achievement and
growth, which are of particular relevance to the present study.
In terms of transfer of knowledge, basic research on bilingualism and second
language acquisition show that “knowledge and skills learned in one language
transfer to the other language, they do not have to be relearned” (Malakoff & Hakuta,
1990, p.42). This theoretical relationship between language and thought has been one
of the assumptions underlying bilingual programs. The validity of the assumption
that there is transfer of content across language was put to test. More specifically,
there were two dichotomous views: separate underlying proficiency, which assumes
“bilinguals develop and store skills in each language separately” (Lindholm, 1991, p.
6) and common underlying proficiency, which presupposes that there is a common
storage space and development in one language is not independent of the acquisition
of information in the second language. Considerable research supported the latter.
“Thus, a bilingual who performs well in math in one language is very likely to
perform well in math in the other language” (Lindholm, 1991, p. 6). “The two
languages of the bilingual child are independent-they do not compete for limited
space and sources” (Malakoff & Hakuta, 1990, p.42), which means proficiency in the
second language does not necessarily result in the retardation of the first language
depending on the conditions of the child’s linguistic experience and domains of
language use.
32
Regarding academic achievement, research studies in both bilingual and
foreign language immersion sites found results in favor of these programs.
Immersion students have been tested on a variety of standard tests on English
reading, mathematics and science. These tests were typically administered in the
second language although the subject matter was exclusively or mainly taught in
English. The research results from controlled comparison studies in Canadian and
American programs consistently indicated that immersion students do as well or
better than their monolingual peers in these subject matter areas in these areas
(Campell, 1984; Lapkin & Swain, 1984, as cited in Snow, 1990, p. 114). Similarly,
in her meta-analysis of US bilingual education studies Willig (1985) observes:
When statistical controls for methodological inadequacies were employed participation in bilingual education programs consistently produced small to moderate differences favoring bilingual education for tests of reading, language skills, mathematics and total achievement when tests were in English, and for reading, language, mathematics, writing, social studies, listening comprehension, and attitudes toward school or self when tests are in other languages (p.296).
Data conclusively showed that bilingual education did not impede the educational
progress, or academic achievement of pupils (Casanova, 1991).
Genessee (1985) reviewed alternative forms of US immersion such as
enriched, two-way, magnet programs, which are variants of immersion programs. In
enriched programs language majority children are instructed in Spanish, French or
German, whereas in the second, a mixture of language minority and majority
children receive instruction together in both in Spanish and English. The magnet
programs bring together children from various linguistic, ethnic and socioeconomic
backgrounds and immerse them in a non-English language. The overall results of
available research on all types of programs indicate that “the immersion approach is
a feasible and effective way for English-speaking American students to attain second
language proficiency without risk to their native language development or academic
achievement (p.559).
However, most of the American immersion projects under study have been
the early immersion programs at early elementary level and/or kindergarten. In fact,
there exist many types of programs such as delayed where immersion starts in grade
4 or 5, and late where immersion starts at grade 7 or 8 (Sternfeld, 1988). Most of
33
research that focused on early immersion has found positive results in terms of
academic achievement (Marsh, Hau & Kong, 2000).
Although in Canadian programs late immersion has been found very effective
(Genessee, 1985), in a large-scale study carried out in late-immersion programs in
Hong Kong, the researchers have found the opposite. Chinese students’ achievement
growth in English-medium high schools was found to be negatively affected for non-
language subjects such as science, history and geography. English proficiency of
students accounted for lower performance of linguistically demanding subjects.
Giving evidence from Willig’s review (1985), Marsh et al. (2000) argue that non-
language subjects, especially science and social sciences, have been unbelievably
neglected by immersion researchers although there is evidence to suggest that
bilingual education is succeeding in preventing the academic lag in language-
mediated subjects.
In summary, in bilingual education-related research, transfer of knowledge
has been one of the key assumptions subjected to verification. Apparently, research
supports that content is transferred across languages. In terms of academic
achievement, bilingual programs did not produce weaker students. On the contrary,
bilinguals of these programs are equal to or better than monolinguals. Undoubtedly,
academic achievement is mediated by another variable: level of competence in the
second language. When the competence of students is below the required level,
academic achievement is adversely affected especially in non-language subjects.
Moreover, regrettably, research has not been comprehensive enough for making
generalizations about academic achievement in all subject areas.
2.4 Attitudes toward Bilingual Education
An important mediator in issues concerning bilingualism and bilingual
education is political and sociologica1 ideology (Romaine, 1995). These phenomena,
which involve -in most cases- two languages as medium of instruction, are related to
social, personal and political problems of various groups in societies and hence is a
highly critical issue (Candlin, 1986). Therefore, educational planning needs to draw
not only upon academic research on bilingualism and bilingual education (which
does not generalize to all educational contexts), but a1so upon public attitudes.
34
Policy-makers need to be sensitive to the attitudes of the population to receive this
instruction. The failure to investigate the attitudes of the populace- student and
parental attitudes and interests- may lead to the failure of the program itself. One
example is the case of Irish. In an attempt to revive Irish, Irish instruction was
enforced into the Irish educational system, which unanticipatedly met a strong
resistance of parents and students (Romaine, 1995).
2.4.1 North America
In the 1960's, American life witnessed societal changes that included reaction
against assimilation process. The rise of ethnicity as well as the recognition of
inability to give educational opportunities to children of linguistic minorities set the
renaissance for bilingual education (Grosjean, 1982, p.70-71). This movement in the
United States was manifested in an enrichment education program for Cuban
refugees in Florida in 1963 with the "intention that each child should attain equal
proficiency in both languages" (Hakuta, 1986, as cited in Romaine, 1995, p. 248).
The next year, schools in Webb County, Texas and in San Antonio started bilingual
programs. With the Bilingual Education Act in 1965, in spite of the ambiguities as to
the goals and approaches, it was decided that bilingual model programs in US
elementary and secondary education be funded. Later on (in the 1970's) many
amendments were made to the law and in 1980’s bilingual education made a great
progress, though not without problem areas such as teacher training, materials
development, community involvement and research on bilingual education
(Grosjean, 1982).
Canadian immersion programs were highly welcome by the society as a
whole and lent support by parents, and were labeled as successfu1, which inspired
the U.S. policy-makers. Bilingual education programs in the U.S., however, did not
receive the due support. The attitudes of English-speaking majority parents in
particular were far from being positive. The Florida program, for example, was
favored by Spanish speaking parents but was less enthusiastically perceived by
English-speaking parents. The program was an alternative to the monolingual
education or submersion or “sink or swim” method leading to linguistic and cultural
assimilation (Romaine, 1995). Subsequently, variants of this co-medium program
such as transitional bilingual programs began to be implemented across the country,
35
paving the way to polarization among press commentators and educators (Cummins
& Swain, 1986). Examples of these abound in press. In one of these, it is stated that
in the state of California a referendum was to be carried out to abolish bilingual
education and some polls show - that 80 percent of Californians consider English as
more important than instruction in the native language and culture. Proponents of
English-only movement argue that even the Hispanic community itself admits that it
does not work (Zuckerman, 1998). The arguments of the opponents are summarized
as such: 1) I did not need it. So why should my child, 2) Bilingual education will
hinder learning English, 3) it helps maintenance of social groups but not assimilate
them, 4) it is expensive, 5) it will lead to the Balkanization of the United states 6)
immigrants chose to come to the U.S. therefore they need to learn the language of it
(Grosjean, 1982, p.79-80).
At the other end of the continuum lay the proponents of maintenance
programs. Edwards (as cited in Romaine, 1995) states that the proponents of the
maintenance programs have certain political and social assumptions as to the value
of cultural pluralism. Cultural pluralism does not ensure democracy and acceptance
of other ethnic groups just as assimilation does not destroy ethnicity. Besides, the
proponents pluralism may not be and often are not representative of their whole
group (p.284).
The two extremely controversial aspects of bilingual education are its
effectiveness and its role (compensatory, transitional, maintenance) (Grosjean,
1982). The second aspect is related to political decision and concerns policy-makers
of the state and federal governments. To the first aspect, research on bilingual
education is supposed to provide the answer.
2.4.2 Language Policies and Attitudes towards EMI in Other Settings
North American countries are not the first and only group of countries
implementing bilingual education to language minority or majority pupils of their
nationality. Bilingual education is prevalent in Western Europe, in Nordic countries
in particular, where alternatives to mainstream instruction are offered to children of
guest workers and immigrants. Some of these countries are the Netherlands, Sweden
and Germany (Skuttnabb-Kangas, 1984). As the overall context of bilingual
education in Europe is similar to that of the United States, this section will mainly
36
focus on the situation in "developing countries", most of which were multilingual
former colonies of Great Britain and the United States. It would not be wrong to say
that English-medium instruction (EMI) practice is at least as contentious as it is in
Turkey in these settings. Therefore, the language status and educational practices and
attitudes that relate to EMI in these countries will be delineated. In addition, a brief
summary of the context of English-medium instruction in some European countries
will be presented at the end of this section.
In post-colonial countries of Africa and Asia, language choice as medium of
instruction is a vital issue due to the symbolic function of the languages spoken as
well as their communicative value. As mentioned in chapter I, these multilingua1
countries tend to switch back to their viable national language after their political
independence. Some examples of African countries are Nigeria and South Africa,
and those of Asia are India, Pakistan, and Hong Kong.
Nigeria's complicated linguistic landscape is grouped under three major types
of languages: 1) About 400 indigenous languages, 2) three exogenous languages
(English, French, and Arabic), 3) relatively neutral languages (e.g pidgin English).
Thirteen years ago, the mother tongue education policy (MTE) was enforced, which
is still a public debate. MTE policy allows for the supplementation of English by
three major languages (Hausa, Igbo, Yamba) in important areas of national life. Such
is the linguistic background of the country. As far as education is concerned,
conflicting models of education exist. These result from two ideologies: ideology of
linguistic pluralism and vernacularization on one hand, and the ideology of
assimilation and internationalization on the other. The former is supported by the
proponents of MTE, the latter is supported by the opponents of it. According to
surveys, English is by far the most desirable language from the viewpoint of parents
and their children (Akinnaso, 1991). According to Akinnaso, in Nigeria, as an
educational policy, MTE should be supported for a variety of reasons. MTE is seen
as a freedom from linguistic colonialism and basic human right (political reason); the
best bridge between home and school (cultural); the best medium that facilitates
child’s cognitive development along the lines suggested by Piaget, Vygotsky and
Bruner as well as contributing to his/her psychological, social, emotional adjustment
to literacy in schooling (psychological); the best medium to acquire literacy skills
(pedagogical). In addition he speaks of an underlying factor, a strong anti-colonial
37
sentiment for supporting MTE. The critics of the policy, however, draw attention to
English’s being the most desirable second language because it provides a window to
the global information about economy, science and technology, etc. English in
Nigeria has a gate-keeping role, so an earlier switch to English starting from primary
school is ideal because secondary schooling is offered in English anyway. Besides,
graduates of English-medium schools are better achievers as they outnumber their
peers in secondary school entrance exams. Referring to his earlier work, Akinnaso
attributes this gap to economic, class and ritual dimensions to education rather than
to EMI of the private schools. Seeing the opponents’ view as an elitist reaction, he
alludes to two other arguments of critics. One is that they have raised the technical
issues, which have to do with problems of implementation. The other is the problem
of meta-language, especially in science and mathematics, i.e., literacy education
might be jeopardized since local languages might not be able to cope with the
complexities of the rigor of scientific inquiry as they lack the necessary meta-
language and appropriate context for science. A fear he finds justifiable is the
problems that dialectical variation across regional languages might cause. The other
arguments are not well substantiated and hence not valid.
In South Africa, in the majority of schools, English is the medium of
instruction, especially for secondary education, although it is the second or the third
language of pupils. Since the other official language -Afrikaans- is associated with
apartheid of 1976 government, English has dominated the new South Africa. It
gained ground at all domains as well as education as it is perceived as a neutral tool
for communication. The spread of English happened as a result of the commercial,
political, educational linkages at the expense of continued marginalization of
indigenous and other official and languages. Research indicates however, majority of
secondary school graduates still possess no linguistic competence in English
(Balfour, 1999).
In Pakistan there are five major indigenous languages - Punjabi, Pashto,
Sindhi, Siraiki and Baluchi. The national language and the main medium of
instruction is Urdu. In domains of power such as high bureaucracy and military
institutions, English is used as it was during the British rule. In present-day Pakistan
the elite are educated in English-medium schools while the masses are educated in
Urdu in all provinces including the urban Sindh, the formerly resistant province to
38
Urdu. The current policy is represented by proto-elite who were educated in the
indigenous language and who would indiscriminatedly enter into power positions if
EMI did not exist at all. The medium of instruction controversy can be seen as a
power struggle between pressure groups (Sindhi, being the predominant), elites and
proto- elites (Rahman, 1997).
A key assumption of studies of the world Englishes is that the inner circle
countries (e.g. Britain, the U.S. and Canada) set the standards for countries in the
outer circle (e.g. India and parts of Africa). Ramanathan (1999) argues that in India
power relations operate in connection with access to English, too. So even in an outer
circle country such as India, English-related outer circle-inner circle dichotomy
appears to exist. The results of an ethnographic project that Ramanathan carried out
in India to examine institutional and educational practices in India suggest that the
Indian middle class which represents an inner circle of power and prestige have an
easy access to English while the outer circle, people of the lower caste and lower
income are deprived of it. Dua (as cited in Ramanathan, 1999) maintained that
English does not coexist with the other languages. It has acquired such a privileged
status that literacy in local languages is threatened. He reports on studies which
suggest that students favored English as a medium of instruction greatly as a result of
"the fear of being treated as an inferior category among the educated unless the
courses are taken in English" (Jayaram, 1992, as cited in Ramanathan, 1999).
Although anti-English advocates support that India need to do away with English in
school curricula altogether because it represents colonial and neocolonial vestige,
and the government has tried to balance English language teaching by promoting the
regional languages as well as Hindi, academics and students agree that English is
there to stay (Ramanathan, 1999).
The debate over EMI is even more heated in Hong Kong, especially after the
change in political sovereignty in 1997. Since the language policy has come under
official scrutiny, the Chinese government try to promote greater use of Cantonese, a
variety of the mainland Chinese (Putonghua), as the medium of instruction. Despite
the fact that the official policy is to promote trilingualism (Cantonese, Putonghua and
English), the majority of Hong Kong population has spoken Cantonese “ In 1980's,
90% of secondary institutions in Hong Kong were English medium” (Flowerdew, Li
& Miller, 1998, p.205). During the period the Chinese government issued reports
39
disapproving mixed-mode teaching (use of Cantonese with English terminology for
oral tasks and English for examinations, written material and assignments) and
encouraging switch to mother tongue teaching. However, schools, which act
independently, have been unwilling to switch the medium of instruction due to the
parental pressure. In fact, the surveys that Flowerdew et al. (1998) and Tung, Lam &
Tsang. (1997) cite suggest strong positive instrumental orientation to English on the
part of the parents, secondary school pupils, university students and teachers.
The common trend in language policies in all of the mentioned countries is
that the governments try to promote the instruction in indigenous and regional
languages as they support mother tongue policy. There is a strong antigonistic
sentiment against the language of the former colonial rulers. For this reason, the
governments, in their effort of nation-building, target to rid the educational system
off the colonial languages or at least they want the national language/s to co-exist
with English as medium of instruction. Paradoxically, since competence in English
offers upward social mobility, better employment opportunities and prestige, in spite
of the implementational problems experienced at schools, both students and parents
favor EMI in public schools. Furthermore, other drives different than parental
pressure to advocate EMI is regarded as an elitist attitude by the intelligentsia of
these countries.
Although English has no official or semi-official status in the countries of
Europe and English is taught mainly as a separate subject as a foreign language at
schools, European countries is similar to Turkey in the sense that they are EFL
(English as a Foreign Language) contexts. Phillipson (1992) argues that in the Nordic
countries (Scandinavia and Finland), there is a shift from EFL to ESL, which has
implications for education. “Success or failure in English at schools may be decisive
for since countries because English has become decisive for educational and career
prospects” (p. 25). English is a pre-condition for higher educational qualification and
is a domestically necessary skill due to its wide range of use in the academic world,
media, and for in-company communication. English is the most important second
language in the Swedish educational system apart from Swedish for immigrants
(Winsa, 1999). “In 1997, a number of primary schools and gymnasiums used English
as a medium of instruction” (p.401). It is deemed that in the future, English-medium
schools will increase in importance, especially at higher education for those
40
professionals that have frequent contact with European Union, ERASMUS project,
an exchange program between EU universities has already influenced instruction.
Not only Scandinavian universities but higher education institutions in other
European countries, such as Czech Republic (Hlavicka & Pekarek, 1995) and Poland
(Chojnacka & Macukow, 1995) began to offer especially engineering programs in
foreign languages and in English to attract foreign students. Exchange programs aim
to promote international cooperation and understanding (Markowski & Mainwaring,
1995) and seem to have a major role in the adoption of foreign languages in
European countries as instructional languages.
In the Netherlands, “internationalization” of secondary and high education is
a part of the educational policy of Dutch education (Dronkers, 1993). English-
medium instruction is viewed as an important factor concerning the
internationalization of higher education since a common language is needed in
universities. Internationalization of education is presumed to have positive effects on
the quality of education as it might contribute to the shaping of international
collaboration. The initial aim of internalization was to increase student and staff
mobility. Recently, the key objective has been to strengthen the competitive position
of higher education by raising the attractiveness and accessibility of higher education
by foreign students (Vinke, Snippe & Jochems, 1998). Vinke et al. (1998) argue that
the attitude of public opinion in the Netherlands is ambiguous as it is encouraged and
condemned at the same time. The idea of English lectures in Dutch universities is
protested by the media and politicians whenever the government proposes it, but
universities, faculties and teachers are bombarded with initiatives to increase the
international mobility of Dutch students and teachers (p. 296). Internalization of
education and its good and bad sides are discussed but Vinke et al. assert that the
issue lacks reliable analysis.
The same holds true for secondary education. Dutch/English bilingual
programs at secondary education are rapidly becoming popular (Coleman, &
Weltens, 1998/1999; Huibregtse, de Bot, Coleman & Westoff, 1998/1999). Since the
beginning of 1980’s, the government-funded international education has become
widespread at primary and secondary education, intended for children of foreign
nationality and for Dutch children who lived abroad or temporarily living in the
Netherlands (Dronkers, 1993). In their study, examining the reasons of demand for
41
English-language programs rather than concentrating on the supply, Dronkers found
evidence for his hypotheses that growth of English-medium programs in the
Netherlands is related to EU and consequent development of cosmopolitan culture
among the Dutch elite. His study also showed that the growth of these programs stem
from the desire to maintain the “educational distance” between the upper and lower
classes. The growth is a consequence of the demand by parents and students and
determined by solely by the developments outside the Netherlands. The conclusion
drawn from his analysis is that English-medium instruction does not contribute to the
internalization of education but is creating an upper crust and he deems that the
demand is likely to increase.
2.5 The Turkish Context
As stated earlier, research studies into the perceptions and attitudes of
Turkish public towards EMI are limited. Due to the relevance they bear to the
proposed study, some findings of the existing studies carried out by researchers and
by the Ministry of National Education will be summarized in this section. First,
studies conducted at secondary education are presented. The focus of each study in
this part varies. Some are related to the perceptions regarding program effectiveness,
whereas some are surveys. There is also an experimental study in German-medium
environment. Second, three studies within the context of English-medium
universities will be summarized. Lastly, a literature survey will be presented, which
thematically groups the attitudes of notable educators and those of the intelligentsia
whose opinions have appeared in press according to their central argument for
opposing or supporting EMI.
Aksu and Akarsu (1985) conducted a case study based on the perceptions of
311teachers in all of the 24 Anatolian High schools in 22 provinces. The schools
were examined in terms of goals, teacher characteristics, methods and techniques of
instruction, and needs of in-service training. The results that have implications to the
present study showed that most of teachers had learnt English during university years
and majority of math and science teachers uses English to teach content quite often
but not a lot. The reasons for teachers’ not using English a lot are: 1) Foreign
language blocks interaction, 2) the level of proficiency of students is insufficient, 3)
teaching in a foreign language is difficult, 4) course-books are Turkish, 5) student
42
achievement is low. Teachers reported that students have poor speaking competence
in terms of language skills and they suggested encouragement of extra-curricular
activities for FL (foreign language) development. When the effects of English-
medium on students’ academic performance are considered, most of the teachers
reported a negative effect rather than positive.
In a study exploring the problems of foreign language-medium secondary
schools Erdem (1990) investigated the perceptions of students and teachers in
connection with problems and effectiveness of the instruction of math and science
subjects. It also aimed to compare the achievement rate of 8th graders on measures of
knowledge, comprehension and application in science subjects with that of the
students in a Turkish-medium school with intensive foreign language teaching. (At
the time of the study Anatolian high schools were seven-year schools starting with a
prerequisite a one-year English-intensive program at the age of 11, in grade 6. The
study was carried out in four foreign-language medium schools in Ankara. Three of
the schools were Anatolian high schools and one of them was a private school. In
two of them English was the medium of instruction, in one of the remaining it was
French and in the other it was German. A total of 125 teachers and 43 students
participated in the study. Evidence for higher achievement rate of these schools has
not been found upon the evaluation of the science program in terms of teachers,
curriculum and materials. In terms of achievement rate in science subjects, students
performed best on tasks that require knowledge level and worst on application level,
which indicated lack of encouragement on learning that is based on comprehension
and application of knowledge. Concerning the role of FL learning in science subjects
a knowledge the following results were found: 1) The majority of content-area
teachers teaching math and science subjects do not rate their proficiency level in the
FL as adequate to offer instruction with ease, although half of them reported to have
learned the foreign language abroad. 2) Most of the teachers cannot use foreign
language as the major instructional mode because of student pressure and difficulty
of instructing in a foreign language. 3) They believe that the students learn the
subject matter less effectively due to the language barrier and their proficiency level
is not high enough in FL. 4) although the majority of teachers stated their content
area is taught fairly well in the FL, most of the students reported that they do
understand science subjects better in Turkish. 5) One third of students who believed
43
they have high English proficiency reported better comprehension of science subjects
in FL. In teachers’ view, the most serious drawback of foreign language-medium
instruction (FLMI) is that students cannot learn the Turkish equivalents of terms in
math and science. A vast majority of teachers have reported that they switch to
Turkish during instruction. 6) Students also stated that biggest effect of FMLI is that
it prevents them from learning the subject matter. Also they resort to translation after
class to comprehend the lesson. 7) The majority of students would support increasing
hours of English instruction as a separate subject instead of instruction through a
foreign language.
Another study that has implications for EMI is an experimental design by
Zorlu (1991) conducted in a vocational school in Northern Germany where language
minority Turkish children was immersed in German. The study compared the
academic achievement in cognitive areas and retention of the newly-acquired
knowledge of the control group consisting of 12 Turkish and 16 German students
who received instruction in German with that of the test group who received
instruction of a technology subject supplemented with instruction in the native
language. Both groups were instructed in German by a bilingual Turkish teacher.
Turkish was not used at all in the control group, while to the test group explanations
were provided in Turkish and interaction for negotiation of meaning was done in
Turkish when needed. The Turkish students in test group performed significantly
better at levels of knowledge, comprehension and application. When tested on the
retention of knowledge of the newly-required knowledge, Turkish students in the test
group exhibited higher levels of achievement. The German students proved to be
equivalent on both of the measures of the variables. The difference is attributed to the
dual-medium instructional mode, or, to the treatment given to Turkish students. The
researcher concludes that the study supports the existing literature on the merits of
native language-medium instruction on cognitive and affective aspects of instruction.
The study is significant, for it supports the position of those who advocate the
teaching of content through native language. It was indicated that with
communication in daily interaction students did not have any difficulty in German
but experience difficulty in educational domain. For this reason, Turkish is more
forthcoming for Turkish students. However, the entry linguistic levels of Turkish
students in Turkish and German were not reported.
44
In the report of a survey conducted by Secondary Education General
Directorate in 1997, it was found that 64.42% of parents did not favor foreign
language-medium instruction in math and science courses, and only 2.28% of them
state FMLI as a reason for sending their children to these schools. The teachers do
not appear to support FMLI either. 44.79% of the teachers report their proficiency in
the foreign language as poor or average. A vast majority of teachers believe in the
negative effects of instruction in a foreign language and that reversion to Turkish
would increase students' achievement in these courses. The students, too, favor
reversion to Turkish (78.64%) basically because FMLI adversely affect their success
in the university entrance examination. More than half of them do not find their
teachers proficient in the language and feel that FMLI neither provides knowledge
and skills in math and science courses nor increases proficiency in the target
language (Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı, 1997).
Mirici et al. (2000) found similar results with regard to the proficiency of
teachers. In a survey conducted in 44 provinces of Turkey, among a total of 1780
school principals, directors, teachers, students and parents, the overall tendency is in
disfavor of foreign language medium instruction in Anatolian high schools for all
target groups.
At tertiary level, Kalfazade, Oran, Sekban and Tınaz. (1989) carried out a
study in Faculties of Medicine, Business administration and Economics, and
International Relations that adopted and began to implement EMI at Marmara
University. The purpose was to determine the preferences of students opting for
English-medium education and problems related to EMI as well as preparatory
education via a questionnaire. The participants were 306 second and fourth year
students, most of whom were had had preparatory education of one-year intensive
English. The results showed that among the reasons for all groups of three
departments and both sexes, three factors relating to “looking for larger possibilities
of learning” were given priority. These cover “the desire to have better social
opportunities, having job opportunities, the idea that such a school environment
would be more elite”. The possibility of “education and work in a foreign country”
was the second important factor for students of Business Administration and
International Relations. “To enlarge one’s English knowledge” was the fifth priority
of students that was significant. Regardless of sex and major field of study, students
45
reported "the difficulty of finding English sources”, except for medical students (The
internet did not exist then and library sources were rich only on medical subjects.).
The second problem was “that the classes are in English makes it hard for the
students to participate actively in the lesson”. This lessened for fourth year students,
for students who were exempt from Preparatory programs and for those who were
upper-intermediate level students at the preparatory program. In brief, educational
and job opportunities had a dominant role in the choices of students. The students
also reported difficulties in understanding the lessons and taking notes due to
insufficient knowledge and, more significantly, due to lack of terminology, which
varied again between those who studied at preparatory school and those who did not.
Also, students rejected the suggestions of a combination of “Turkish-medium lesson
with English books” and an “all Turkish-medium instruction plus English course”
with the non-preparatory students.
Using qualitative and quantitative procedures, Akünal (1993) examined the
effectiveness of content-based second language instruction (CBLSI) from the
perspectives of students and teachers, and crosschecked teachers and students
evaluations in classroom situations in Middle East Technical University (METU).
She administered a questionnaire to 186 students majoring in architecture, sociology,
economics and chemical engineering and 41 instructors in the same departments.
Classroom observation data was obtained through two-hour videotaped classes in
each department. The data obtained from the questionnaire were analyzed according
to English language and study skills, academic performance, and attitudinal
considerations. The observations of classroom interaction assessed the extent to
which CBSLI are implemented in METU classrooms. The results suggested content-
based second language instruction or English-medium as it stood in METU context
did not contribute significantly to second language development and proved to be
detrimental to learning of content. It was also found that CBSLI did not provide
opportunities for the kind of input, interaction and output essential to promote second
language acquisition. Incorporating and extensive review of second language
learning theory behind CBSLI into the study she argued empirical evidence did not
support the theory. Finally, Akünal concluded neither the theory nor empirical data –
as drawn from her study- support the case of use of English as medium of education.
46
Somer (2001) investigated the role of English in teaching engineering and
architecture content at Anadolu University as perceived by 33 instructors via a
questionnaire. The study focused on the attitudes of instructors toward use of English
in classrooms and how and to what extent they use English for instruction that teach
content mainly through English. She found that all the participants believed learning
English is essential for students to read professional materials; English language
teaching must start as early as possible and a threshold level of proficiency must be
attained before starting teaching content in English; all skills, in particular listening
and productive skills must be emphasized in the preparatory program; teaching staff
prefer dual instructional mode due to lack of required level of proficiency of
students; the instructors who prefer mainly English do so because sources and
materials are mainly in English and although testing is in English, class discussions
are sometimes held in Turkish. The instructors who sometimes teach in Turkish have
educational and political reasons: that students’ comprehension of content is impeded
and that Turkish language and our national identity should be protected.
Görgülü (1995) made a review of the arguments for and against FMLI
resorting to Turkish and foreign sources. The critical arguments, which are
categorized as educational concerns, cultural and economic imperialism, and threat
to dangers for the mother tongue outnumber the reactions against these arguments.
The first arguments of the opponents are based on educational concerns. These are:
1) Concept formation occurs in the mother tongue, 2) FLMI hinders creativity and
productivity, 3) The rationale of immersing students in the second language is not
supported by research evidence, 4) It poses a barrier to learning, 5) The
compensatory language shift in the university exam -which is in Turkish-places
double burden on students, 6) Negotiation and interaction between teacher and
students lessens as a result of limited proficiency of both parties in L2.
The second group of arguments include: 1) English is a tool of the
globalization process and nations must not endanger their languages. In fact, FLMI is
one of the tools of destruction of the imperialistic forces fed by Western aid donors
and cultural agencies with whom the elite cooperate. 2) People educated in English-
medium schools are alienated from the rest of the society, 3) FMLI provides unfair
advantages to those with money, 4) ELT (English Language Teaching) is a major
economic asset for Western countries as it is an industry and EMI is a part of it.
47
Regarding the dangers of FLMI for the mother tongue, the arguments of the
opponents are: 1) Mother tongue is impoverished; FLMI will lead to loss of creative
power in our language, it creates a mix of two languages, the rules of the second
language will spread into mother tongue, 2) FLMI will discourage people from
producing Turkish equivalents for scientific and technological vocabulary, 3)
Language and thought are interlinked. Thought is adversely affected in cases of
FLMI, 4) People educated in FLMI schools tend to use the mother tongue in
domestic life and in other domains requiring intellectual activity they tend to use the
foreign language. So mother tongue goes through recession.
The advocates of FLMI argue that 1) Some precautions must be taken to
teach and strengthen Turkish language and culture, 2) Learning a foreign language
causes one to become closer to his culture, 3) English is no more the language of the
British and American culture as it has become the international language of the
world, 4) That FLMI destroys culture lacks scientific basis, 5) Our society is
undergoing an inevitable process of acculturation in today's world, 6) At FLMI
schools subjects other than math and science provide pupils with enough opportunity
to use the mother tongue, so mother-tongue-endangered reactions are unfounded,
emotional and ideological, 7) Turkish is not developed enough to be the language of
science and technology, 8) To keep abreast of the new advances in the Western
World, a Western language should be used, 9) Many scientists who are prolific in
Turkish know at least one language very well, 10) There is an obsession concerning
FLMI due to our ignorance. FLMI schools exist in developed countries as well; it is
not only a developing country phenomenon. 11) Intellectuals who think FLMI is an
extension of imperialism have a phobia, 12) FLMI in math and sciences help
students in university especially if they are studying medicine and engineering, 13)
FLMI may be motivating as it creates a meaningful context for students to learn a
language.
2.6 Summary
This chapter reviewed the relevant literature to EMI (EMI). The aspects that
facilitate our understanding of EMI were language planning/policies and educational
policies; bilingualism and bilingual education; and content-based language
nstruction. Language policies are connected to EMI because language choice in
48
schools is an aspect of sociolinguistics and hence language planning. Language
choice in education is inherently a political issue that interests ethnic groups,
especially linguistic minorities in a country since no country is purely monolingual.
This implies in the Turkish context choice of instructional language in any program
or school is not only an educational decision, but a political one.
The second issue to the review is related to bilingualism and bilingual
education. Although the context of these issues does not appear directly relevant to a
partial English-medium setting such as that of some secondary schools in Turkey,
they have strong implications for the debate over EMI as further chapters will unfold.
To summarize, bilingual education has a long history and emerged form the
educational needs of children who lagged behind their peers in terms of academic
achievement due to lack of linguistic competence in the dominant language.
Immersion programs started out as an educational experiment within a context of
societal bilingualism, Canada, where French and English co-existed with equal
official status and social prestige. The alleged success of Canadian immersion is
often attributed to the specific educational setting where language majority students
were instructed in French by bilingual teachers. The underlying pedagogical
approach of bilingual and immersion programs that combined content and language
teaching contributed to the development of content-based second language
instruction and its various models of language teaching programs.
In the third part to this review, the theoretical underpinnings of English-
medium and bilingual education; content-based second language instruction was
defined with reference to its types. Also, the research on alleged contributive and
detrimental effects of bilingual and immersion education that researchers have been
dealing with were reviewed. While researchers have found that bilingualism has
cognitive, and linguistic benefits to the development of the individual, and that
knowledge is transferred independent of the language it is acquired in, they have
evidence to suggest that the entry language proficiency in the second language and
competence in the native language are crucial determinants of students’ academic
growth and performance in the second language. In general, bilingual education with
linguistic minorities and immersion programs with language majorities have been
effective in realizing educational and linguistic goals; however, some researchers
lament over the neglected areas such as achievement in non-language subjects and
49
express the need for more research without methodological limitations. Despite the
positive picture of bilingual and immersion programs, bilingual education remains to
be a contentious practice just as English-medium is.
Another focus of this review was perceptions and attitudes about English-
medium of instruction in other settings. In the forth part, linguistic profile, language
policies in education and the controversy over EMI in post-colonial settings and the
relevant studies were described. Here public, parental and student attitudes in some
Asian and African countries were touched upon, which suggested some parallelism
to the attitudes and arguments of the Turkish context. English-medium in these
settings is extremely controversial because of the social, economic and political
structure of these countries in addition to the status of the vernacular vs. English.
English is associated with the language of colonial powers that dominated the
countries in the past, for this reason, native language instruction and development of
these native languages are being encouraged by governments. Paradoxically,
although English is perceived as a threat to national identity, schools and parents
apparently support EMI in schools despite the educational problems that exist. The
linguistic profile of these countries differs widely from that of Turkey. However,
educational problems concerning English-medium practice appear to be very similar
to the problems of the Turkish context. In Europe, since the Netherlands and the
Scandinavian countries are heading toward native language-English bilingualism, the
EMI is not uncommon. In Eastern European countries, FLMI/EMI is being promoted
to especially at tertiary education. They have an all-European educational goal: the
internationalization of education. Therefore, the impetus for adopting EMI appear to
be somewhat different.
In the final part, Turkish studies were reviewed. What these studies suggest is
first, there are implementational problems; students lack necessary proficiency level
in English and, teachers may not be teaching efficiently because of English. Second,
pedagogically, EMI has not been beneficial to students in terms of learning the
second language or the subject matter. Third, attitudinally, students and teachers
disfavor EMI at secondary level and parents did not chose English-medium
secondary schools for the instructional mode. On the other hand, at tertiary level
while some students expect to learn English better at an English-medium university,
some teachers perceive EMI negatively as they believe it is detrimental to the
50
development of Turkish. Lastly, English-medium is highly controversial from the
perspective of scholars and journalists as some believe in its merits, while some
perceive it as a serious threat.
51
CHAPTER 3
METHOD
This chapter documents the method employed in conducting the present study
and explains the reasons why the preferred design has been used for addressing the
research questions under study. The chapter begins with a section describing the
overall research design accompanied with its schematic representation. In the second
section, participants are described. In the third, the instruments are introduced with a
full description including the piloting procedure. The last section offers a
presentation of data collection procedures categorized as two distinct procedures,
each corresponding to a specific data collection instrument.
3.1 Overall Design of the Study
The research design is a combined one primarily because of the fact that two
distinct data collection methods have been employed in the overall design. As will be
explained in full in the subsequent sections of this chapter, for data-gathering, two
data collection methods have been used; both questionnaire survey and interview.
These strategies are associated with two distinct paradigms, quantitative and
qualitative respectively. Thus, in search for the answers to the research questions of
the present study, two strategies have been mixed.
The social sciences research literature abounds in combinations of mixing data
collection strategies within a large range of studies. The concept of triangulation was
introduced first by Denzin, defined as “combination of methodologies in the study of
the same phenomena” (Payne, 1994, p. 125). The purpose of triangulation was to
neutralize any bias inherent in particular data sources, investigators and methods.
Both “within method” or “between method” approaches can be drawn upon for a
combined method study. In the former, different types of quantitative data collection
strategies might be employed (e. g, a survey and an experiment), whereas in the latter
52
qualitative and quantitative data collection strategies (e.g. survey and in-depth
interview) might be involved (Jick, as cited in Creswell, 1994).
The present study comprises triangulation of quantitative and qualitative data
collection strategies. Figure 1 illustrates the overall design of the study and how
quantitative and qualitative data collection strategies have been mixed.
As regards data sources, three groups were involved: students, teachers and
parents. Both types of data were collected from each group via self-designed
instruments. The instruments consisted of a survey questionnaire and interview
protocols. The former contained Likert scales as well as categorical and numeric
items, which gave quantifiable data. Besides these, there were open-ended questions
in the survey questionnaire, which yielded qualitative data. The latter gave
qualitative data via semi-structured questions. The pilot study also comprised
qualitative and quantitative procedures that involved validity and reliability check. In
terms of data analysis, descriptive and correlational statistics were used in connection
with the scales, all of which are quantitative procedures. For the analysis of
interviews and open-ended questions, a qualitative procedure, content analysis.
53
Figure 1: Research Design
QUANTITATIVE DATA SOURCES INSTRUMENTS PILOT STUDY DATA ANALYSIS
DATA SOURCES INSTRUMENTS PILOT STUDY DATA ANALYSIS
QUALITATIVE
STU
DEN
TS TEA
CH
ERS
PAR
ENTS
SUR
VEY
QU
ESTION
NA
IRE
RA
TING
SCA
LES C
ATEG
OR
IES O
PEN-EN
DED
QU
ESTION
S IN
TERV
IEWS
INTER
VIEW
PRO
TOC
OLS
PILOT SU
RV
EY
TEST OF R
ELIAB
ILITY
FAC
TOR
AN
ALY
SIS EX
PERT O
PINIO
N
PILOT IN
TERV
IEWS
FREQ
UEN
CIES, M
EAN
S, A
NA
LYSIS O
F VA
RIA
NC
E, T-TEST C
OR
RELA
TION
C
ON
TENT A
NA
LYSIS
54
3.2 Participants
The five main data sources of the present research study are students,
teachers, parents, who are referred to as “groups” as well. Since the study centers on
the perceptions of these groups, all of the data sources are, by nature, human sources.
Yet, sampling varies in accordance with data collection methods. As can be seen
from the graphic representation of the overall research design (see Figure 1), there
are two main data collection methods in the present research study: 1) Questionnaire
Survey (via mailed questionnaires), 2) individual interviews. The participants for
these two methods are introduced separately.
For the survey questionnaire data from the students, teachers and parents
have been collected from 2353 participants. Likewise, for the interviews data from
all of these groups have been gathered. In this section, sampling is explained in
connection with data collection methods. Table 3.1 illustrates data sources and
sample size according to each data collection method:
Table 3.1
Group’s Sample Size by Data Collection Method
No of participants by data-collection method
Group Questionnaire Survey Interview
Students 982 6
Teachers 383 4
Parents 988 4
Total 2353 14
As can be seen above, the sample size for the survey for students, teachers
and parents are 982, 383, 988 respectively. For the interviews, these are 14 in total.
3.2.1 Survey Participants
There are two sampling techniques utilized for this study. This section
explains the first one, the sampling technique used for the nation-wide survey. The
survey data were collected from the students, teachers and parents of the same
Anatolian high school (AHS). Therefore the sample frame consists of schools, rather
55
than individual students, teachers and parents. In other words, the sampling of
schools suffices to explain the full sampling procedure for students, parents and
teachers. The details of each of these sources will be explained in the subsequent
section under separate sub-headings.
The sample for the survey questionnaire was stratified. The survey
questionnaire forms were mailed to mainstream AHSs in various regions in clusters
according to a pre-specified list containing total number of students and teachers.
The main stratum for sampling was provincial location of the school in Turkey.
Therefore, schools from all the 78 provinces in Turkey had to be represented. The
sample frame for schools was a “list” provided by the Ministry of Education, the
General Directorate of Secondary Education. Out of the 420 mainstream AHSs in
this list, 60 schools from various provinces were targeted first, which, evidently,
represents 15% of the total population. However, although these 420 schools appear
to be the sample frame, a second criterion for selection was needed because informal
and formal interviews revealed that, in actuality, the practice of English-medium
instruction was limited in the sense that many schools have abandoned English-
medium instruction for various reasons. In order to answer all the research questions,
the schools that do not fit, or in other words, the schools that have never offered math
and science subjects in English had to be kept outside of the sample. Prior to the
sampling plan, a further investigation was made at the Directorate of Secondary
Education at the Ministry, which was functional in the selection of the schools for the
administration of the survey. With the help of a high-rank official, who identified the
schools he thought was offering English-medium instruction, “a second list” of 51
schools was formed.
This piece of information was combined with the information contained in
“third list” with student and section figures in all the AHSs nation-wide. Finally 62
schools were determined. To double-check whether the determined schools fit the
criteria, the administrative staff of these 62 schools were contacted by phone.
Through the telephone conversations, information about the basic criterion, the
existence of English-medium instruction, was obtained in addition to the total
number of “science groups”. As a result, it turned out that 42 schools in 32 provinces
met the basic criterion. To decide on the sample size, the size of school was taken
into account. This will be further explained in the subsections to come.
56
3.2.1.1 Students
Students are the first data source for the survey. Students at Turkish high
schools, including those at AHSs, are streamed into areas of preferred study in grade
10. These are science, literature and foreign language. The student sample of the
current study consisted of “science” students in AHSs only unless they have studied
math and science through English in grades 6, 7 and 8. If they had studied these
courses in English previously, it did not matter what area they were studying at the
time of data collection.
In terms of previous school background, the sample is a mixture. In AHSs
there are two groups of students: 1) Students who studied a preparatory year of
intensive English and grades 6, 7, 8 in their current school (an AHS), and 2) students
who studied these grades in mainstream elementary education schools (İlköğretim
Okulları) and were offered a preparatory year of intensive English prior to grade 9 in
their current (Anatolian) high school.
Initially, 1295 students in grades 9, 10, 11 from the selected 42 AHSs were
targeted as the sample unit. The total numbers of students and sections for the
academic year 2000-2001 in each school were available in the afore-mentioned
“third list” provided by the ministry. These figures were checked and updated by the
telephone conversations with an administrator in each school, who gave the total
approximate numbers of students in “science section/s” in their school. The figures
were examined to decide on the sample size for students. For schools with too many
students and science groups, 15% of the students, and for schools with too few
sections and student, the entirety of students in science groups was included. These
added up to 1295 students from all schools (see Appendix A). Out of the nearly 1100
returned student questionnaire forms, 982 were found eligible during the recording
process.
In summary, in determining the student sample, having studied or to be
studying math and science in English has been the basic criterion. The distribution of
sample in terms of school year and background are given in chapter 4, section 4.1,
where characteristics of participants are explained.
57
3.2.1.2 Teachers
The second data source for the survey is teachers. The teachers in the selected
AHSs are all content- area teachers who are estimated to be teaching or to have
taught mathematics and science subjects in English or partially in English. The
science subjects were natural science (formerly, at grades 6, 7, 8 [middle schools];
physics; chemistry; and biology (at grades 9, 10, 11). All 488 teachers that met these
criteria in the targeted schools were selected for the study. Therefore the total
population in the selected schools has been reflected in the sample (see Appendix A).
Out of approximately 400 returned questionnaire forms, 383 were eligible for data
recording and computation.
3.2.1.3 Parents
A third data source of the survey is parents. These are one of the parents –
father or mother- of students who took the survey questionnaire. The number of the
students and the parents that took the questionnaire is the same. Therefore the
targeted sample unit was 1295 parents. The questionnaire forms of 988 parents
proved to be eligible for data recording and computation.
3.2.2 Interview Participants
Individual interviews were held with all groups; students, teachers, parents,
The sampling technique selected for interviewing is snowball sampling, which is a
method for purposive (convenience) sampling (Patton, 1987). However, for each of
these groups a set of criteria was predefined and the researcher made a point of
abiding by these criteria as far as the circumstances allowed. For example, gender,
section and grade were taken into consideration. This implies “criterion sampling” in
addition to these two mentioned methods of sampling (Yıldırım & Şimşek, 1999,
p.73).
Students are from various Anatolian schools in Ankara and Antalya. They
were all “science section” students who study or have previously studied science and
math subjects partially or wholly in English. The total number of students who took
the interview is six. Two of them are grade 9 and four of them are grade 10 students.
Four of them are male and two of them are female. Four of the students are from
Ankara schools, namely, and two of them were from an AHS in Antalya (see
Appendix B).
58
The two student participants who reside in Antalya were contacted when the
researcher was piloting the survey questionnaire in one of the AHSs in Antalya.
These two students volunteered for the interview at the piloting site with
intermediation of the teachers who assisted the researcher by spotting potentially
responsive students. One student in Ankara was contacted through personal
connections and the other three were recommended by their teachers or their very
parents who also took the interview.
Teachers, the second sample group, are four in number. As illustrated in
Appendix B, three of them are female. Two of the female teachers are from a school
in Antalya and were interviewed in Antalya when the pilot survey was being
conducted. They are teachers of mathematics and biology, and are currently teaching
these subjects in Turkish but have previously taught them in English. One teacher
(male) is from Samsun, who is working in a “dersane” (an institution that prepares
students for a specific matriculation exam) and who have previously taught physics
in English in an AHS in Samsun. The female teacher who is currently teaching
chemistry in one of the towns within the Ankara Province has taught chemistry in
English in a well-known AHS. The last two were contacted through personal
connections whereas the ones in Antalya volunteered to take the interview during the
pilot survey on site. Evidently, the basic criterion applied in selection of teacher
participants was the subject area of the teachers. The reason for covering all the
subject areas is the idea that every area would have its intricacies in connection to
English-medium instruction and teacher’s perceptions, which are presumably based
on their classroom experience, might vary according to the subject they teach. This
prediction proved to be accurate as teachers had variation in their perception of the
relevance of English-medium instruction in AHSs.
Four parents are the third data source for the interview. Two of the parents
are from Ankara, one from Samsun and one from Antalya (see Appendix B). Except
for the first parent who is from Samsun, the parents are the parents of the student
participants who took the student version of the interview.
3.3 Data Collection Instruments
As mentioned before there are two data collection methods applied in this
study: questionnaire survey and individual interviews. For the former, a survey
questionnaire, for the latter, a semi-structured interview protocol was utilized. Both
59
of these instruments were piloted and tested for validity and reliability prior to data
collection. In this section, first the piloting of each of the instruments will be
explained, then the data collection instruments; the survey questionnaire and the
interview protocol will be described in detail.
3.3.1 Pilot Work
Pilot work of the study involves both the survey questionnaire and interview
protocols. Immediately after the interview protocols were piloted, the-tape recorded
data were transcribed and the emerging themes were used for the preparation of the
pilot survey questionnaire in addition to the themes that the literature provides. Both
types of instruments were parallel in terms of content and organization. The flow-
chart in Figure 2 demonstrates the process of preparation of the data collection
instruments.
The first step was the literature review and the identification of the main
research questions. At this point, some informal talk with the graduates and students
of AHSs or an English-medium institution, some parents, administrator and
educators were carried out, which contributed to the formulation of the research
questions. The material surveyed by the researcher contained not only academic
papers, books and articles but also newspaper articles and panel discussions. These
led the researcher to formulate the interview protocol questions (step 2) in line with
the research questions. As the next step (step 3), the interview protocols were
examined by eight experts for content validity. Then the interviews were piloted and
the protocols were finalized (steps 4 & 5). The analysis of the pilot interviews was
functional in two ways. It brought the researcher back to the research questions and
the survey of the literature (Step 1) for revisions and lead in to next step (Step 6),
which was the construction of the survey questionnaire instrument. The literature and
the pilot interview findings served as the basis of the survey questionnaire. The
questionnaire was checked for content validity by two experts as well as members of
the research commission of the sponsoring institution, EARGED, and were later
piloted (step 7). After the piloting, the reliability of the scale was tested, and factor
analyses were run. Finally, revisions and necessary modifications were made.
60
Figure 2: Overview of Development of Instruments, Piloting, Validity & Reliability Check
STEP 1 Reviewing Literature, Unstructured Interviews and informal talk, Identifying main research questions
STEP 4 Piloting of Interview Protocols & analysis of data obtained from pilot work
STEP 7 Piloting of Survey Questionniare
STEP 5 Finalizing interview questions on Interview Protocols
STEP 2 Formulation of Interview Protocol questions
STEP 3 Expert Opinion for Interview Protocols: Validity Check
STEP 8 Reliability Check and Factor Analyses
STEP 6 Preparation of Survey Questionnaire & Expert Opinion: Validity Check
61
3.3.1.1 Survey Questionnaire
The survey questionnaire was piloted in three Anatolian high schools: one in
Sincan, one in Ankara and one in Antalya. On all sites, totally 178 subjects answered
the survey questionnaire. Eighty-seven of them were students, 27 were teachers and
64 parents. The questionnaires for the first school were administered by the school
principal himself to all students, teachers and parents via students. The principal was
contacted by a graduate of the same school. The administration of student
questionnaires in the latter two schools was made by the researcher herself during
class hours with the help of several cooperating teachers, who gave up on their one
class hour upon the researcher’s request. The teacher questionnaire forms were left in
charge of a cooperating teacher in each school, who distributed the forms and
collected them from math and science teachers. The forms were later forwarded to
the researcher by these cooperating teachers. The forms for parents were distributed
to students who took the similar survey questionnaire and these were returned to the
researcher with the help of the same cooperating teacher in each school. Although
the number of distributed questionnaire forms for parents was equal to the number of
questionnaire forms of students, 23 of the parents did not return the questionnaire
forms.
As will be explained in the next section, all three questionnaire forms were parallel.
The first section comprises self-report questions about the knowledge of a foreign
language, proficiency level in each language as well as demographic variables. In the
second part and third part, there were Likert scales, labeled as ENGLISH, and EMI.
The former contained items about English as a Foreign Language while the former
comprised items about English-medium instruction. These were identical across all
versions (student, teacher and parent). Additionally, there were scales concerning the
instructional process, named INSPRO and LING in student and teacher versions
(which were identical in both versions) and the TEACHER scale only in teacher’s
version. These were specific statements related to the instructional procedures and
linguistic skills that only students and teachers could respond to. At the end of each
scale, there was an open-ended item for additional comments.
The internal consistency estimates of reliability, coefficient alpha were
computed for individual scales in each version on the SPSS Program. Table 3.2
reports Cronbach alpha values for the three questionnaires.
Table 3.2
62
Cronbach Alpha Values for Pilot Survey Questionnaire Scales
Alpha Values
Quest.
Form
Part 2
English as a Foreign Language
ENGLISH
Part 3 Scale 1 English-Medium
Instruction
EMI
Part 3 Scale 2a Instruct. Process
for Science
INSPRO 1
Part 3 Scale 2b Instruct. Process
for Science
LING 1
Part 3 Scale 2a Instruct. Process for Math
INSPRO 2
Part 3 Scale 2b Instruct. Process for Math
LING 2
Part 3 Scale 3 Teaching Perform.
TEACHER
Student .8552 .886 .9719 .9705 0.9809 .9516 -
Teacher .7556 .926 . 86428* .8583 - - 0.4108
Parent .8045 .9127 - - - - -
Note: The values marked with asterisk (*) indicate either math or one of the science subjects
(teachers’ questionnaire contained only one scale)
As can be see, all the values except for the teacher questionnaire Part 3 Scale
2 (TEACHER) indicated satisfactory reliability.
The data reduction procedure, factor analysis was run for each of the scales
in each version of the questionnaires as a data reduction method. Although the results
did not yield reliable results due to the small sample size, the analyses were
functional in selecting items to be included in each scale. The complexly
undetermined items and the items whose factor loadings were very close were
eliminated. According to this, on the scale ENGLISH, 23 items were reduced to 16,
on EMI scale four items were eliminated and eight items were added instead. The
scales INSPRO 1 and 2, LING 1 and 2 were included only in the student and teacher
versions. No elimination or addition was made for this part. The TEACHER scale,
which originally contained 17 items, was reduced to 12 items.
Based on the observations throughout the piloting process, the answers given
to categorical and open-ended items, and statistics run on the scales, modifications
were made.
63
3.3.1.2 Interview Protocols
There are three interview protocols prepared for all the data sources; students,
teachers and parents. As explained before, prior to the piloting, the interview
instruments were validated by 8 experts who offered their expert opinion and
judgement. Later each of them was piloted. The participants of these individual
interviews were two students, one from grade 10 and one from grade 11, a physics
teacher, a parent who is the father to one of the students, an area-specialist who is an
applied linguist in the Faculty of Education in an English-medium university, a
decision-maker at the Board of Education (Talim Terbiye Kurulu). All the
interviewees were residents of Ankara and the interviews were held in Ankara. The
interviews were tape-recorded and subsequently transcribed. Necessary
modifications on the instrument were made. Results from these initial interviews
were mainly used for developing the survey questionnaire.
3.3.2 Instruments
Two self-designed instruments were employed for the study: 1) the survey
questionnaire, 2) interview protocols. In the following subsections both of them are
introduced.
3.3.2.1 Survey Questionnaire
The main data collection instrument of the survey is the survey questionnaire
which comes in three versions; the student version, the teacher version and the parent
version. As mentioned before, the first sections of all the three parts of all these
versions are almost identical (see Appendices C, D, E). The second section of the
third part entitled “instructional procedures” is existent in the student and teacher
questionnaires (see Appendices C and D). In this section, there are identical
questions but the design varies.
“Part 1” in all questionnaire forms aims to collect data about demographic
background, and the knowledge of foreign language/s (including the participants’
proficiency level in English) and the use of English in math and science instruction -
the current and the desired intensity of the use of English. These questions vary
slightly; for example in the teachers’version, there are questions about teaching
experience for teachers and the questions as to the current use of English in math and
science classes simply do not exist in the parents’ version for obvious reasons.
64
“Part 2” addresses the second main research question. It comprises two
subsections. Part A sets out to explore how subjects perceive “foreign language” and
whether they support instruction of foreign languages in public schools, what foreign
language/s they prefer. Part B consists of ENGLISH scale with 16 items on a 1 to 5
Likert scale. The scale is intended to measure participants’ responses to English as a
Foreign Language in terms of three dimensions: the function of learning English for
the self and society; the teaching of English at various levels of schooling and spread
of English.
The first section of “part 3” addresses the first main research question,
perceptions of English-medium instruction, through 28 statements on a 1 to 5 Likert
scale under the title “general attitude”. This scale (EMI) is identical across the three
versions and aims to determine the position of participants on English-medium
instruction. The items of the scale consist of pro and con arguments about English-
medium instruction. A variety of themes were covered, which were mainly drawn
from the literature, the media, and the pilot interviews.
In the second section of “part 3”, specifics of the instructional process are
explored. For this reason, parents’ version does not have this part. The first set of
scales in the student version is “science”, subdivided into two, as “learning the
subject matter” (INSPRO 1) and “linguistic skills” (LING 1). The second set of
scales titled as “mathematics” is subdivided similarly as INSPRO 2 and LING 2, and
contains identical items. INSRPRO 1 and 2 have 19 items and LING 1 and 2 consist
of six items.
Two sets of identical scales were used in this part because the pilot interviews
and informal conversations held with content-area teachers and students revealed that
perceptions differ in accordance with the subject matter in question. For example,
one participant may not approve the instruction of science subjects in English, or the
students have difficulty in understanding the content of science subjects in English,
but they do not disapprove of instruction of math in English, or experience no
difficulty due to the numeric and symbolic nature of mathematics.
The second section of “part 3” in the teacher questionnaire is divided into
two. The first part is “student and the learning of the subject mater” which
corresponds to the “learning the subject matter” (INSPRO 1) for both math and
science in the student version. The second scale “TEACHER” investigates the
teacher’s teaching performance with 12 items.
65
In addition to the agreement rating scales of part 2 and 3, open-ended
questions were added to the questionnaire below each scale. The purpose of these
questions is to have the additional comments of the participants on each of the
measures.
3.3.2.2 Interview Protocol
The interview protocol is composed of standardized questions with open-
ended answers. This approach necessitates carefully written and sequenced
questions. The questions are directed in the same manner and order. One advantage
of the approach is that it decreases “subjectivity and bias” of the interviewer. For this
reason, it is effective in large-scale studies where multiple interviewers are involved
in data collection (Patton, 1987, p 112). Although only 14 interviews were made for
the present study, this particular approach has been adopted by the researcher, the
sole interviewer of the study, for its practicality in data analysis.
Open-ended questions were preferred for obvious reasons. To obtain in-depth
data from the participants, a strictly structured interview instrument with closed-
ended questions would be irrelevant. On the other hand, the use of an unstructured
interview approach would prove highly impractical for the intended comparisons
across data sources. Therefore, a semi structured interview design was preferred.
Due to the nature of the research study the all of the questions in the
interview protocol are opinion questions. Some relate to the experience of the
participants, but the ultimate aim is to arrive at perceptions. There are general
questions. However, these are supported with a number of probes for elaboration and
clarification. The researcher abstained from multidimensional questions and used a
combination of close-ended, open-ended, hypothetical questions.
All the three interview protocols used for the present study are parallel with
slight variation. Similar to the survey questionnaire which has an additional part in
the student and teacher version, the interview protocols contain additional questions
that explore the instructional procedures. Some questions were left out of the student
questionnaire as they do not apply to students. (See Appendices F, G, H).
There are three parts to each of the questionnaire form. The first part is on the
detachable first page/s and aims to collect data about demographic background and
the knowledge of foreign language/s of the participant. This corresponds to the first
part of the survey questionnaire. At the beginning of the interview, the participant
66
was supposed to read the questions of the first part and answer them in writing. This
part contains factual information based on self-report.
The “second part” corresponds to the second research question, exploring the
perception of participants on foreign languages, English and teaching of foreign
languages at schools. This part consists of four questions in all versions. This
corresponds to third main research question.
In the “third part”, the first main research question was addressed;
perceptions of English-medium instruction. All the questions are identical for the
first five. The order and the number of the subsequent questions vary according to
the version. This ordering was preferred for practicality in data analysis. The number
of the questions in this part range between 7 and 12, again depending on the version.
3.4 Validity and Reliability of Instruments
As explained before, the content validity of the pilot survey questionnaire, the
questionnaires were examined by two experts and the research commission of
EARGED, Eğitim-Araştırma Geliştirme Dairesi (Research and Development Center
for Education). The suggestions were taken into consideration and modifications
were made. After the piloting, the procedure was repeated for the final version of the
instrument. In addition to the final check of the instrument’s validity, the reliability
of the survey questionnaire was put to test. The internal consistency estimates of
reliability, coefficient alpha were computed for individual scales in each version on
the SPSS Program. Table 3.3 presents Cronbach alpha values for each of the scales
on the three versions of the questionnaire. As can be seen, all the figures indicate
high levels of reliability.
67
Table 3. 3
Cronbach Alpha Values for Survey Questionnaire Scales
Alpha Values
Quest.
Form
Part 2 English as a Foreign Language ENGLISH
Part 3 Scale 1
English-Medium Instruction EMI
Part 3 Scale 2a Instruct. Process for Science INSPRO 1
Part 3 Scale 2b Instruct. Process for Science LING 1
Part 3 Scale 2a Instruct. Process for Math INSPRO 2
Part 3 Scale 2b Instruct. Process for Math LING 2
Part 3 Scale 3
Teaching Perform. TEACHER
Student .8973 .9293 .9283 .8773 .9430 .8932 -
Teacher .8888 .9693 .9260 .9028 - -
Parent .8826 .9476 - - - - -
3.5 Data Collection Procedure
For data collection, two distinct set of procedures were applied; one for the
survey and one for the interviews. These are explained below.
3.5.1 Survey
The survey data was collected with the cooperation of a governmental
organization; EARGED. This institution is affiliated with the Ministry of National
Education and offers financial and procedural support to researchers from
universities all over the country. According to an agreement protocol made by the
researcher and her supervisor, the organization sponsored the multiplication and mail
expenses of the survey questionnaire forms to the sample. The procedure is as
follows:
1. A research proposal was forwarded to EARGED, including the
instruments and sampling details.
2. The proposal was evaluated and suggestions for modifications were
made.
3. A second proposal was forwarded with the necessary modifications made.
4. The agreement contract was sent to the Office of the University President,
approved and sent back to EARGED by official channels.
68
5. The pilot survey in Antalya and some interviews were conducted with the
help of the agreement contract.
6. The survey questionnaires were finalized and sent to EARGED for
proofreading.
7. The final versions of the questionnaires and sample design were
completed and forwarded to EARGED.
8. Negotiations for the sample size of the survey were held.
9. The master copies of questionnaire forms were delivered to EARGED
together with a list of 42 schools in the sample. The number of the forms
for students, teacher and parents from each school was pre-specified in
the list (see Appendix A). An instruction sheet for the administration of
the questionnaire was prepared for the principal of each school and
attached to the master copies and sample list (see Appendix I).
10. The questionnaire forms in pre-specified numbers and 42 instruction
sheets were multiplied by EARGED.
11. The forms were officially sent to the governor of each province to be
forwarded to the specified schools.
12. The school principals administered the questionnaires as instructed and
mailed back to EARGED.
13. The researcher received the forms from EARGED in clusters in the order
they arrived at the center.
3. 5. 2 Interviews
Data collection for the interviews is spread over a long period of time as
indicated in the table in Appendix B because of various sites they were held on.
These are Samsun, Ankara and Antalya. In Samsun, one teacher and parent were
interviewed in October 2001 and one student in Ankara was interviewed. Most of the
interviews were held in spring and summer 2002. When the researcher was on site in
Antalya for the pilot survey in June 2002, five interviews were made, two with
students, two with teachers and one with a parent. These individuals were accessed
with the help of the school principal, who was shown an official document from the
Ministry of Education license researchers to conduct research in public schools.
However, the majority of these interviewees were contacted unofficially via personal
connection as mentioned before.
69
3. 6 Data Analysis
To analyze the survey results, both quantitative and qualitative processes
were run. Both numeric and string data obtained from the questionnaires were
recorded on the SPSS for Windows-Version 11 Software by three recorders. Later
some of the string data was converted into numeric data by the researcher.
Quantitative procedures involved statistical analyses run on the package.
Descriptive statistics including frequencies, descriptives, crosstabs were used in the
analysis of group’s perceptions of English-medium instruction and English as a
Foreign Language. The difference in perceptions of groups was analyzed using One-
way ANOVA. Pearson Product Moment Correlation was run to examine the
relationship between participants’ perception of English-medium instruction and
their perception of English as a Foreign Language. In addition, reliability of each
scale in each version of questionnaire was checked using the internal consistency
estimates of reliability, which gave Cronbach alpha values for scales. Principle
component analysis was conducted as a classification method to test the
dimensionality of the ENGLISH scale.
Qualitative procedures involved content analysis. The answers to open-ended
questions were analyzed as follows: First, the answers were categorized manually
under broader categories, then, the emerging themes were translated into English and
later were organized in lists. Next, they were scanned for and reorganized for
relevance to the research questions. The data collected through the interviews in this
study were also subjected to content analysis: Initially, the entirety of audio-taped
interviews was transcribed in 129 pages and data was labeled using descriptive codes
--in English-- to manageable units. Appendix J illustrates how the coding process
was realized. Later, the codes were indexed. An example of how patterns were
identified using indexed codes is given in Appendix K. After the patterns were
identified, broader categories were formed. At this point, another researcher (an ELT
and curriculum specialist) with considerable coding experience examined the codes
and categories for validity purposes. Finally, the emerging themes helped to provide
answers to the research questions.
70
3. 7 Limitations
Despite its strengths, this research study has several limitations. One
limitation concerns the sample. The sampled schools are all state-own Anatolian high
schools; the present study excludes private institutions of secondary education that
also offer English-medium instruction.
Also, the sample consists of the individuals involved in secondary education
only, although English-medium instruction at tertiary level is an equally a debated
issue, where perceptions and attitudes of individuals do matter. The data includes
participants’ views concerning English-medium instruction in general and English-
medium instruction at AHSs in particular. Any conclusion that can be drawn from
the study will apply to English-medium instruction at secondary level.
Another limitation is related to administration of the survey questionnaire. As
in similar designs that involve mailing, the problems of data collection procedures
inherently exist. Since the questionnaires were mailed to schools, the administration
process is unknown to the researcher. No problems had arisen during the piloting of
the survey and although detailed specifications were given to school principals as to
the administration procedure (see Appendix I), however, it is not known exactly how
the administration of the questionnaires proceeded in schools.
Regarding the truthfulness of responses, a limitation of the questionnaire
survey could be the fact that teachers who are licensed to teach and who teach
science and math subjects through English are paid more for extra teaching hours
than regular science and math teachers who lack this qualification. The distinction
between the pay of the teachers were revealed during the interviews. This financial
benefit may have skewed the responses of teachers in favor of English-medium
instruction.
71
CHAPTER 4
RESULTS
This chapter presents a brief description of the participants and the findings
of the study. The main focus of the study is students’, teachers’, and parents’
perceptions of English-medium instruction (EMI) at secondary education in Turkey.
To explore the problem, four main research questions with eleven sub-questions
were formulated. The findings obtained from both the survey and the interviews have
been analyzed and will be presented in line with these questions. The general
framework for the presentation of results is illustrated in Figure 3. For each
question, first, the results of the quantitative analysis of the survey, second, the
analysis of the open-ended questions of the survey and third, the analysis of the
interviews will be reported except for questions that require only quantitative
analyses. At the end of the analyses of sub-questions that required lengthy
descriptions, a summary has also been provided.
4.1 Characteristics of Participants
The general characteristics of the survey participants consisting of students,
teachers and parents are given below.
4.1.1 Students
The largest group of participants of the survey study was students. The
student sample of the survey consisted of 982 Anatolian High School students.
Approximately half of them were female (n1 = 508; 51.8 %) while the rest was male
(n2 = 473; 48.2%). The majority of student participants were “grade 10” students (n3
= 628, 64%). Table 4. 1 reports the numbers and percentages of grades students
belong to.
72
Figure 3: A Scheme for Presentation of Results Note: Dashed line (---) indicates the group was not included in the analysis of the fourth question
RESEARCH
QUESTION SURVEY SCALES
INTERVIEW
OPEN-ENDED
QUESTIONS
Student
Teacher Parent
Student
Teacher
Parent
Student
Teacher
Parent
Summary
73
Table 4.1
Students’ Distribution According to Grade Level (N=982) Grade n % Grade 9 99 10.1 Grade 10 628 64 Grade 11 255 26
Regarding the type of elementary school they come from, it was found that
approximately 67.4 % of students come from AHSs (from formerly, the middle part)
While 25.8 % (n = 252) have previously studied in public elementary schools
(İlköğretim Okulu), 6.4 % (n = 79) attended private elementary schools and only
0.4% (n = 4) studied in other institutions before coming to their current Anatolian
high school (AHS).
4.1.2 Teachers
The second group of participants was the content-area teachers in the selected
schools, who presumably are teaching or have previously taught mathematics and
science subjects in English. The sample consisted of 383 teachers. 53.2 % (n = 199)
were male, 46.8 % were female ( n =175). The mean age of teachers was 38. 91
years (SD = 6.858).
As regards overall teaching experience, it was found that participant teachers
had a mean experience of 15.4 years (SD = 6.543), while the mean experience of
teaching in AHSs was 9.1 years (SD = 5.581).
As shown in Figure 4, in terms of content-area, nearly 42 percent of teachers
were mathematics teachers, while only about 2 % were natural science teachers
(teachers who taught physics, chemistry and biology formerly at middle school level)
. The remaining was relatively distributed across physics (20.4%), chemistry (18%),
and biology (18.2%).
74
Math42%
Physics20%
Biology18%
Chemistry18%
Natural Science2%
Figure 4: Distribution of Teachers by Content-area
The majority of teacher participants (N=334) hold a major degree from a university
in their area of specialization (89.5%) whereas the rest 10.5 % of them have higher
degrees or were graduates of former Institutes of Education.
4. 1. 3 Parents
Out of 988 parents who participated in the survey study, 571 (58.3%) were
male, and 408 41.7% were female. Regarding the educational background, nearly
half of the parents hold an undergraduate diploma, and nearly 6% have graduate
degree. Table 4.2 illustrates the distribution of parents across various levels of
education.
Table 4. 2
Parents’ Level of Education
Level of Education n % No schooling 9 0.9 Elementary 80 8.1 Middle School 46 4.7 High School 277 28.3 University 506 51.7 Graduate 60 6.1
75
4.2 Perceptions of English-medium Instruction
The focus of the present study was on the perceptions of students, teachers
and parents regarding English-medium instruction (EMI). The first research question
was “What are perceptions of students, teachers, parents regarding English-medium
instruction at secondary education?”
4.2.1 Position of Students, Teachers and Parents on English–medium
Instruction
In relation to the first question four sub-questions were formulated. The first
sub-question to this problem was “Do students, teachers and parents favor English-
medium instruction (EMI) at secondary education?” Data for this question was
collected via the survey through scales and interviews. First the results that the
survey study yielded will be reported, which will be followed by interview results.
As described at full length in chapter 3, the position of respondents on EMI
was measured by a 28-item 5-point Likert scale, which is referred to as EMI scale
(See Appendices C, D, E). The items are both pro and con arguments. Scores on
negative (con) items have been reversed during data recording and processing. For
analysis, the frequency distribution and percentages of respondents along each item
on EMI scale was estimated. This gave the minimum and maximum percentages that
each group of participants distributed on three levels: undecided, agree and disagree.
Table 4.3 reports the range of percentages of respondents who were inclined to see
EMI, neutrally, positively and negatively in all groups (For further details see
Appendices M, N, O, Tables 3, 5, 7).
Table 4. 3
Position of Target Groups on English-medium Instruction
Range of Percentages
Group N Undecided
(%)
Disagree
(%)
Agree
(%)
Students 982 7.6– 24.8 25.6 – 84.2 7.6 – 59.4
Teachers 383 3 - 15.3 25.8 - 80.7 15.3 – 60.9
Parents 988 5.2 - 22.5 19.6 – 80.7 11.6 – 65.9
76
The ranges of percentages that include all the items on the EMI scale suggest that
none of the groups are very positive about EMI.
In addition to range of percentages, frequency distribution on desired
intensity of English use in math and science provides insight into whether EMI is
supported by students, teacher and parents. Question 12a in part 1 of the student
survey questionnaire was “how often would you want English to be used in the math
and science courses in high school?” and question 12b was “how often did you want
English to be used in math and science courses in grades 6, 7 and 8 (see Appendix
C). (The number of these questions in Part 1 of the questionnaire varies according to
the group for obvious reasons). Tables 4.4 and 4.5 illustrate the distribution of
students in terms of their preferences of EMI in high school years and middle school
years respectively. The results show that the majority of the participants, 80% of
students, prefer only-Turkish medium instruction in math and in each of science
courses in AHSs (Table 4.4). The percentage of students who favor “only English
medium-instruction” for physics, chemistry, biology and math ranges between 2.1
percent and 2.6 percent.
Another finding was that 65% of students, similarly favored, use of “only
Turkish” in both Math and Science classes in grades 6, 7 and 8, -or formerly in
middle school (Table 4.5). The percentage of students who favor only English-
medium in science and math in grades 6, 7, 8 range from 5.8 percent to 6.9 percent.
Apparently, the preference for only-Turkish medium is relatively stronger in
High school years for the participants. These figures clearly show that students do
not support EMI in their schools. They did and/or still do not support EMI in grades
6,7, 8 (formerly middle school), either. Conclusively, the students prefer that math
and science courses be held in Turkish. This implies that they assume a negative
position on English-medium instruction at AHSs.
77
Table 4.4
Students’ Desired Intensity of Overall English Use in Math and Science Classes in
High School (N=979) Intensity of
English Use
Physics Chemistry Biology Math
f
%
f
%
f
%
f
%
Only English 21 2.1 25 2.6 21 2.1 25 2.6
Mostly English 60 6.1 64 6.5 55 5.6 59 6.0
Partly English 109 11.1 96 9.8 86 8.8 100 10.2
Only Turkish
Total
789
979
80.6
100
794
979
81.1
100
817
979
83.5
100
795
979
81.2
100
Table 4. 5
Students’ Desired Intensity of Overall English Use in Math and Science Classes in
Grades 6,7,8 (N=972) Intensity of
English Use
Science Math
f % f %
Only English
Mostly English
Partly English
Only Turkish
Total
56
120
173
623
972
5.8
12.3
17.8
64.1
100
67
95
161
648
971
6.9
9.8
16.6
66.7
100
In response to the identical question in their version (part 1, question 14) 14,
teachers indicated their preferences for their own area of specialization. Cross-
tabulation of desired intensity of English use by area of specialization is summarized
in Table 4. 6. The results show, on average, 7.3 percent of teachers favor “only
English” medium in their classes whereas 57.7 percent of teachers on average favor
only Turkish-medium. The results indicate that teachers are inclined toward only-
Turkish medium for teaching the content in their classes. In spite of the general
tendency for only Turkish-medium instruction, the percentage of physics teachers
that favor “partly English” instruction is 24.3 while 21.5 percent of chemistry
78
teachers desire to hold their classes “mostly in English”. On the other hand, 71.4
percent of biology teachers favor “only Turkish-medium”.
Table 4. 6
Teachers’ Desired Intensity of Overall English Use by Area of Specialization
(N =383)
Area of Specialization
Intensity of
English Use Physics Chemistry Biology Math Science Total
f % f % f % f % f % f %
Only English 4 5.4 6 9.2 3 4.7 13 2.9 - - 26 7.3
Mostly English 10 13.5 14 21.5 8 12.6 27 18.4 1 20 60 16.9
Partly English 18 24.3 10 15.3 7 11.1 27 18.4 1 20 63 17.8
Only Turkish 42 56.7 35 53.8 45 71.4 79 54.1 3 60 204 57.7
Total 74 100 65 100 63 100 146 100 5 100 353 100
Table 4.7 reports the data gathered from parents through the identical question (part
1, question 8, in parents’ version) on the desired intensity of overall English use in
math and science classes. The percentage of parents who favor only Turkish-medium
instruction ranges between 59.4 and 60.8, whereas the percentage of parents who
favor only English-medium instruction is 6%, except for math (8.4%). The results
show parents favor only-Turkish medium instruction in math and all science classes
in AHSs.
Table 4.7
Parents’ Desired Intensity of Overall English Use in Math and Science Classes in
High School ( N=960) Intensity of
English Use
Physicsa Chemistrya Biologyb Mathc
f
%
f
%
f
%
f
%
Only English 58 6 58 6 58 6 81 8.4
Mostly English 121 12.6 118 12.3 119 12.4 106 11
Partly English 206 21.5 214 22.3 199 20.8 191 19.9
Only Turkish 575 59.9 570 59.4 583 60.8 583 60.7
79
a n = 960, b n = 959, c n = 961
The interviews regarding English-medium instruction (EMI) were carried out
with six students, four teachers and four parents. The results revealed that seven of
the 14 interview participants favor EMI while the remaining seven do not favor EMI
in general. Of the six students who took the interview, two favored EMI and two did
not favor EMI. One of the remaining two was neutral and the other stated she
favored EMI only in grades 6, 7 and 8. Half of parents and teachers favored EMI
whereas the other halves did not favor the teaching of math and science courses in
English at secondary education. The extent of their support or non-support and the
underlying reasons will be dealt with in the subsequent sections.
The results obtained from the questionnaire survey suggest that students,
teachers and parents do not favor EMI at secondary education while the interview
results indicate that groups both favor and do not favor EMI. The answers given to
the open-ended questions, which will be reported in the next two sections (4.2.2 and
4.2.3), suggest that the majority of the participants (17.2 % of students, 51.6 % of
teachers and 17.2% of parents provided answers to these questions) are negatively
inclined towards EMI.
In conclusion, quantitative data shows that students, teachers and parents do
not favor EMI at secondary education, in AHSs, in its present form. The qualitative
data of the open-ended questions suggests that participants do not favor EMI whereas
that of the interviews suggest that they both favor and do not favor EMI at
secondary education. However, there is not enough evidence to suggest that they say
“no” to English-medium instruction because both quantitative and qualitative data
has shown (for details see sections 4.2.2 and 4.2.3) that all the groups favor EMI at
university level, and parents, in particular, favor EMI at AHSs too, if certain
conditions can be met.
4.2.2 Reasons for Favoring English-medium Instruction
The second sub-question was “What are the underlying reasons of students,
teachers and parents for favoring English-medium instruction at secondary
education?” In order to answer this question, three sources were used: 1) the EMI
scale items in the survey questionnaire on which respondents showed highest levels
80
of agreement in each group, 2) open-ended question that follow the EMI scale for
each group, and 3) interview results for each group.
The EMI scale consists of 28 statements that were rated by students, teachers
and parents as agree, disagree and undecided. Throughout presentation of findings in
this chapter, the statements on the EMI scale have been equated with “underlying
reasons” for sake of simplicity and brevity.
To answer this research question, the frequencies and percentages on the EMI
scale items that were rated as “agree” and “strongly agree” were added and these
items were listed in descending order of frequencies and percentages. The
interpretation of the mean values are as follows: 1) The means that are 2.60 and
below indicate disagreement, 2) the means that fall between 2.61 and 3.40 indicate
undecidedness, and 3) the means that are 3.41 and above indicate agreement.
The entirety of the frequencies and percentages in descending order
(according to “Agree”) are presented in Tables 3, 5, 7 in Appendices M, N, O
respectively. The means and standard deviations in descending order are presented in
Tables, 4, 6, 8 in Appendices M, N, O respectively.
Table 4.8 reports the frequencies and percentages of the top three items rated
positively by each group as well as means and standard deviations. These results
suggest that all groups agree on the necessity of EMI during tertiary education (item
4 in the questionnaires under the title “genel tutum” – Appendices C, D, E). They
believe that EMI improves the foreign language proficiency (item 21) and enables
students to learn about the culture of the target language (item 19). The statements
about the necessity to improve the competence of teachers and students, and that the
existing system of AHSs should be restored instead of reverting back Turkish-
medium are among the item that were rated most favorably, which means that
participants believe that certain conditions need to be satisfied as regards EMI.
The mean values and the percentages indicate the second and third items
(items 4 and 19) received partial support by students. Fifty-three and 52 percent of
students (M=3.30 and M=3.26) agree with these statements, which may be indicative
of undecidedness rather than agreement. However, they have been included in the
table as they rank the second and third positively rated items along the scale.
81
Table 4. 8
Groups’ Reasons for Favoring EMI
Group N Item f %s M SD
Students 988 EMI is necessary at tertiary
education level.
573
59.4
3.46
1.350
967 FLMI improves the language
competence of students in the
target language as it provides a
medium for language use.
510
53
3.30
1.225
962 FLMI enables us to learn about
the culture of the target
language.
502
52
3.26
1.240
Teachers 359 FLMI improves the language
competence of students in the
target language as it provides a
medium for language use.
219
61
3.42
1.212
360 FLMI enables students to learn
about the culture of the target
language.
219
60.8
3.42
1.151
360 If teachers who teach science
and math subject have perfect
competence in English, students’
learning of the subject matter
will be facilitated.
218
60.6
3.42
1.472
Parents 950 FLMI improves the language
competence of students in the
target language as it provides a
medium for language use.
626
65.9
3.63
1.127
962 EMI is necessary at tertiary level
education.
621
63.6
3.61
1.302
82
961 Instead of reverting back to
Turkish Anatolian high schools,
the existing system should be
restored.
602
62.6
3.56
1.314
83
In addition to quantitative data of the EMI scale, the open-ended questions
of the survey gave comprehensive data as to the underlying reasons of participants
for favoring EMI. The number and location of these questions varied according to
the version of survey questionnaire. In the student version of the questionnaire, these
questions were placed: 1) at end of Part 3 scale 1 (EMI scale [genel tutum]), and 2)
in the additional comments section, which is the very last question of the form. The
analysis revealed that 169 (17.2 %) and 170 (17.3 %) answers were provided
respectively although the total number of the student survey participants was 982. To
come up with a thorough account of the answers, these two pertinent questions were
merged.
There are only “nine” answers that clearly indicate a positive approach to EMI or
foreign language-medium instruction (FLMI). The reasons that underlie for favoring
EMI according to students are:
1. Partial EMI/FLMI is good for university-bound students.
2. Science subjects must be taught in English.
3. EMI is worth all the trouble.
4. Math and science are numeric subjects and therefore do not influence
students’ performance, be it either in Turkish or English.
5. Memorization does not stem from EMI; it occurs either in a Turkish or
English lesson
6. EMI improves FL learning.
7. The reason that no equivalents of Turkish words exist in science and
technology is not EMI. It is because “they” have made the inventions not we.
The position of some students was not possible to infer from the context of the
given answer. These have been left out of the analysis. On the other hand, apart from
the nine answers given above, some students apparently supported EMI partially or
conditionally (or favored it to a certain extent). These types of answers are
worthwhile since they are indicative of partial support. They have been categorized
as follows:
1. EMI leads to underachievement but is useful for our English.
2. Let us have EMI if the conditions are favorable
3. EMI is useful but serves no purpose because of teachers of limited English
84
proficiency.
4. Let us not have EMI before proper foreign language teaching can be
provided.
5. EMI is possible with a firm background of English that could be provided
during preparatory year.
6. EMI is not useful if not done properly.
7. We should have EMI but should not allow it influence Turkish negatively.
Let us do it carefully.
8. We should have EMI but up to grade 10 and only for 1 % of students.
9. I support EMI but until grade 9 because of upcoming ÖSS.
10. I support EMI but there should be fewer AHSs.
11. We should have EMI in all schools across the country because different
practices would not be fair.
12. EMI must be left to the choice of the students. The students who wish to
study Math and Science subjects should be allowed to do so but the others
should not be forced.
13. I do not support English in math but support the instruction of science
subjects in English as it makes sense to teach them in English.
14. If we are to have EMI in our schools:
a. We need content- area teachers competent in English
b. We need more proficiency in English starting from primary school
c. ÖSS questions must be arranged accordingly.
d. Only students with adequate capacity should be admitted to AHSs
with EMI by the high school entrance exam)
Parallel to student questionnaire, in the teacher version, an open-ended
question was placed at the end of Part 3 scale 1 (EMI scale [genel tutum]) for
additional comments. Out of 383 teacher participants, 198 (51.6%) completed this
item.
For the presentation of findings, an analysis of the answers to these open-
ended questions was made. The analysis revealed that 39 (19.6%) of the answers
imply a positive approach to EMI or FLMI. Some of the answers clearly indicated
the participant’s exact position as to EMI. However, as in the case with students,
85
some of these answers were comments from which one cannot infer that the
participant supports or partly supports EMI, and, valuable as they are, these
comments have been left out as they cannot be legitimately linked to underlying
reasons for support of EMI.
Out of 39 teachers who gave positive answers, “six” teachers have
“explicitly” expressed that math and science subjects must be offered in English.
The first reason that underlie for support is the belief that EMI should be kept in
AHSs. This view was not explained further. The other reasons for support have
distinct themes. One of the views, as expressed by a teacher, is that opponents of
FLMI will do harm to the country and education. The other view is that basic
sciences have universal language, not local. Also, one of the teachers indicated that
AHSs are not for everyone, but are meant to be schools to offer FLMI only for
students who would like to pursue higher education in a foreign language.
“Thirty-three” teachers expressed conditional support for EMI. These
conditions are: 1) the preservation of the quality of instruction, 2) preservation of
English-weighted quality to education, 3) regaining the past status of these schools,
4) reversion to 7-year education in AHSs as in the past and commencement of EMI
in grade 6 as before, because FL learning starts at early age, 5) reducing the number
of AHSs, 6) sticking to Anatolian high schools’ mission and giving graduates the
chance to further their studies in appropriate universities (i.e., the ones that offer
FLMI), 7) faith in the benefit of FLMI; opponents of FLMI should not be accepted
to these institutions, 8) incorporation of technical English lessons into the program,
9) taking EMI seriously and not allowing Turkish use in the classroom, 10) due care
in the selection of teachers; only those successful both in their areas and English
should be appointed to these schools and must be sent abroad prior to appointment,
11) provision of very good English background to students and taking student
characteristics into account, 12) provision of English versions of ÖSS questions and
bonus points in the exam to be given to AHSs students as an incentive, and 13)
preservation of our culture, and 14) continuity of EMI at university.
Of 988 parents, 211(21.3%) answered the open-ended questions for
additional comments at the end of 1 part 3 scale (EMI scale [genel tutum] in
Appendix E). Only “five” comments are suggestive of full support. Thirty of the
comments implied that the participants lend conditional support to EMI. A vast
86
majority of the remaining answers indicated a negative approach to EMI. The
comments of the five parents that favor EMI are presented below:
One of the supporters stated that although both of the parents in his/her
household have learned English in English-medium institutions, they did not
experience cultural corruption. On the contrary, they benefited a lot from the
advantages it offered. The second argument in favor of EMI was that EMI facilitates
language practice and provides a medium for such practice. Especially in countries
like Turkey, 90% of foreign language learners are deprived of an opportunity to use
the language for communication, which is the very reason why FL learning is not
very successful in our country. Therefore, there is a real need to compensate for this
deprivation by other means such as EMI. A third supporter stated that foreign
language medium is an effective tool through which a foreign language is learnt
better. The fourth one stated that instead of questioning the instructional mode at
Anatolian high school, one has to question the existing ÖSS system since this system
is in direct contrast with that of the AHSs. Lastly, one parent stated despite the
detrimental effects of FLMI on development of the national culture, it is inevitable.
A society full of individuals without knowledge of a foreign language may have to
face more aggravating consequences of it especially in later stages of globalization.
Thirty parents who were inclined to favor EMI laid down the following
conditions for success of EMI: 1) An early start (Grade 4 and 5) to foreign language
instruction, 2) valid criteria and standard qualifying exam nation-wide for teacher
selection: high level of knowledge in the areas of math and science and language
proficiency in the target language, 3) regular evaluation of teachers on a yearly basis,
4) perfect oral and written competence of content-area teachers in English, 5)
temporarily efficient FL teaching instead of EMI because of unfavorable conditions,
6) improvement of quality of instruction in Anatolian-high schools, 8) leaving the
linguistic mode of instruction to the choice of student, 9) firm background of
students in English in EMI, otherwise children’s success will be affected adversely,
10) abolition of ÖSS exam for EMI to be fair and effective in AHSs, and 11) fewer
AHSs; the number of these schools must be reduced.
Despite their seemingly positive approach, two parents had reservations about
EMI: One states that he fears underachievement in math and science, however, EMI
would certainly improve students proficiency in terms of FL proficiency. The other
87
mentioned that EMI in schools might encourage influx of foreign words into our
language despite its usefulness to our children in terms of FL development.
The interview results revealed that 7 of the 14 interview participants favor
EMI while the remaining seven do not favor EMI in general. Nevertheless, there was
partial agreement or disagreement in the responses of the interviewees. Most of the
participants mentioned the pros and cons of EMI, but they held their own position in
spite of the fact that they totally or partially agree with some of the counter-
arguments of those who hold the opposite position. For sake of clarity and
organizedness of presentation of findings, only the reasons in favor of EMI will be
listed first, then reasons that indicate partial agreement will be presented.
According to the interview data, four of the six students favored EMI. Three
of them clearly favored EMI both at secondary and tertiary education whereas one
was neutral for the most part. These students gave reasons related to their academic
life at university. The reasons that one student approaches EMI positively is that he
considers attending an English-medium university in the future and he stated that if
in university he is to perform internships abroad as a part of undergraduate
education, EMI he has had at middle school is likely to help him. Similarly, another
student stated that EMI at secondary education serves as a strong foundation for
students who are bound for English-medium universities. This idea was voiced by a
third student who emphasized the importance of English concepts, especially in math
and science and in this sense, EMI at secondary education sets the ground for future
academic life at university. He added that EMI is necessary for the development of
country and raise the level of country because without such type of education it is
impossible to join research in the international arena. He pointed out that he sees
EMI necessary and one can increase his level of knowledge of math and science
through EMI if he wants too. Therefore, EMI is not a stumbling block for learning
math and science subjects. Also, one does not have to choose an Anatolian high
school because he can consider conditions before AHS and chooses knowingly. He
stated his personal motives for preferring EMI because he expects to express himself
adequately and state his opinion in the presence of foreign people to be respected and
expects to understand the professional jargon in his area in the future. Otherwise he
would feel he has wasted his time away. A third respondent stated that her school
currently has instruction in Turkish but she wished they had been teaching math and
88
science in English instead because being a student in a EMI institution makes the
individual feel more cultivated, gives self-confidence and a feeling as if more capable
of expressing oneself in related contexts. It also makes one her feel that she has a
better knowledge of English.
Two of four teachers favor EMI while the other two do not favor EMI. The
teachers who favored EMI provided a number of reasons. One of the reasons is the
idea a foreign language is necessary to know as a requirement of contemporariness.
The teachers explained this as such: We live in a universal world and in the Internet
age. If you can’t develop technology yourself you have to use others’ technology and
hence the knowledge. You have to resort to English sources because there are limited
sources in Turkish in areas of science and technology. As a consequence, especially
in higher education people need to know a foreign language to make progress in their
areas. One of them also stated that foreign language learning for such purposes,
however, does not occur only with English class, she emphasized that EMI is
complimentary to learn the language, specifically to that of scientific terminology.
The other teacher, whose ideas keep to the same theme of contemporariness,
mentioned exchange of knowledge in global terms. In his opinion, there is a need to
share all kinds of knowledge across countries at all levels of education. He stated that
he, therefore, definitely supported EMI. Some high schools should exist with
students capable of building communication with their foreign counterparts; for
example some students should be able to exchange physics questions on the Internet.
He added “We should not have a narrow scope and open up to the outer world not
only with adults, but with students too”. Another reason he gave was that some
Anatolian high schools should have math and science subjects in English because
medium of instruction is English at Middle East Technical University and students
with no foundation as such might have difficulty in such English-medium
universities. He also mentioned that if ideal conditions are provided quality of EMI
in Anatolian high schools will excel.
As for the parents, “two” of the four respondents clearly favor EMI, one is
relatively neutral, and the other does not favor EMI. According to the parents who
favored EMI, the reasons fall under several themes. “One” of them fervently argued
for EMI at all levels of education. He said he himself had EMI all through his life
and is very positive about EMI in AHSs. To him, foreign language is an important
89
element as it gains individual a different perspective and contributes to his cultural
formation as it provides a second dimension to the student. Contrary to the ideas of
some opponents, EMI does not result in cultural corruption because it gives the
individual the ability to compare cultures, reflect on his own culture and thus build
ownership of his own language more strongly than monolingual speakers in that
country. Owing to foreign language-medium instruction (FLMI) at school, he will
gain new perspectives; his outlook on life will be enriched. Consequently, he will
gain ownership and comparative skills. Also, he believed that “YES to FL no to
FLMI” is not possible, saying that a high level of FL command is not and cannot be
achieved with sole English classes. EMI is very different from foreign language
teaching because to be educated in that language is not the same as learning the
target language in language classes only. Language learning in class is not very
effective, whereas FLMI provides the opportunities to use the language, to think in
that language and makes foreign language permanent and retained. If one limits
speaking English to English classes, when and how would he learn the language? In
contrast to the argument of the opponents, he stated that restricting people in terms of
time by dividing the use of language in terms of class hours is not acceptable. He
said he respects the opponents of FLMI but, ironically enough, some internationally
recognized opponents have learnt two or three foreign languages through FLMI
themselves. He added the idea that world has integrated now, and national
boundaries are disappearing. Referring to one of the seeming effects of FLMI,
namely, code-mixing, he said that it is inevitable because Turkish equivalents of
some English words do not exist since we are too late to update Turkish and
contemporarize it. He pointed out FLMI should not occur at the expense Turkish; we
should try not to lose our language. Another reason he gave for favoring EMI is that
he sees no drawbacks of EMI. What drawback could English possibly have because
in the natural/positive sciences no interpretation is needed, there are only one or two
ways to go to the solution of a problem? A good command of language is needed
when solving problems and EMI gives the student a chance of application of
reasoning in a foreign language, which are all things he would need in work life. The
“other parent” stated that high-achievers of AHSs may have difficulty at university
unless they study math and science subjects at secondary education.
The position of all the respondents who oppose EMI change from negative to
90
positive when higher education is in question. Except for one teacher who opposes
EMI at university level since she believes a separate terminology course will suffice
and a parent who states he sees EMI as a choice of the students and sees no harm in
partial (25% or 50%) FLMI at some of the universities, all the respondents support
English medium universities. The reasons that underlie this tendency are worth
mentioning. The respondents believe that EMI at tertiary level is necessary and these
institutions should emphasize foreign language. One of the students who strongly
opposed EMI at secondary education stated that it is wise to learn one’s area of
specialty in English. A teacher stated top universities in Turkey offer EMI and are in
contact with foreign universities and students in these universities should be a part of
this contact so that we do not become a closed community shut off from others.
Thinking that English is probably a must, one parent stated that in science subjects
sometimes Turkish equivalents cannot be found and many publications are in English
some of which cannot be translated. Likewise, one student pointed out that if
university education is in our language some terms will be missing. He added that
research and technology are dominated by “them”. So, we have to learn science and
technology in their language.
Another reason for favoring EMI at universities is related to future work life
of students. One teacher said that graduates of EMI universities can find jobs all
around the word simply because they have studied their profession in English. Also,
one student said in future jobs contact with foreign counterparts will be necessary,
and you fulfill the professional tasks if you have studied your field in English.
Therefore, EMI would provide better chances of success in life.
One parent and two students are “relatively neutral” in their approach to EMI
in AHSs. The parent says they want “all or nothing”, in other words, proper
implementation and continuity of EMI or Turkish-medium instruction, for constant
switches in the instructional mode, one year Turkish, one year English, or half
Turkish, half English in a math or natural science lesson is very confusing for the
student and hard for the parents as well. Both students and teachers resent these
switches. One of the students who claimed that he had a very solid background in
English said that although presumably one understands best in his native language in
his opinion, it does not matter to him which mode of instruction is being used in the
classroom except for biology in which long sentences and terms at times hinder
91
comprehension. He does not mind which level of education EMI is offered either.
However, he pointed out that he could observe that some of his classmates with
weaker English (who started learning English in grade 6) were having difficulty.
Finally he suggested that math and science courses could be in English if one can
follow. The other student stated that he candidly questioned if EMI is really
necessary at AHSs. Undecided about the answer, he said that although he sees EMI
as kind of a drag for the time being, after ÖSS, in university, he would have to have
EMI. Therefore, he concluded that EMI in AHSs is both good and bad.
Although some of the respondents are positively inclined towards the EMI
practice, they stated that they would support it if some conditions can be met. They
stated that if EMI were to be done, it should be done properly. For example, if the
language competence of a student is below a threshold, s/he must not be free not to
choose studying math and science in English. For this reason, students should have a
high level of proficiency in the target language. One student said that he can freely
grasp everything in Turkish and his competence in English must be at the same level
as his Turkish for full comprehension to occur in English. A teacher who had put his
child through EMI schools throughout his education stated that it is totally
impossible to achieve positive results from EMI unless university-bound students
start learning FL learning at primary school.
In addition to students’ proficiency level in English, most of the teachers,
parents and students of the interview perceive teacher training and a high level of
competence in the target language as indispensable. One student said that EMI is a
good practice as long as the content-area teacher is competent in English. The
biology teacher confessed “ we teachers are inadequate and students are not
competent either”. The chemistry teacher stated that successful implementation of
EMI is not possible as teachers are not trained well enough. Referring to teachers’
English, she added that this task cannot be undertaken with only FL instruction in in-
service training that the ministry offers or EMI at university. As an example she gave
the example of the teacher trainees in their schools from METU who cannot speak
English. She said a firm background can never be achieved after one year preparory
school at METU because special training is needed for this purpose. She added that
when teacher training first started, the quality of training was high and very intensive
for nine months. But when the ministry began to send teachers to summer courses of
92
three months, the whole project got out of control. Another teacher stated that all
content-area teachers should improve their language skills and should study English
seriously first. One of the parents believed that teachers are poorly trained and
swictch back to Turkish whenever they cannot make it in English, which is very
confusing for students. Another parent said that he prefers EMI if teachers are better
trained because this is not something that one can do with three to eight months of
course in English. Teachers are put in a position to teach in a language they don’t
know. Another parent believed that EMI is possible if qualified teaching staff are put
together and METU is a good resource for this purpose. A teacher and a parent stated
the idea that it is the responsibility of the state to send the teachers to England; as the
teacher pointed out, no matter how hard the teachers try to develop their English,
they are unable to carry out daily talk, therefore an English-speaking country
experience is needed. Another idea expressed by a parent is that there is not a single
teacher in Anatolia as qualified as the ones in the big cities. Similarly, the physics
teacher pointed out there is already shortage of teachers, let alone math and science
teachers competent in English, and teachers to teach these subjetcs in Turkish are
hard to come by.
Some of the participants emphasized the necessity of a good infrasturcture.
They stated that EMI should not be done for the sake of doing it. One of the parents
said that he realized “the fact that EMI at Anatolian High School is nothing but self-
deceit” and it is being applied for the sake of doing it. Another parent argued that
EMI should either be abolished or an excellent quality should be maintained with
good scaffolding because EMI is useless without a good foundation.
There were some other points expressed participants as necessary conditions.
Some of the students stated that EMI should be offered in grades 6, 7 and 8 only.
Most of them do not want math and science courses in English simply because ÖSS
questions of maths and science are not in English. Two respondents suggested that
English versions of ÖSS questions be supplied too. Another point expressed by a
teacher and parent is that they support EMI as long as we preserve our cultural
values customs and traditions.
The future goal of the student and his aptitude are also perceived as necessary
conditions for favoring EMI. According to one of the parents, if the student is bound
for an English-medium university or METU, an EMI background would be useful. A
93
student stated if the student is apt for English; it is wise to learn math and science in
English because it is a good investment for university education. Another student
said if the target of university student is to go abroad, having learnt science subjects
will be relevant. The number of Anatolian schools was also referred to. A teacher
stated that AHSs with EMI should exist but presently there are too many Anatolian
high schools. The fewer schools, the better conditions, the competence of teachers
and students will be. If there were fewer schools AHSs would achieve their goal and
educate students who communicate and function globally. In line with this view, a
teacher said if EMI were to continue, there must not be so many schools, and
Anatolian-high schools should be very special schools with special students having a
gift for languages.
4.2.2.1 Summary of “Reasons for Favoring EMI”
The results to the second sub-question “What are the underlying reasons of
students, teachers and parents for favoring EMI? has been summarized in Figure 5.
As can be seen from the figure, most of the participants gave similar reasons for
favoring EMI. The quantitative data from the survey questionnaire suggest that all of
the groups perceive EMI as necessary at university. This is the most outstanding
reason for favoring EMI. It also enables learning about the culture of the target
language, improves of competence in the target language and provides a context for
language use according to the perceptions of all groups. Furthermore, teachers and
parents believe that FLMI is an effective tool to learn a FL whereas students are not
very decided about it. Another issue is related to the future of EMI in AHSs. Half of
the students agree that the existing system should be restored instead of full
reversion to Turkish-medium and again nearly half of them do not think that all
AHSs should give up EMI completely. They, however, do not want fewer AHSs or
continuation of EMI in schools with favorable conditions. The position of teachers
about the future of EMI at AHSs is a somewhat in the middle since half of them
agree and disagree on all of the issues listed above. Parents more strongly believe
that the existing system should be restored but they do not want the number of AHSs
to be decreased.
The qualitative data indicates that all the groups favor EMI at university level
regardless of their position on EMI at secondary education. Teachers and parents
94
especially, believe that EMI as an integral part of learning a foreign
language/English, which is essential for contemporariness and international
communication. Owing to these aspects, EMI is regarded as an effective tool/
method to learn and improve English. Also, EMI is seen as necessary for university;
therefore, EMI at secondary education is perceived as a good investment. Among
the most frequently cited condition for EMI to be implemented successfully is the
language competence of teachers and students in English. Fewer Anatolian schools
with fewer students bound for English-medium universities are seen as a necessary
condition for success of EMI. This is possible with changes in the ÖSS exam, which
is referred to as a big impediment on the way to EMI. Most of these aspects of EMI
were addressed through the EMI scale which provided quantitative data. Except for
the future of AHSs which the groups are not decided about, quantitative results
mentioned above validate these findings.
94
EMI SCALE Necessary at university
Provides a context for language use
Learning about culture of TL
Improves English competence
Learning about culture of TL
English-proficient teachers needed
Improves English competence
Necessary for university
Restoring AHSs will suffice for success
OPEN-ENDED
QUESTIONS
Necessary for university
No negative effects on quantitative subjects
Improves FL learning
English-proficient teachers and students needed
English version of ÖSS questions*
Fewer students & fewer AHSs*
Proserving Turkish*
Math & science must be offered in
English.
Basic sciences have a universal language
Preservation of quality of education*
Regaining past status & length of AHSs*
Careful selection & training of teachers*
Perfect English background for students*
English version of ÖSS questions*
Students entitled to EMI universities*
EMI not leading to cultural corruption
Provides a medium for FL practice
FLMI is an effective tool for FL learning
Inevitable for FL learning*
An early start to FL instruction*
Careful selection of teachers*
Competent & proficient teachers*
Fewer AHS* or elective status of EMI
Abolition of ÖSS for effectiveness*
INTERVIEWS Necessary for university
Necessary for development of research /country
Does not impede learning of Math & Science
Enables self-expression in professional contexts
Gives self-confidence & cultivatedness
During middle school only*
FL is essential for contemporariness.
Complimentary to FL learning
Enables exchange of knowledge in globe
Forms a foundation for EMI universities
For personal and cultural development
Does not result in cultural corruption
Develops ownership of first language
FL learning is not effective otherwise
Sources are predominantly English.
Proper implementation and continuity*
Preservation of our cultural values *
A good infrastructure is necessary*
Careful selection & training of teachers*
Fewer AHS & apt, EMI-bound students*
Figure 5: Summary of Results to Second Sub-question- Underlying Reasons for Favoring EMI (* signifies conditional status of support
95
4.2.3 Reasons for Not Favoring English-medium Instruction
The third sub-question is concerned with the underlying reasons of each
target group for not favoring English-medium instruction at secondary level. Three
sources were used to answer this question in the same manner as the second sub-
question: 1) the EMI scale items on which respondents showed highest levels of
agreement in each group, 2) open-ended question that follow the EMI scale in the
survey questionnaire for each group, and 3) interview results for each group.
The third sub-question aims to identify the underlying reasons of groups’
opinion for not favoring English-medium instruction at secondary level. The
quantitative analysis for this question was run in the same manner as the second sub-
question. The frequencies and percentages on the EMI scale items that were rated as
“disagree” and “strongly disagree” were added and these items were listed in
descending order of frequencies and percentages, and means. The interpretation of
mean values is as follows: 1) The means that are 2.60 and below indicate
disagreement, 2) the means that fall between 2.61 and 3.40 indicate undecidedness,
and 3) the means that are 3.41 and above indicate agreement.
The entirety of the frequencies and percentages in descending order
(according to “Agree”) are presented in Tables 3, 5, 7 in Appendices M, N, O
respectively. The means and standard deviations in descending order are presented in
Tables, 4, 6, 8 in Appendices M, N, O respectively.
Of all the 28 items on the EMI scale, three items that received lowest scores
are reported in Table 4.9. These are the reasons for not favoring EMI expressed in
terms of frequencies and percentages, means and standard deviations. The results
suggest students, teachers and parents disagree with the statement that effective
foreign language teaching should not replace EMI (item 9), which means that they
believe effective foreign language teaching should replace EMI. This belief is the
primary reason for not favoring EMI. (This item is assumed to be a counterargument
in its original form, which is an affirmative statement, as can be seen in the
questionnaire forms, on the EMI scale [genel tutum], item 9 in Appendices C, D, E.
The scores on the item were reversed for computation purposes. To avoid confusion,
it appears as a negative statement in Table 4.9).
Also, none of the groups welcome the idea of a social science subject being
offered in English (item 7 on the EMI scale). Also for several reasons related to
96
student success, and efficiency of math and science instruction, groups do not favor
EMI. To illustrate, students disagree with the statement that mathematics should be
studied in English in AHSs (item 5 on the EMI scale), teachers disagree that FLMI
will have a positive effect on achievement (item 10) and similarly parents disagree
that FLMI has a positive effect on the efficiency of math and science instruction
(item 20). [Items 9 and 10 appear as negative statements on the questionnaire form,
but, for the same reasons as stated above for item 9, their scores were reversed and
turned into positive statements in Table 4.9].
Table 4. 9
Groups’ Reasons for Not Favoring English-medium Instruction
Group N Item f %
Disagree
M SD
Students 969 Effective foreign language
teaching should not replace FLMI.
817
84.2
1.84
1.139
970 In Anatolian high schools at least
one of the social science subjects
must be studied in English.
787
81.2
1.77
1.099
970 In Anatolian high schools
Mathematics should be studied in
English.
777
80.2
1.69
1.019
Teachers 358 Effective foreign language
teaching should not replace FLMI.
292
80.7
1.86
1.170
360 In Anatolian high schools at least
one of the social science subjects
must be studied in English.
267
74.2
2.04
1.150
362 FLMI will have a positive effect
on student achievement in science
and math subjects.
232
64.8
2.35
1.382
Parents 961 Effective foreign language
teaching should not replace FLMI.
777
80.7
1.79
1.123
960 FLMI has a positive effect on the
efficiency of science and math
instruction.
638
66
2.24
1.174
962 In Anatolian high schools at least
one of the social science subjects
must be studied in English.
657
68.5
2.32
1.272
97
The open-ended question at the end of EMI scale in Part 3 of the survey
questionnaire was “Write your additional comments about this part”. An analysis of
the answers revealed that an overwhelming majority of students have put down
statements indicative of total disfavor of the EMI practice. These answers fall under
12 basic themes, which are presumed to be the major underlying reasons for not
favoring EMI at secondary education: They are listed and explained as follows:
Understanding / learning the subject matter: Many students stated that when math
and science subjects are presented it English, it hinders comprehension and causes
lack of comprehension in science subjects as well as thinking ability. Some
mentioned that they can grasp subjects in Turkish only, and math and science lessons
are already hard for them to grasp in Turkish. They can’t learn the logic of science
subjects because of EMI. They are not able to make interpretations in English. It
decreases productivity of lessons and is hard for both the teacher and student.
Besides, it hinders creativity and free thinking.
EMI causes underachievement in general: Students state that their success rate
lowers because it causes loss of time in exams. Also, questions in exams can be
confusing as they have to translate to understand the question first.
Negative effect on “affect”: Some students pointed out that EMI decreases student
interest in the lesson and as a consequence of EMI their interest in science cools off.
Memorization and retention: The students stated that they tend to memorize terms
and lesson. EMI causes memorization especially in vocabulary or text-laden subjects
and students are not able retain knowledge because they forget.
University Entrance Examination (ÖSS): Many students indicated that ÖSS success
is or will be seriously reduced because ÖSS questions are in Turkish. EMI is
confusing in ÖSS, for students who prepare for ÖSS. Students approach EMI
apprehensively as they fear that they will fail to comprehend questions. Some oppose
EMI especially during high school years, grades 9-11, because of upcoming ÖSS.
They state EMI would lower success in ÖSS in the numerical test. Besides, it lowers
98
their AOÖBP (Secondary Education CGPA), which would put AHS graduates in a
disadvantageous position.
Subjects: Some students indicated that they do not want EMI in math and science.
Some believed that instruction of math can be tolerated to some extent but not in
natural science subjects, especially in biology. The answers clearly suggest that a
majority of them demand instruction in Turkish invariably in all subjects.
Yes to FL no to FLMI / EMI (Effective FL teaching instead of EMI): Some
participants indicate that they support foreign or English language teaching on
principle but they do not favor the EMI practice. A couple of students indicated that
this would be Atatürk’s motto. A recurrent remark was related to the efficiency of
English or foreign language courses. Students stated that they demand effective,
more intensive, and comprehensive English language teaching instead of EMI. More
emphasis on English, more hours of teaching, and use of native speaker teachers in
the English course is among the wishes/demands of students. Some suggest that two
languages be taught properly instead of EMI.
Education and science in the native language: Some expressed the beliefs that
education should be conducted in the native language and native language should be
“the language of science” too. A few students stated that FLMI exists in no other
country.
Linguistic concerns: Some students referred to the linguistic consequences of EMI.
One view is that students end up in a mixed language, which they call “tarzanish”, a
pejorative word used to refer to code-mixed language, as a result of EMI. The other
is that EMI has no contribution to the development of FL. Also, some emphasize that
their purpose for learning English is solely cultural formation and communication
with others. Lastly, it was stated that EMI is not an effective tool for teaching
English.
Threat to Turkish: One common view is that EMI is a serious threat to the Turkish
language. Students say that EMI is doing harm to Turkish, hindering its
99
development. It is corrupting the Turkish language and preventing Turkish from
developing into a language of science. EMI is limiting us in science & technology
and it is better to try to make Turkish language of science and technology. Also,
some pointed out that because of EMI students may forget Turkish. One wrote “We
should put Turkish above anything else for being beneficial to society and seize
ownership of Turkish”.
Threat to country and national/cultural identity: A great many answers indicate that
among the reasons for opposing EMI are the beliefs related to nationalism and
cultural identity. While some stated EMI will lead to cultural corruption, some
students used more forceful expressions. For example, some stated that EMI might
result in the collapse of the country. A few believed it must be abolished because it
dangerous for our national unity. A couple of participants stated that EMI is a
practice that is the result of a political game played over the country by outside
forces. Some pointed out that EMI should be stopped because we are living in
Turkey not in the US and English is not our native language. Some students wrote
“Why should we be learning English? Let them learn Turkish?” Some state that EMI
makes them feel like a colony and we are not. A couple of students accuse EMI
supporters for having a pro-Western attitude.
Incompetent teachers: Across the answers of students persistent references have been
made to teachers. Some state that EMI is not applied in classroom anyway and often
teacher gives the titles in English only. They state that EMI requires competent
teachers; however, teachers should be more competent to lecture in English.
Not for the majority: Some oppose EMI saying that EMI should not be allowed in
content area courses because of a handful of students who would like to do their
Master’s abroad. An engineering-bound student can go to an EMI university.
Therefore, EMI is not necessary at secondary education.
The majority of teachers’ answers (157, 40.9%) to the open-ended questions
at the end of EMI scale in Part 3 were indicative of disapproval of EMI (The
percentage of positive responses by teachers was 19.6). The major underlying
100
reasons for teachers’ not favoring EMI at secondary education have been listed and
explained as follows:
Understanding/learning the subject matter: According to the teachers, teaching their
subject matter in English restricts students’ creativity and thinking ability. Thinking
occurs in the native language and one learns best in his/her native language.
Furthermore, EMI encourages memorization, which is detrimental to learning.
FLT but no EMI: Many teacher participants stated that they support foreign language
teaching at schools but they are against FLMI/EMI. A solution formula proposed by
one of the teachers is “Education in the native language + foreign language”. Also,
effectiveness of foreign language teaching is a recurring theme among teachers’
answers as in the case with students. Many teachers argue for effective foreign
language teaching instead of EMI.
Education in the native language: Some teachers they believe that education should
be given in Turkish at all levels of education and one best learns in his native
language.
Not for everyone: An argument put forth by some teachers is that EMI is not
necessary for everyone and it is not possible for everyone either. Some stated that
EMI should be offered only at university level.
University Entrance Exam (ÖSS): Although not as frequently as stated by students,
one of the major reasons that teachers gave is ÖSS since EMI has a negative
influence on ÖSS. Teachers pointed out the fact that students take the ÖSS exam in
Turkish. For this reason, math and science subjects must be taught in Turkish. Also,
teachers indicated that the existing university exam system should change in Turkey
for EMI to be applied.
English proficiency of the teacher and student: Teachers stated that EMI is not up to
the required standard because of poor language training provided to teachers.
Language training of the teachers should be considered first. Some teachers also refer
101
to poor English background of students. One teacher wrote: “EMI is very wrong in a
country where the teachers and students do not speak enough English”.
Students’ Negative Attitude: A few teachers alluded to the attitude of students. One
teacher said that students are reluctant to do classes in English, thinking that they can
learn English outside school. Another stated that students did not object to EMI at
middle school but they are now against it in high school.
A Terminology Course: A common reason stated by teachers is the idea that teaching
of science terminology can replace EMI. Some teachers suggest that a separate
course can be offered to teach terminology of science subjects as a part of the
preparatory program or in subsequent years or a terminology course would be
sufficient.
Turkish and language of science: Some teachers oppose EMI since they believe
Turkish must be turned into a world language. Also, some state that science language
must be the native language of that nation. Some advocate native language as a
language of science plus very good foreign language teaching.
Threat to country and national/cultural identity: Some teachers stated that the
practice of EMI does not exist anywhere in the world or that we are not a colony.
Some indicate their disapproval by saying that EMI affects Turkish culture
negatively and leads to cultural corruption. One teacher stated that EMI is indicative
of lack of self-confidence on the part of the society. Another participant explained his
reason to oppose as such: “It is harmful not to make individual grasp his own culture
first and thus build up self confidence. It is hazardous to take him under the
monopoly of other cultures”. A parallel view was that education should be given in
one’s own culture.
According to the parents’ answers to the same question, the major
underlying reasons for not favoring EMI at secondary education are as follows:
Yes to FL, no to FLMI/ Yes to EFL, no to EMI: Many parents asserted that effective
foreign language teaching should come first and replace EMI. One says it is
sufficient to offer a compulsory foreign language course instead of FLMI while
102
another claims more hours of English teaching will improve the quality of FL
instruction, not EMI. Some directly wrote “Yes to FL, no to FLMI”. One participant
argued that not only one but two foreign languages should be taught at a very good
level instead of FLMI.
University Entrance Exam (ÖSS): According to many parents, EMI causes
underperformance in ÖSS exam. One indicates his belief that foreign language
instruction must be given at primary and tertiary level because students are
preoccupied with ÖSS preparation during high school years. Also the fact that
questions in ÖSS do not appear in Turkish is given as a common reason for opposing
EMI. As a parent stated, students need to prepare accordingly, so EMI is blocking the
way.
Lack of infrastructure- competence of teachers and students: Many parents referred
to the teachers’ competence as well as students and other conditions. One parent
pointed out that conditions needed for EMI are not favorable, such as lack of
effective teaching methods and crowded classes. Another said that they suffered a lot
from lack of incompetent teachers. Many stated that teachers lack necessary FL
competence to be able to teach math and science in English. Besides, students are
below the required level of proficiency to be able to follow the lessons in English.
These infrastructure problems are the reasons why some parents do not support EMI.
Students’ difficulties in learning the subject matter and achievement: Some parents
stated that math and science are already hard to understand. One pointed out that
EMI doubles the difficulty that students experience: understanding the subject and
trying to understand it in the foreign language. One parent called it the “time-
consuming effect of EMI” and another labeled EMI as a “waste of time”, precluding
basic education. The belief that EMI has a negative effect on student success in
general was very common.
Creativity, productivity, and language of science: Some ideas that are related to
students’ creativity and productivity are the beliefs that 1) people are creative when
they do research and express their thoughts and feelings in their mother tongue-
103
English is necessary only in using the sources, 2) creativity increases in the native
language: lessons that require analytical thinking should be done in the native
language, 3) EMI decreases creativity as it is based on memorization. 4) one thinks
and produces in the native language, therefore, a child who receives instruction in
science areas learns vocabulary of science and technology only but cannot produce
science, 5) EMI prevents scientific spark from being kindled, and 5) the language of
science and people should be Turkish in Turkey.
EMI is a colonial practice and a threat to cultural and linguistic identity: As a
reason for their disapproval of EMI, a few parents mentioned effects of EMI on the
country and the language. For example one parent wrote “If the FLMI frenzy goes
on, we might end up being a colony or think like an Englishman instead of thinking
in English”. Another parent stated that EMI imposes colonial mentality and induces
inferiority complex. No other country than we apply this absurd practice which
involves thinking in Turkish and producing in English. One parent stated that the
only non-colonial country that had adopted FLMI is Turkey; therefore this practice
should be abolished totally with a national campaign. Similarly, one participant
called it a humiliating practice trying to enslave the Turkish nation. Another parent
stated that that we are becoming too dependent on English and two of them referred
to it as a big barrier in the way of “our language and culture” although foreign
language learning will be useful to those who deal with science and technology.
Another remark is that native language is better for societal solidarity, integration
and enrichment of our language.
Subjects: Some parents believe that EMI is pointless in math and science courses and
others find it harmful for students in math and science subjects (as students will need
to translate). One parent asserted that non-verbal subjects should not be taught in
English.
Students’ attitudes: Two parents stated that they oppose EMI because 1) students are
reluctant as they do not want EMI, therefore it is bound to be ineffective, 2)
imposition any method of instruction will eventually backfire.
104
According to the interview findings, four of the participants are definitely against
EMI. Some of these reasons are related to learning difficulties, which will be
addressed as an answer to the fourth main research question in detail. Other than
learning difficulties, apparently, ÖSS exam is another topical issue. Most of the
participants believe that EMI will reduce success rate of students in the ÖSS.
Therefore, it is a big drawback. One of the parents believed that we cannot educate
students well enough in math and science. The ideas of two teachers supported this
belief; “we cannot achieve our purpose of teaching math and science in English”. As
a result, their success will go down.
Somewhat linked to the ÖSS problem, a reason for not favoring EMI is that it is
regarded as unnecessary and in secondary education, although entirety of the
participants agree that a high-quality foreign language teaching is necessary. Also,
one of the students stated that EMI is pointless before students specialize in a
specific area at university. If the target of the student, for example, is not a biology
department, learning the terminology of biology in English is useless because they
are forgotten within less than a year’s time.
Another opposition is related to imposition of EMI on all students. One of the
students stated that he disliked being forced to learn in English against his will. Two
of the teachers pointed out that their goal is and should be to teach the subject
matter, not to teach the language or help them improve their English. As one of them
put, teachers feel totally uncomfortable about having to impose English equivalents
of the mathematical terms on her students.
The teachers and parents were asked if they favor AHSs over the other schools
and why. The students also were asked why they chose an Anatolian-high school.
Most of the participants stated that they preferred AHSs because of quality of
education, or better quality of foreign language instruction. Their priority was not
EMI.
A significant reason for not favoring EMI is that some respondents believe that
education in Turkish or in the native language is always better. Students stated that if
these courses were in Turkish it would be much easier, besides, knowledge and
words would be retained more easily.
In the interview one of the teachers pointed out that EMI serves no purpose than
causing conflict among teachers in AHSs because of the pay gap between the
105
teachers who are certified to teach in English and those who are not. She argues that
she should be paid because of her preparatory education in the undergraduate
program but there must not be such a wide gap –EMI teachers are paid three times as
much as other teachers. Therefore EMI in Anatolian high schools gives way to
inequality among teachers in terms of pay.
4.2.3.1 Summary of the “Reasons for Not Favoring EMI”
Figure 6 summarizes the results to the third sub-question “What are the
underlying reasons of students, teachers and parents for not favoring EMI?” As can
be seen from the figure, both quantitative data shows, all groups, students, teachers
and parents believe effective foreign language teaching should replace EMI. This
belief is expressed in the slogan “yes to FL or English and no to EMI” according to
qualitative data findings. The quantitative data indicates students do not approve of
math ad science instruction through English at secondary education, teachers believe
it has a negative effect student achievement in math and science, and parents feel that
EMI affects the efficiency of math and science instruction negatively. Moreover none
of the groups favor the possibility of teaching a social subject in English at secondary
education.
According to qualitative data, a major concern of the participants is related to
the problems of learning and comprehension of the subject matter in math and
science courses. EMI is presumed to have negative effects on creativity and
productivity, to decrease motivation and lead to memorization and poor retention.
Therefore it is detrimental to the learning of the subject matter. While students
report difficulties in grasping the subject matter, teachers and parents argue that math
and science subjects cannot be taught through English as well as it can be taught in
one’s native language. Furthermore, ÖSS is in Turkish and this causes a serious
problem on the part of the students. Besides, EMI affects Turkish language and
culture adversely according to the perceptions of all groups. It prevents Turkish
language from developing into a language of science and is perceived as a sign of
cultural corruption.
The quantitative data from the survey confirm part of these findings. Upon
examining the results of descriptive statistics, it was found that all the groups believe
that EMI has negative influence on the ÖSS performance, student achievement and
106
efficiency of math and science instruction. In this sense, results of quantitative data
and those of qualitative data are congruent. On the other hand, quantitative data does
not confirm some of the findings of qualitative data. For example, on the issue of
creativity, which is included in the survey scale, none of the groups appear to be very
decided. When the frequencies and percentages of the whole EMI scale are examined
(see Appendices M, N, O), it is seen that the percentages of teachers and parents that
agree creativity is hindered because of EMI is very is very close to those of who
disagree. On the issue of cultural corruption, teachers and students (the percentages
of those who agree, disagree and undecided are very close) do not think that EMI
poses a threat, parents believe it might lead to cultural corruption. Yet, EMI is
perceived as a threat to the development of Turkish in the areas of science and
technology. In terms of use of Turkish by students, teachers and parents do not
consider EMI as a threat although students do. Another finding from the qualitative
data is that EMI impedes learning of the subject matter. This will be examined
quantitatively as a part of the fourth main research question.
107
STUDENT TEACHER PARENT
EMI SCALE Effective FL teaching instead of EMI
A social subject must not be studied in English
Math should not be studied in English
Effective FL teaching instead of EMI
A social subject must not be studied in English
EMI has a negative effect on achievement
Effective FL teaching instead of EMI
EMI has negative effect on achievement
A social subject must not be studied in English
OPEN-ENDED
QUESTIONS
Impedes comprehension and learning
Decreases level of interest & motivation
Leads to memorization and poor retention
Would be confusing for ÖSS questions
Too hard to study them esp. biology in a FL
Yes to ELT no to EMI
Education should be given in native lang.
Teachers are not competent enough in Eng.
Threat to Turkish language & culture
Impedes comprehension and learning
Effective FL teaching instead of EMI
EMI is not for everyone
ÖSS questions are in Turkish
Students have negative attitude
Terminology course in English suffices
Education should be given in native lang.
Poor level of English of students & teachers
Threat to national identity, leads to corruption
Turkish can’t develop into science language
Poor comprehension & achievement
Math & science are already hard
Impedes creativity & productivity
Hinders production of scientific thinking
Yes to ELT no to EMI, better EFL
ÖSS is in Turkish & students prepare for it
Lack of competent teachers & students
Pointless/ harmful in math and science
Threat to national & linguistic identity
Implemented only in colonies
INTERVIEWS Learning difficulties*
EMI would reduce ÖSS success
Unnecessary at secondary education
Pointless before specializing in an area
Chose AHS because of quality of education
Math and science can’t be taught just as well
EMI would reduce ÖSS success
Disapproving imposition of EMI on students
The goal is to teach the subject matter, not FL
Chose AHS because of quality of education
Gives way to inequality among teachers
Impossible to teach math and science well
EMI would reduce ÖSS success
Chose AHS because of quality of education
*Issues related to instructional process is explored in the fourth main question in detail.
Figure 6: Summary of Results to the Third Sub-question - Underlying Reasons for Not Favoring EMI
108
4.2.4 Difference among Groups in Perceptions of English-medium Instruction
The fourth sub-question explores whether target groups differ in terms of
their perception of English-medium instruction (EMI). A one-way analysis of
variance was conducted to evaluate if the mean changes in measures of EMI among
the three groups of participants. The independent variable was “group” which
consisted of student, teacher and parent and the dependent variable was groups’
perceptions of EMI. The ANOVA was significant, F ( 2, 2317 ) = 38.527, p < .001
(Table 4.10).
Table 4.10
Analysis of Variance for Perceptions of English-medium Instruction
Source df Sum of
Squares
Mean
Square
F Significance
Between Groups 2 54.820 27.410 38.527 0.000
Within Groups 2317 1448.435 0. 711
Total 2319 1703.255
P<0.001
Follow–up tests were conducted to evaluate pairwise differences among the
means. Because Levene’s Test of Equality of Error Variance (test of homogeneity of
variance) was significant, p < .001, the Tukey test was conducted as a post hoc
procedure. The results of this test, as well as the means and standard deviations for
the three groups, are reported in Table 4.11. There were significant differences across
the groups, and these differences are attributable to differences between “students
and teachers” and “students and parents”. The statistics indicate that parents and
teachers perceive EMI more positively than students. Perceptions of teachers and
parents, on the other hand, do not differ.
109
Table 4. 11
Differences among Groups on Perceptions of English-medium Instruction
(Post-hoc Analysis-Tukey)
Group M SD Student Teacher
Student 2.57 .75
Teacher 2.81 1.02 *
Parent 2.89 .86 *
*refers to significant difference
To conduct one-way ANOVA, the variable “EMI” was formed by taking the
average of scores on the 28-item scale EMI. The same statistics was conducted using
the sum of these scores for validation of results. The results of the analysis with the
average scores and the sum of scores were the same.
4. 3 The relationship between Groups’ Perceptions of English-medium
Instruction (EMI) and their Perceptions of English as a Foreign Language
(EFL)
The second main research question investigates whether there is a
relationship between of students’, teachers’, and parents’ perceptions of EMI and
their perceptions of English as a foreign language. To answer this question, two
variables were created using the 28- item EMI scale and 16-item ENG scale on data
files of each group. The average scores on the corresponding scale were computed to
form each variable. Correlation coefficients (Pearson) were computed between two
variables for each of the groups. The results show that all of the correlations are
statistically significant (Table 4.12). The results suggest that if students, or teachers,
or parents are positively inclined towards EMI, they perceive English as a foreign
language positively, too.
110
Table 4.12
Correlations between Perceptions of English-medium Instruction and Perceptions of
English as a Foreign Language
Perceptions of EMI
Students (n = 974) Teachers (n = 366) Parents (n = 976)
Perceptions of
English as a FL
0.45* 0.48* 0.57*
* p <. 01
4. 4 Perceptions of English as a Foreign Language
The third main research question was related to participants’ perceptions of
English as a Foreign Language in Turkey.
4. 4. 1 The Language/s Associated with “Foreign Language”
The first sub-questions was “Which language/s do students, teachers, parents
associate “foreign language” with?” This question was directly posed to the survey
participants via an open-ended question: “ What language comes to your mind when
one says foreign language?” The results showed 96.1 percent of students (n=979),
98.9 percent of teachers (n=369) and 98.1 percent of parents (n=970) think of the
English language first as a foreign language. The other languages were German,
French, Italian, Spanish, Japanese, Arabic, Chinese, Persian and a few others for the
the remaining of participants across all groups. The results showed groups
predominantly associate “foreign language” with English.
4. 4. 2 How Groups Perceive English as a Foreign Language and Teaching of
Foreign Languages
The second sub-question was “How do students, teachers and parents
perceive English as a Foreign Language and the teaching of foreign languages?”
Parallel to the methods employed in the presentation of results of second and third
sub-questions to the first main question, the quantitative results obtained from the
survey scale items will be presented first. Second, the relevant themes that emerged
from the answers to the open-ended questions will be listed and explained. Lastly,
results obtained from content analysis of the interviews will be reported.
111
As an answer to this question the quantitative results of the survey
questionnaire will be reported as such: The approach of the participants as to
English as a Foreign Language will be reported first, followed by their most
favorable and least favorable perceptions. Next, the position of participants on
teaching a foreign language at schools and the reasons for supporting this practice
and the reasons for not supporting it are explored. Later, the language/s preferred
as a foreign language in schools will be reported. The results of the open-ended
survey questions and interviews are presented without these distinctions.
The survey questionnaire, part 2 Scale ENGLISH measured the perceptions
of participants about English as a foreign language. As explained in chapter 3, all of
the 16 items on the scale were positive statements about English except for item 11,
which was neutral since it was related to the instruction of another FL at schools in
addition to English. Therefore the scores did not have to be reversed during the
analysis. Similar to analysis of the first sub-question to the first main research
question, the frequency distribution and percentages of participants along each item
on the ENGLISH scale was documented, which gave the minimum and maximum
ranges of percentages each group of participants distributed on three levels of
agreement; undecided, agree and disagree. Table 4.13 reports the range of
percentages of respondents who are inclined to see English as a Foreign Language,
neutrally, positively, and negatively in all groups. The results show that the groups
perceive English positively as a foreign language.
Table 4.13
Groups’ Approach to English as a Foreign Language Range of Percentages
Group N Undecided Positive Negative
Students 982 2.3 – 20.3 10.9 - 94.1 2.9 – 68.9
Teachers 383 0.3 - 18.7 35.4 – 97.8 1.9 - 46.8
Parents 988 1.5 - 16.7 30.5 – 95.9 2.6 – 52.8
Table 4.14 shows frequency distribution, percentages, and means of top three
items that received the highest ratings by each group. The frequencies and
percentages are the sums of the frequencies and percentages of items that participants
“agree” and “strongly agree” and the ordering is based on frequencies. The results
112
show that students and teachers perceive English favorably mainly because they feel
learning a foreign language or English is “necessary” for themselves. Another
favorable aspect of EFL for students is the future advantages of knowledge of
English and, for teachers the desire to learn it very well. For parents, what is seen as
most favorable is that their child learns English, the desire to learn it very well and
the future advantages of knowledge of English for their child/ren. (The frequencies
and percentages of the entirety of the ENGLISH scale in a descending order of
values as well as means and standard deviations for students, teachers and parents are
given in the Appendices P, Q, R respectively in Tables 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14).
Table 4.14
Groups’ Most Favorable Perceptions of English as a Foreign Language
Group N Item n % M SD
Students 967 I feel learning a FL is
necessary for me.
900
94.1
4.65
.760
962 I feel learning English is
necessary for me.
901
93.6
4.61
.733
971 I believe the knowledge of
English will bring advantages
to me in the future.
901
92.8
4.60
.851
Teachers 364 I feel learning a FL is
necessary for me.
356
97.8
4.64
.608
368 I feel learning English is
necessary for me.
353
95.9
4.57
.693
367 I want to learn English very
well.
319
93.4
4.50
.803
Parents 977 I am content that my child
speaks English.
937
95.9
4.68
.695
977 I want my child to learn
English very well.
923
94.5
4.67
.720
978 I believe the knowledge of
English will bring advantages
to my child in the future.
919
94.0
4.59
.784
113
Table 4.15 illustrates the frequency distribution, percentages, and means of
top three items that received the lowest ratings. The results show students and
teachers perceive English unfavorably mainly because the spread of English in
Turkey is not seen as positive.
Table 4.15
Groups’ Most Unfavorable Perceptions of English as a Foreign Language
Group N Item n % M SD
Student 971 The spread of English in our
country has a positive effect
on Turkish.
669
68.9
2.06
1.151
963 The spread of English in our
country has a positive effect
on our culture.
431
44.8
2.88
1.403
Teacher 363 The spread of English in our
country has a positive effect
on Turkish.
170
46.8
2.78
1.327
362 The spread of English in our
country has a positive effect
on our culture.
124
34.3
3.29
1.344
Parent 974 The spread of English in our
country has a positive effect
on Turkish.
514
52.8
2.64
1.390
978 The spread of English in our
country has a positive effect
on our culture.
384
39.3
3.13
1.430
A close inspection of the descriptive statistics of ENGLISH scale indicate
that the frequencies and means exhibit remarkable variability across some items. The
scale was constructed with the intention to encompass three distinct dimensions;
perceptions of English, perceptions of spread of English; and perceptions of
instruction of English as a Foreign Language at various levels of education. The wide
differences in means and percentages among items within the same scale may
account for the existence of these three dimensions. To assess the dimensionality
among measures and validate the initially intended structure (or construct validity),
114
principle component analysis was conducted as part of data analysis to the sub-scale.
When all items were rotated, keeping eigenvalues above 1, the items clustered
around three interpretable components as shown in the Table 1 in Appendix L. Only
one item loaded on two factors (Component 1 and Component 3). Component 1
accounted for the 22.48 % of the item variance, Component 2 accounted for 17.78
%of the item variance while component 3 explained 15.98 % of the item variance (
see the Table in Appendix L).
The results indicate that two of the items (item 9 and 16) that loaded on
component 3 (Spread of English and its status) were the ones that found weakest
support among the participants in general, whereas two of the items that appear in
Component 1 (necessity of English) received nearly full support. All these suggests
that students, teachers and parents acknowledge the necessity of learning English, but
they are not equally positive or not even neutral about the spread of English and
possible influences of this spread.
To further explore the perceptions of participants about the teaching a foreign
language, the open-ended answers to “part 2a, items 2 and 3” of the survey
questionnaire were analyzed. The questions were: “Do you support teaching of
foreign languages in schools affiliated with Ministry of National Education (MNE)?”
and “If your answer is affirmative to the question above, which language should be
taught first?” respectively. The analysis was carried out by converting the string data
into numeric data after an initial categorization was made. For this reason, this
portion of findings will both highlight the major categories of reasons for affirmative
and negative answers, and will be quantitatively reported in terms of frequencies and
percentages.
These questions investigated 1) whether participants supported the teaching
of a foreign language at public schools affiliated with MNE or not, 2) the reasons for
supporting the teaching a foreign language at public schools affiliated with MNE 3)
the reasons for not supporting the teaching a foreign language at public schools
affiliated with the MNE, and 4) which language they think should be taught in first
these schools.
To begin with the first, the results of this question show that the majority of
participants in all groups support teaching of a foreign language (Table 4. 16).
115
Table 4.16
Groups’ Position on Teaching a Foreign Language at Schools
Positive Negative Only if elective
Group f % f % f %
Student (n=958) 810 84.6 148 15.4 - -
Teacher (n=367) 295 80.1 72 19.6 1 0.3
Parent (n=975) 879 90.2 94 9.6 2 0.2
Secondly, as a reason for support the survey participants provided the reasons
listed in the tables 4.17, 4.18, and 4.19 below. These reasons come under different
number of categories for each group of participants. Each table reports these reasons
in terms of frequencies and percentages they appear within the group.
Table 4.17
Students’ Reasons for Supporting Teaching of a Foreign Language at Schools Reason for Supporting f %
FL/English is a must/necessary/useful. 252 31.9
FL is necessary for future work and academic life. 230 29.1
FL is necessary for opening up to globalizing world &
contemporariness
53 6.7
One language means one person. 47 5.9
FL enables communication with other cultures. international relations 47 5.9
FL improves the culture of the country & individuals. 38 4.8
English is the universal language. 31 3.9
Other* 27 3.4
MEB schools offer basis for future language learning & are the best. 26 3.3
One learns best at a young age. 16 2.0
MEB schools offer educational opportunity. 15 1.9
I support FL teaching but I am against EMI. 8 1.0
Total 793 100.0
* for personal reasons; for opportunities abroad; for both economic and social benefits; for
international relations; for studies abroad, for foreign sources, for welfare of country; for start of
another languge; no commercial concerns, responsibility of the state; a high level is achieved in these
schools.
116
Table 4.18
Teachers’ Reasons for Supporting Teaching of a Foreign Language at Schools
Reason for Supporting n %
English is the language of science & technology and
enables access to sources & following field-specific
literature.
56 20.8
A FL / English is a must / necessary /important /
advantageous.
46 17.1
Foreign language learning broadens horizons/enables
communication with other cultures.
30 11.2
It is necessary for the globalizing world &
contemporariness.
20 7.4
FL is necessary for future academic and work life at
home/abroad.
18 6.7
MEB offers a medium/basis for language learning free of
charge to everyone
17 6.7
One learns a FL best at school/at an early age. 15 6.7
One language means one person. 14 5.6
English is the universal language. 14 5.2
Other* 14 5.2
I support FL but EMI is a faulty practice/ FL is a good
basis for EMI.
13 4.8
Learning a foreign language improves the country & keeps
us abreast of new developments.
8 3.0
Total 270 100.0
* For international prestige; for welfare of country; for higher quality of education; to express ourselves to foreign people; necessary for a high school graduate; to follow international relations and university; knowledge is always good; as elective; for international interaction and academic career; schools are professional institutions.
117
Table 4.19
Parents’ Reasons for Supporting Teaching of a Foreign Language at Schools
Reason for Supporting n %
FL is valid / necessary especially for work life. 334 43.1
We need to adjust to Europe/globalizing /modern world. 68 8.8
Other* 58 7.5
Knowing a FL has advantages / useful 53 6.8
FL is necessary for communication with other countries
and people.
49 6.3
FL education should start early and /or at school. 44 5.7
One language means one person. 40 5.2
English is the most wide spread language especially for
science & technology.
37 4.8
It serves as a basis for foreign language learning. 31 4.0
FL changes one's outlook on life / raises level of education
and cultivatedness.
28 3.6
It is free of charge in MNE schools & this offers
educational opportunity.
26 3.4
FL is necessary for higher education. 7 .9
Total 775 100.0 * for quality education; responsibility of the state; for self awareness; nice thing to learn a language; decreases popularity of private schools; ;for EU; for visiting other countries; it is a privilege; increases self-confidence
The results suggest that the reasons that students, teachers and parents for
supporting teaching of a foreign language in schools affiliated with the MNE are
alike, although the prioritizing for each group differs slightly. For example, for
students, necessity of English or a foreign language and the gains it might offer in
future work and academic life are first priorities. Similarly, for an overwhelming
majority of parents, its necessity for work life is the first priority. However, for
teachers the first reason for supporting foreign language teaching is its status as a
language of science & technology and the access it provides to sources & following
field-specific literature. Also, the frequency distribution for the teachers is spread
118
relatively homogeneously across the reported reasons. Another point is that in some
of the phrases indicating the reason the word “English” appears, although in the
wording of the corresponding question “foreign language” was used. This verifies
the findings to the first sub-question that “foreign language” is equated with English
by massive majority of participants.
Thirdly, as a reason for not supporting foreign language teaching at schools
affiliated with the MNE, the answers provided by the participants are reported in
Tables 4.20, 4.21, 4.22. When the total number of respondents are examined, it is
seen that only 8. 9 percent (n=88) of students, 2.8 percent of teachers (n=11) and 6.9
percent (n=69) of parents responded to this question giving a negative answer. These
percentages are rather low, which indicates the non-supporters of FL teaching at
schools are few.
In the same manner as the above-reported reasons, the non-supporting
reasons come under different number of categories for each group of participants.
Each table reports these reasons in terms of frequencies and percentages they appear
within the group (Tables 4.20, 4.21, 4.22). The results indicate non-supporters in all
groups have one major concern: the inadequacy of the necessary background
conditions for foreign language to be instructed in these institutions. These
frequencies and percentages indicate that this concern is shared by non-supporters in
all groups as the “primary” reason. For both students and parents, the alleged threat
that foreign language teaching poses to Turkish language and culture is another
concern. For the teachers, these reasons center on issues of quality of teaching rather
than other factors.
119
Table 4.20
Students’ Reasons for Not Supporting Teaching of a Foreign Language at Schools
Reason for not Supporting
n %
It is not effective for us or in MEB schools due to poor
background.
27 30.7
Turkish/native language should be given priority. 18 20.5
It has negative effect on Turkish / leads to cultural
corruption.
14
15.9
FL should be taught at university or later 7 8.0
It is an extension of colonial aims. 6 6.8
Other* 6 6.8
I don't like English 5 5.7
It is useless / not necessary. 5 5.7
Total 88 100.0 * those interested will learn by himself; unfamiliar; other languages are possible.
Table 4.21
Teachers’ Reasons for Not Supporting Teaching of a Foreign Language at Schools
Reason for Not Supporting n %
Necessary background does not exist. 6 54.5
It is not sufficient. 3 27.3
Methods are not appropriate. 2 18.2
Total 11 100.0
120
Table 4.22
Parents’ Reasons for Not Supporting Teaching of a Foreign Language at Schools
Reason for Not Supporting n %
It will have a low standard due to poor infrastructure. 24 33.3
It corrupts Turkish language and / or culture 13 18.8
Children are having difficulty. 13 17.4
It is unnecessary. 5 7.2
The age is not the right one. 4 5.8
It has an adverse effect on learning of other subjects &
ÖSS.
4 5.8
I don’t want it. 3 4.3
One forgets what he learns at school. 2 2.9
My child has no interest and does not like FL. 2 2.9
Total 69 100.0
Fourthly, the results show that for all of the groups English is the most
preferred foreign language to be taught at NME schools. 1966 participants (83.5
%) answered the question about the preferred foreign language. The percentages of
those who favored English are 96.6 % (n=794) of students, 95.9 % (n=280) for
teachers and 98.1 % (n=836) for parents. Two other languages are German (1.7%)
and Italian (1.1%) for the whole group. Also, 4.4 % (n=18) of all the participants did
not prefer a language but indicated that it must be left to the choice of the student.
For the second sub-question another set of data was derived from the open-
ended questions that followed Part 2 ENGLISH scale. The analysis of these
questions provided more data as to perceptions of the students, teachers and parents
about English and foreign language. Of 982 student participants, 201 (20.4%)
answered the questions.
The categorization of ideas expressed by the students are presented below:
Learning English is useful but Turkish should be protected: While some students
underscored the necessity, advantages and usefulness of learning English or a foreign
language, they voiced their concern about the protection of Turkish language and
121
Turkish culture/ our culture. This theme appears very forcefully and frequently in the
answers. Some expressed a negative attitude towards invasion of English in daily
life, code-mixing and borrowings that widely appear in commercials, shop names
and other contexts. This is a negative influence of English. However, a few stated
that it is not the education to blame, it is the mistake of users; individuals should
have a higher level language awareness. Turkish gets under the influence of Western
languages for this reason. The other ideas are: 1) People should not deny or forget
their own language, 2) we should prevent our language from being exploited by too
much domination of the language we learn and should not put down Turkish, 3)
foreign language teaching should not affect use of Turkish; FL must be learnt as a
cultural formation.
Cultural threat English poses: The potential danger to Turkish culture was another
concern for students. For example, one student stated that English is a threat to our
culture and values, and during the lessons the European culture is indirectly imposed
on the students, another wrote “English learning does not mean adopting English
culture although some perceive it to be so”. One asks “We are getting corrupted and
what use would we be to our country as people who have lost their culture?”.
Another theme that appears in some answers is affectatious attitude: Our cultural
values are being forgotten and Western and American ways are being adopted; we
should not be fakers. One student says “we will end up being American or English if
we let a foreign language to penetrate into us as such”. Another says “let us not
anglicize or let English destroy the essence of Turkish. Some other remarks are:
“English contributes nothing but sweeps away a lot”. “There is no attempt on their
part to learn Turkish”. “EFL is necessary but Turkish is being melted in English and
is being corrupted, which is a shame for a Turk” One participant stated that he
wished Turkish was predominant.
English alongside Turkish/ Turkish prior to English: Some students mentioned the
importance of the teaching of the Turkish language alongside English. One student
argued for more emphasis on Turkish. Some said Turkish should have the priority
with the slogan “Turkish first”.
122
Quality EFL education – all or nothing: Some students emphasized the quality of
instruction. One idea is that it should either be done properly or not be offered at all.
Teaching of any foreign language, either as a second or third language, should be
taken seriously and must not be done superficially. Quite a few students mentioned
that EFL should be practice-based rather than grammar- based. English should be
taught if the instruction is to be done properly. Competent teacher and enough
number of teachers is another issue that appears in a few comments as well as more
teaching hours.
Freedom to choose - compulsory of FL: Some students stated that students must be
free to choose; it should not be compulsory to learn languages at schools. Another
idea is that English is not the only foreign language, there are other languages. One
student stated that at high school level, an individual must be able to use his free will
to choose or not to choose for himself and must be provided with options.
English gets in the way of ÖSS (University Entrance Exam) and AHS-SHS (Anatolian
High School and Science High School) Exams: The ideas in that relate to exams are:
1) FL courses should not be compulsory for ÖSS- bound students or those who focus
on the numerical test of ÖSS (no time for English) , 2) English should be compulsory
but it should not be too heavy to push students who are already busy with ÖSS
preparation, 3) totally against EFL teaching because of upcoming ÖSS, 4) English
should be compulsory only at university, 5) totally against English at middle school
because the target of the middle school student is to prepare for AHS / SHS Exams.
A Second FL: A few students said that a second foreign language must be offered
either as a compulsory or an elective course. However, if it is done, again it should
be done properly.
Not necessary for everyone / just a necessity: A few students stated that English or a
FL is not for everyone. One idea is that not everyone will be a businessman;
therefore not all students need a FL. Another is that the need to learn English has to
do with the goals and dreams of the individual. Two of them said that they learn
English for jobs and money or future life, not because they like it.
123
Affective Concerns: A few students mentioned the importance of affective concerns
such as better approach not to bore students, enjoyable lessons. Some stated that
lessons should arouse of interest and motivation; English should not be taught
because of grades.
Positive remarks: Unlike the statements above which indicate certain concerns and
negative approaches in relation to FL and English, there are a few positive remarks.
These are:
1. English will be very advantageous / useful.
2. The importance of English is not known to everyone; people should be made
aware of its crucial role through publicizing.
3. Certainly necessary for employment.
To the same questions in connection with foreign language and English, 85 out of
383 (22.1%) teacher participants provided answers. The responses teachers gave are
categorized below:
FL learning takes place at an early age: Quite a few teachers indicated the belief that
one should start learning a foreign language at an early age. It is easier to learn a
foreign language as a child. One teacher stated that the teaching of English should be
initiated in elementary (İlköğretim) level. Another suggested that a preparatory year
should be inserted in grade 3 or 4, which must be reinforced in middle and high
school. . One teacher argued that the foundation should be laid in primary school.
Another teacher believed by the university years students are supposed to have
mastered at least two foreign languages.
Turkish should be taught first: The protection of Turkish and its teaching appear as a
common theme among the responses of teachers, too. Some teachers argued that we
must lay the emphasis on thinking in Turkish and learning Turkish. Some stated that
not everybody has to learn English; and for this reason priority should be given to
Turkish. By contrast, one of the teachers wrote “If you learn an FL you learn the
grammar of Turkish better”.
124
Cultural Effects: A few ideas appear concerning the impact of English and foreign
languages on culture. One of them is that EFL teaching is useful in the sense that our
culture can thus be publicized in the world, but to explain the English culture to the
students is harmful. One suggestion is that FL books should be prepared in Turkey in
such a way to eliminate the cultural bias and to prevent imposition of English culture.
Another idea related to cultural effects is that the negative effects of foreign
languages on our culture can be eliminated if we can make students internalize the
notions of citizenship, respect and tolerance well enough during elementary
schooling.
Not for everyone: Three teachers insistently stated that English is not for everyone
and those who need should learn it. For example, one said that English must be
taught to those who will do scientific research in form of one or two preparatory
years.
Effective EFL teaching curriculum: Teachers expressed a variety of ideas about
effectiveness of EFL teaching. Some of these ideas are related to the infrastructure of
AHSs; one teacher stated that the teaching of English should be done professionally
in middle and high school parts of the AHSs and another said that the necessary
infrastructure should be laid down to make up for the deficiencies. English
curriculum is below the desired standards and FL teaching is not effective. More than
one foreign language cannot be taught under the circumstances. Teachers’
competence was also mentioned by a couple of teachers. One of them said that the
state should train FL teachers perfectly well and provide opportunities abroad. A
third idea is related to the methods employed currently. Some teachers pointed out
that at present the English course is grammar-based, however, it should be more
speaking and practice based. Besides, as one teacher put, vocabulary acquisition
should be emphasized
Compulsory / elective status of foreign language (FL) lessons: Concerning the status
of English and foreign language lessons, several teachers stated that learning a
foreign language must be a self-induced, voluntary act, and students should not be
125
forced to learn a FL. A suggestion put forth by a teacher is that students should be
made aware of the advantages of speaking a FL, which will invoke a desire within
the individual to learn it. One teacher stated that Fl should not be compulsory at
“high school” level because of ÖSS. Another argued that FL should totally be
abolished in grade 11 because students pay no attention to it because ÖSS is drawing
near.
Other languages: A few teachers stated that English is not the only foreign language
and other foreign languages should be offered as an elective course. One teacher
stated one western and one eastern language should be taught for cultural
enrichment.
To the same open-ended question, 188 out of 988 (19.02%) parent
participants provided answers. The ideas about foreign language and English
expressed by parents are listed and explained below:
Turkish and our culture should come first and must be protected: The majority of
parents refer to Turkish, expressing their concern about the Turkish language and
culture. Some argue that Turkish comes first although they say that they support the
teaching of a foreign language and/or English. While a few stated that nothing
compares to Turkish, quite a few parents supported the idea that the teaching of
Turkish should be done properly and fully alongside that of other languages. Some
parents argued the idea that our culture and language should be acquired first and a
FL should follow it. Another group of comments indicate that Turkish is seen under
threat. The ideas that Turkish equivalents should be produced for borrowings and
that we should not stray away from our native language are examples of this concern.
Another comment is that more translation is required for the protection of Turkish
and riddance of English words. Some parents stated that they find spread of English
alarming; the mixed language of the media, English shop names, and code-mixing in
daily speech are examples of this. Some statements emphasized the negative effect of
English on Turkish culture and that we shouldn’t let it affect our culture. For
example, one parent stated that FL should not be allowed into the society, it must
remain in schools. Some parents came up with suggestions for protection of Turkish
on the whole and in schools. For example, one parent stated that we must be cautious
126
against cultural imperialism to survive as a nation, and language is a part of national
identity. We need to be guided about FL as a society. Another parent wrote “ if the
student doesn’t speak and write his language properly and write it properly, he will
be vulnerable to effects of cultural imperialism of the FL”. Another stated that we
should encourage learning of foreign languages on the condition that we prevent
corruption of Turkish; we should learn our language first and other languages in a
way to be put to use. Some parents suggest that we should raise students’ awareness
of Turkish language. One comment is “Turkish is under the influence of foreign
languages and with spread of English deterioration and corruption in the language
occur, but this is our fault, not that of English.” Another suggestion is that there
should be more emphasis on the Turkish course and composition course in the school
curriculum. One parent complained “What do we expect from generations that learn
English language and literature if they haven’t first learned their national language
and literature?”
Early start is better or the opposite: Quite a few parents argued for the idea that the
earlier one starts learning a foreign language, the better. Referring to the present
timing of preparatory program in AHSs, one parent wrote “Previous practice that
introduced preparatory year after grade 5 was a better one since people learn
languages at younger ages more quickly and easily and retain them permanently. I
observe it and think that after grade 8, FL learning is much belated and less
productive since it is a transition from childhood to teenage. I have observed it
through my children and students and myself.” In contrast to this view, one parent
said that teaching English at early ages brings about the unintended imposition of
English culture into our culture to and this leads to loss of our moral values. Another
perspective that disfavors an early start is that FL learning - is very hard for students
in primary schools. Therefore, to teach English to children who can hardly learn
Turkish is not a sound approach.
Compulsory/ elective status of FL: Some parents argued that English must be totally
elective. One parent gave the reason “ It should be elective not compulsory because
whatever necessary might not be necessary for anyone else. Another stated that it is
not necessary for those who are not active and past the age. Also, one was against the
127
compulsory status of English at “İlköğretim” (elementary schooling) since it does not
abide by nationalism. On the other hand, some parents argued for just the opposite:
English should be made compulsory starting from “İlköğretim”.
English for “developedness”: Some ideas related to the necessity of English for the
welfare of the country are: 1) In the way of globalization everyone should know
English. 2) English is necessary for the development for the economy of the country.
3) It is necessary for “developedness”. 4) English has become the global language
and not knowing English means being one step behind the developments. 5) FL adds
to our culture, does not subtract it; with foreign-language speaking youth, we will
integrate with the world.
Just a necessity: A few parents stated that they support the learning of a FL or
English because it is necessary in today’s conditions. For example, one stated that
the only reason for him to support English is jobs; one cannot find jobs without
knowing English in this country. Another said sees English necessary just because it
is the language of the world, not because he has a liking. Similarly, another parent
believe that it is affecting our culture negatively. Nevertheless, it is necessary.
Two foreign languages: Some parents supported the idea that two foreign languages
should be taught. The reasons they gave were: 1) Two foreign languages mean a
self-confident generation, 2) Two foreign languages at least to catch up with the
world technology, 3) Two foreign languages are necessary for contemporariness and
to catch up with the age of science and to maintain success in the tourism sector. On
the other hand, some parents pointed out their concerns. One parent, a German
teacher, stated that teaching of two foreign languages would not be very effective
due to ÖSS hastle. Another said he would go for one language with a more serious
approach. First, one FL language should be taught fully and second should come
later; we must raise teachers for the first FL first.
Other languages too: A few parents felt the need to point out that English is not the
only foreign language. One wrote “I protest those who equate FL with English.” One
demanded the same amount of attention to German too. Another stated that one
128
western and one eastern language. e.g. Japanese or Chinese be taught as a second FL
depending on the future prevalence of them in the future.
Effective FL at a good level: Some parents criticized the general practice of FL
teaching in Turkey referring to their own experience. An idea was that background
conditions for FL training should be improved and this should be spread nation-wide.
One parent said due to inadequate teaching staff, he learnt nothing himself. Two
parents said that they are totally against FL teaching “for the sake of doing it”.
Another said “there is no point in teaching how to say your name in 12 years” .A
striking comment was “ We must be the only country that teaches English for 6-7
years and yet whose graduates can’t speak a word of it”. Another belief was FL is
useful but not in this system. Commenting on the FL teaching methods, some parents
mentioned 1) lack of vocabulary teaching, 2) lack of application of what has been
learnt in daily life not for sake of doing it, 3) more emphasis on practice and less on
grammar.
Competent teaching staff: Many parents indicated that competence of teacher is very
important. The parents are concerned about the quality and quantity of teachers for
the success of FL teaching in Turkey. The level of teachers’ competence is not high
enough. For example, one stated that a very good training of teachers is needed and
another said that teachers should develop themselves. Also, as one parent put, a
foreign language must be learnt from those who have a very good awareness of
language, and as another wrote “It must be taught by professionals who have
pedagogical knowledge and can make students want to learn the target language
because one can learn a foreign language if voluntary”. According to another
participant, FL must not be learnt out of desire to not for grades. Only one parent
expressed contentment about good teachers and quality of instruction.
Timing and intensity of FL teaching: About the commencement and intensity of FL
teaching in school curriculum parents seem to have diverse beliefs. One wrote
“instead of a heavy and intensive program in Grade 9,. I support it must be spread
over 4 years and thus be reinforced.” Another argued for more teaching hours in “
İlköğretim” (elementary school) and another argued for teaching of FL at university
129
level too. On the other hand, some parents disagree. One stated that English is a
“drag” for students after İlköğretim because of ÖSS. Another wrote “because of
ÖSS, FL course shouldn’t exceed the class hours of quantitative subjects”. Similarly
one parent argued that a FL course shouldn’t affect the achievement of children in
quantitative subjects. Furthermore, two of them believed that FL should be taught
after secondary education. The only neutral suggestion came from a parent who said
that teachers should decide if there should be FLT at university.
The interview results revealed that the entirety of 14 interview participants
perceive English as a Foreign Language positively. Nevertheless, some participants
voiced certain reservations. The ideas expressed by the student, teacher and parent
respondents are described under the following themes. According to the nature of the
analysis, themes were broad categories under which ideas of each group are reported.
Not respondents from each group made a remark about each sub-category. For this
reason, observing the sequence of student, teacher and parent in presentation of
results has not been possible throughout.
Necessity of a foreign language and reasons: All of the respondents acknowledged
the necessity of a foreign language. As a reason, 10 of them gave job-related
reasons. As some parents and students stated, a foreign language is perceived as a
requirement that employers seek in a candidate. Here some respondents gave reasons
related to personal career pursuits. Some simply reported their impressions in general
terms. Moreover, two respondents from each group emphasized that knowledge of
not only one, but two foreign languages is desired when a university graduate sets off
to look for jobs. As another reason for support, three students, three teachers and one
parent mentioned the idea that knowledge of a foreign language enables contact with
the outer world and opportunities outside Turkey such as opening up to foreign
countries- borders are disappearing- job opportunities abroad and free circulation in
EU countries. Another theme is communication with people from outer countries
and was brought up by five of the participants: FL is needed to interact and meet
with the tourists and visitors in and out of Turkey and to conduct written
correspondence. Also, as one participant in each group stated foreign language is
necessary for research situations and academic purposes. One of the parents stated
that for academicians at least FL is necessary. Without knowing English, it is
130
impossible to conduct research. Linked to this idea, another point raised by
respondents from each group is that access to sources is possible with a foreign
language. For example, the internet is dominated by English and there are very few
sources in Turkish. The computer world is operating on FL. Also, FL is seen as
necessary because of perceptions of English as the language of science and
technology. As one student said, it is necessary to know a foreign language (English)
because technology and knowledge are predominantly produced by “them”. Another
idea that emerged was that FL is necessary for the future of the country, e.g. for
“developedness”, for catching up with the recent advances, for integrating with
Europe. Two of the students stated that FL gains the individual new perspectives and
contributes to cultural development of the person. The advantages of FL were also
emphasized; one of the parents said that it is a societal necessity and is a big benefit
in today’s world. One of the students stated that FL knowledge means privilege.
Necessity of a foreign language for some people: When respondents were asked who
they believe FL is necessary for, the answers varied. Six respondents (4 students. and
2 parents) stated that either for everyone or the majority, it is necessary. On the other
hand, some of the respondents said it depends on the need; it is necessary for those
working in the tourism sector, for professionals and for the students (especially
university students to follow the sources and to get by in contact situations it is a
must) while some said there is no point in a peasant’s or a teahouse owner’s
speaking a FL. Three of the students, one of the teachers and one of the parents said
that it is a matter of drive; only those who are willing to learn a FL should learn it.
Perceptions of English:
a. acknowledgement of its status
Perceptions of respondents about English were not very different from what they said
about their perceptions of a foreign language. The same aspects were emphasized by
participants: English is the language of science; it is useful to learn it for the welfare
of the country; it enables communication with other people and the rest of the world;
it the language the Internet and computers. In addition, its being global and
widespread and its predominance, prevalence, popularity, and importance were
emphasized.
131
b. necessity of English
All of the respondents stated that they see learning and improving English as a
necessity. One parent referred to English as “like basics”. One teacher stated that she
supports learning of a second FL for pleasure or as a spare time activity but English
is a “necessity”.
c. feelings about English
When they were asked about their feelings concerning English, two of the
respondents; (one teacher and one student) spoke of an emotional attachment to the
language, saying “I love English”. Five of them stated that they are very content to
be learning/speaking the language.
Those respondents who have little or no knowledge of English stated that they
wished they could learn it/ improve it.” One of the teachers complained she
unfortunately has limited use to be able to improve it. Another teacher stated his
English was active when he was teaching in English but “unfortunately” he lost his
English as he “stopped teaching science in English”. One parent stated that he would
prefer to learn Persian as it is a language of culture, while another parents stated he
wished he would be speaking English to follow a magazine, article, or a movie or to
take a trip abroad.
Although one of the teachers said he has a special interest in English, it does
not matter how one feels about a given language. if it is necessary to learn people
should not act on their emotions. FL learning does not evolve out of love but out of
economic. spiritual and communication needs. Two respondents (a student and a
teacher) indicated that they prefer because of its advantageous position over other
languages. Two of the parents stated that English is more valid but other languages
can be learnt too. One of them said he does not prefer one language over another
since what matters is learning a FL.
Some of the respondents also mentioned the joy they get because of the
communicative function of English. For example, one student who reported his
difficulty of learning English said that speaking for communication is rewarding and
being able to communicate with tourists is fun. A teacher stated that he can use
computers and understand BBC news English, which she feels very happy about.
One of the parents, who can speak only Turkish, speculated that being able to speak
any FL must be nice.
132
However, three of the students said that although they see English as
necessary. having to learn it is not nice or English does not seem very fun in the
classroom because of the unattractive methods employed in school.
About possible negative attitudes towards learning and teaching of English,
the answers that respondents gave are: 1) Students/children may not be aware of the
necessity, 2) learning difficulties, and 3) political motives.
Perceptions of spread of English:
a. Power
Concerning the spread of English, a pervasive theme was “power”. Seven of the 14
respondents used the word “power” and stated that the spread of English is related to
the power and potential of a country as “whichever country is dominant, its language
wins”, in other words, it becomes international and predominant.
b. Good to have a common language:
Some respondents stated that they do not feel negative about the existence of a
common language. One of the teachers said it is good for one language to become
increasingly common. Further, as one parent and student put it, “a common language
had to be spread and it happened to be English” , which does not pose a problem.
One of them said the common language had to be the language of a country ahead of
us scientifically and technologically.
c. Wishing Turkish were spread
When referring to the spread of English and its commonness, seven of the
respondents expressed their wish that Turkish were spread instead. One teacher said
there is no need to give up Turkish because English is the language of science. One
parent expressed his wish to see Turkish as language of science but for such a
recognition, advances has to be made in science. Another said it would be useful to
know a FL even though Turkish was spread all over the world.
d. Effects of the spread of English on Turkish culture, language and country
The analysis of the interviews revealed that majority of the respondents is concerned
about the adverse effect the spread of English might have on Turkish culture and the
language.
e. Threat to Turkish Culture
Except for one parent and one teacher who spoke about their own reaction to
133
cultural influence, all of the respondents suggested being alert and taking a guard
against such influence. One of the parents said he would not experience any
deviation from their own cultural values, tradition and customs even if he were to
reside in a foreign country. Likewise another parent said that he loves his country
and culture and foreign cultures would not affect him. He added that one does not
alienate from his culture just because he speaks a foreign language. Another parent
said the spread of English might extend to cultural imperialism, but he did not
believe this is the case for the time being.
The ideas of those who sense a threat to Turkish culture are: 1) Influence of
English can spoil our culture, and we may forget our own culture, 2) we are certainly
under the influence of “their” culture and some people are adopting behavior and
music of them without first learning about our own music; some aspects of our
culture are being assimilated, 3) some people are adopting the European/ Western
ways, 4) young people following the Western trend, 5) we witness totally/ partially
the negative effects of the spread, 6) negative effects certainly exist and we are
apprehensive about them, 7) the exertion of English in our language culture and all is
totally wrong. English should be used only as a language, however, this cultural
imposition is impossible to stop since it became a state policy after Turgut Özal’s
free market economy, 8) not only language but culture is brought in with its
technology and dominance, 9) Language is and must be a means for communication;
I am very unhappy with the way English exists in our lives and the way it influences
the society.
f. Threat to Turkish language
In the interviews there were more references made the Turkish language to than
those made to cultural effects of the spread. When asked how they perceive the
spread of English, all of the respondents expressed their concern about the influence
of English on Turkish. These are: 1) There are too many foreign words everywhere
from shops, restaurants to TV channels and they are being imposed on us. One of the
teachers said “I am feeling as if choked because every word and everything is
foreign”. A student stated that Turkish has been anglicized, 2) There are too many
borrowings that appear in a variety of contexts such as commercials and Turkish
literature; we find ourselves using some borrowings before we know it, 3) In some
cases English is preferred over Turkish in daily life; for example one student stated
134
that he heard in a hotel audio taped instructions in English to use the elevator. He
said using English in a Turkish context is ridiculous whereas versions of the same
thing in both languages are acceptable, 4) Code-mixing is not nice because some
people “murder” Turkish by mixing English words into Turkish speech, 5) Turkish
words are not being produced; state and institutions fall short of producing or too
slow to produce new words that would substitute English equivalents, 9) constant use
of foreign publications is wrong as it harms the language, 10) Turkish has already
been spoilt and was put down below English, 11) Turkish has been polluted and this
stems from people’s aspiration to become more Western. But English is not to blame
for it. It is the result of the wrong attitude of people.
When asked whether their opinions would change if the language that is
spreading were a different one, all the respondents said that their opinion would not
change.
g. Solutions to eliminate/ minimize the effects
Some suggestions were made to cope with the threat posed by spread of English. One
of the students said he believed that the adverse effects exist due to lack of language
awareness and there would be no negative influence with sound education. A parent
said if a proper policy is followed, negative influences of this spread can be
minimized. One of the teachers, on the other hand, came up with a opposite view.
She said she believed we could not eliminate of negative effects with today’s
economic and political structure of our country.
The respondents alluded to Turkish courses and protection of Turkish
language too by making suggestions such ridding foreign words off the Turkish
language and more care about Turkish to discard the bad sides of the influence; and
protection. Also, two students stated that there must be a balance of teaching hours of
English and Turkish. Less emphasis on Turkish instruction is dangerous at the
expense of English.
Level of satisfaction about quality of teaching of English: All of the teachers and
students stated that they see English teaching as unsatisfactory in general. Referring
to mainstream secondary schools and their own experience at secondary education,
they said students are learning very little. All of them stated they find teaching of
English at even Anatolian schools unsatisfactory. Only one teacher tended to believe
135
that the quality of FL teaching is satisfactory at AHSs. One of the parents referred to
AHSs stating that one learns perhaps 10/15% of English at mainstream middle
schools and this percentage may reach 30/40% in AHSs. The students referred to
their own experiences for the most part. One of them was proud of English language
instruction in her school the success of which is a way above other schools. She had
full confidence in her knowledge of English and the students of her school always
stood out among other students from various AHSs. The other students stated that
they were not satisfied with the quality of teaching of English in their schools due to
a variety of reasons related to the program such as methods, books, teachers, design
of courses, correct application, which will be explained below.
Speaking versus grammar: One thing about English courses that students complain
is the grammar-based teaching. One of the students said that the courses are theory-
laden and there is not much chance to practice. He would expect more opportunities
to speak, especially interaction with native-speakers in class. One of the teachers
stated in mainstream classes there still Gatenby (the common EFL course book in
mainstream secondary education) logic prevails and grammar-based teaching was
given up everywhere else and that we fail to up-date the methods. An average
European high school graduate can speak one or two foreign languages fluently and
decently since they have more sound methods of FL teaching. Another teacher stated
that English should be taught at level of daily speeches, not necessarily at scientific
level.
Uninteresting:Three of the students stated that they find English classes boring and
demotivating due to heavy content or the adopted methodology. While one
complained about the literature course and method of exploitation, the other made
comments about the heavy content without specifying why it is so. The latter said as
the course is not very appealing and fails to motivate the student he lost interest in
English in time. He was very positive about English in “kolej” before coming to
Anatolian high school and his interest, motivation and eventually his success has
declined ever since.
136
Memorization: The student who disfavored literature courses stated that they do a lot
of memorization of short stories, texts and questions. They retell literary texts
without much comprehension. He added that he prefers studying regular textbooks
and learning grammar instead, which he sees more useful. One teacher claimed that
English courses must be based on practice not on memorization. What students do is
merely parroting from books.
Infrastructure:
a. Teachers
Some of the respondents made comments on teachers either at mainstream schools or
Anatolian schools. The comment of one of the parents is noteworthy: He said “ no
progress has been made since my high school years.” He added that you would come
across totally unqualified teachers who are accidentally appointed to the position or
you see no teachers at all. In provincial towns of Anatolia still FL and other courses
have no teachers wherever you go. One of the reasons for poor quality of FL
education is inadequate teachers. Another teacher stated that she sees most of the
English teachers as not competent enough. As for the students, except for one who
stated that teachers of English are really spending effort to teach them English, the
other two were negative. Both said they have a positive attitude towards English
courses and that “learning would be fun with competent teachers.
b. Books
There were a few remarks about books too. One of the parents said poor quality of
FL education in the country accounts for lack of quality books and materials. One of
the teachers stated that still they use very old-fashioned books that date back to her
time in mainstream schools. Referring to her own school, another teacher stated that
there are no language labs, videos and tapes are not working due to negligence.
Again another remark made by a teacher is that course books should be published in
Turkey; it is wrong to directly adopting books from abroad. In addition, they should
be appealing to the eye.
c. A good infrastructure
Some of the teacher and parent respondents stated that we should not apply a FL
curriculum just for the sake of doing it and such an approach would not bring
success. For example, one teacher stated that an approach based on memorization
137
should definitely go. Wretched physical conditions should be improved first.
Instruction should not be based on “appearance” but functioning. One parent said
that English is a widespread language so must be taught effectively. Another stated
that FL teaching must be done effectively and extensively. One of the teachers
referred to the new decision of the Ministry of Education to implement an intensive
English program in mainstream high schools. However, she claimed that it is bound
to fail without the necessary infrastructure.
An early start: Three of the respondents stated that an early start is needed. One of
the parents stated that Fl teaching can be brought down to kindergarten. Another said
that the new decision as to early introduction of English teaching in 4th & 5th grade
shows strong sense of awareness on the part of the ministry officials and called it “a
belated but a good decision”
Intensity and timing of English classes: Two of the students who referred to the
intensity and timing of EFL did not seem to agree. While one believed that it is right
that there is more emphasis on English than math and science subjects, the other
argued that top priority in curriculum in terms of class hours is not right. In his
opinion, after the preparatory program, English courses get repetitious and the
current emphasis must be leveled off with other courses by spreading them over
years more evenly. Also, some of the parents pointed out that continuity of English
programs across years is important.
4.4.3 Difference among Groups in Perceptions of English as a Foreign Language
The third sub-question explores whether target groups differ in terms of their
perceptions regarding EFL. A one-way analysis of variance was conducted to
evaluate if the mean changes in measures of EFL among the three groups of
participants. The independent variable was “group” which consisted of student,
teacher, and parent and the dependent variable was groups’ perceptions of EFL. The
ANOVA was significant. F (2, 2324 ) = 6.650, p ≤ .001 (Table 4.23)
138
Table 4.23
Analysis of Variance for Perceptions of English as a Foreign Language
Source df Sum of
Squares
Mean
Square
F Significance
Between Groups 2 7.215 3.608 6.650 0.001
Within Groups 2324 1260. 663 .542
Total 2326 1267.878
P≤ .001
Follow–up tests were conducted to evaluate pairwise differences among the
means. Because Levene’s Test of Equality of Error Variance (test of homogeneity of
variance) was nonsignificant, Dunnet’s C was conducted as a post hoc procedure,
which does not assume equal variances. The results of this test as well as the means
and standard deviations for the three groups are reported in Table 4.24. There were
significant differences between parents and students. No significant differences were
found between teachers and students, or teachers and parents.
Table 4.24
Differences among Groups on Perceptions of English as a Foreign Language
Group M SD Student Teacher
Student 3.80 .74
Teacher 3.83 .76
Parent 3.91 .72 *
Note: An asterisk (*)=significance using the Dunnet’s C procedure.
The results indicate that parents perceive English differently from students,
but not differently from teachers. In addition, there are no significant differences in
the way English is perceived as a foreign language by teachers and students. The
mean values for parents are higher than the mean values for teachers. This indicates
parents perceive English more positively than students.
139
4. 4. 4 Summary of “Perceptions of English as a Foreign Language”
The results to the first sub-question clearly showed that the English is
language is equated with the notion of a “foreign language” by the majority of
participants. The second sub-question concerning perceptions of students, teacher
and methods was explored using three distinct sources; survey scales and quantified
open-ended questions; categorized open-ended questions and interviews. Figures 7, 8
and 9 summarize the results to the second sub-question “What are the perceptions of
students, teachers and parents regarding English as a Foreign Language?” The
analyses of both quantitative and qualitative suggest that most of the participants
perceive English as a foreign language positively. Figures 7 and 8 outline the
“positive” perceptions of all groups as drawn from all three sources.
It is abundantly clear that participants see English -or some prefer to use the
word foreign language instead- as necessary more than anything else. It is useful,
advantageous, and important especially for work life and future academic career, too.
It is seen as necessary not only for the individuals, but for the welfare of the country,
for “developedness” and “contemporariness”. As perceived by participants, it is tool
to access foreign sources as it is the language of science and technology, to
communicate to other countries and cultures around the globe. Participants also hold
a high opinion of learning languages, referring to it as “One language means one
person”, a Turkish saying that signifies that foreign language enriches the individual.
Groups also support the teaching and learning of other languages. Most of the
participants support the instruction of English and/or other languages at public
schools. English is the most preferred language to be taught at schools. According to
qualitative data, participants do not agree on the status of FL course; while some
participants from each group state that foreign language (FL) should be an elective
course, some argue for just the reverse. Yet, quantitative data showed English is
favored as a compulsory subject at all levels of schooling.
According to some qualitative findings, although some participants disagree
about when to start EFL teaching and how much emphasis English should get, an
early start is favored with continuity along curricula of educational institutions.
Nevertheless, they mention some conditions for this support. The first condition is
the priority of Turkish over English at schools and preclusion of cultural corruption.
The negative influences of spread of English should be minimized by a good
140
language and educational policy as well as language awareness. The gravest concern
of all groups is the effect of English on the Turkish language and culture. Survey
findings also showed that the influence of the spread of English is perceived as the
most negative aspect of English. Other than that, problems relating to instructional
components such as ineffective methods, lack of teachers, poor materials, or briefly,
inadequate infrastructure to FL teaching are mentioned by all groups in a
“disapproving manner” (Figure 9). Another concern shared by some parents and
students is the ÖSS. In their opinion, English teaching should be given second
priority because students need to prepare for ÖSS during high school years.
In conclusion, despite the negative aspects they mention, participants have a
positive approach to English as a Foreign Language and its learning and teaching.
Also, as the results of the quantitative analysis showed, parents perceive English
more positively than students as a foreign language, while the perceptions of teachers
and students do not significantly differ from one another.
141
STUDENT TEACHER PARENT
ENGLISH SCALE Learning an FL/English is necessary.
Learning English is necessary for me.
English will bring advantages in future.
Learning an FL is necessary for me.
Learning English is necessary for me.
I want to learn English very well.
I am happy that my child speaks English.
I want my child to learn English very well.
English will bring advantages to my child.
OPEN-ENDED
QUESTIONS*
(QUANTIFIED)
English is a must/necessary/useful.
Necessary for work & academic life.
For opening up to globe &contemporariness
One language means one person.
Enables communication with other cultures
Improves culture of country & individuals
English is the universal language.
Schools provide foundation for FL learning.
MNE schools offer educational opportunity
One learns best at a young age.
Language of science & technology
Enables access to sources & literature
English is a must / necessary /advantageous FL learning
broadens horizons
Enables communication with other cultures Necessary
for globalization, contemporariness necessary for
future academic and work life MNE offers a medium
for free FL learning One learns a FL best at school
when young
One language means one person.
English is the universal language..
FL is necessary especially for work life
Needing to adjust to Europe/modern world
Knowing a FL has advantages & is useful
FL is necessary for communication with other
countries and people.
FL education should start early at school.
One language means one person.
English is the language for science & tech.
Serves as a basis for FL learning.
Broadens horizons & makes more educated
MNE schools offer educational equality.
FL is necessary for higher education.
OPEN-ENDED
QUESTIONS
(CATEGORIZED)
Not at the expense of Turkish, Turkish first**
Quality: competent teachers, more practice**
English not necessary for everyone.
A second FL too, instructed properly**
FL/English should be elective.**
More enjoyable lessons for motivation**
People need awareness of its crucial role**
FL learning occurs at an early age.
Turkish first**
Negative cultural effects should be eliminated.**
Effective EFL teaching curriculum.**
FL/English should be elective.**
Other languages too, for cultural enrichment.
Turkish language and culture first*
Effective, early teaching of foreign language.**
Competent teaching staff**
FL/English should be elective.**
English for developedness & globalization
Two foreign languages at a very good level
Other languages too, for cultural enrichment
* as an answer to support of FL teaching at MNE schools, ** denotes conditions/concerns put forth by respondents for successful implementation Figure 7: Summary of Results to the Second Sub-question – Positive Perceptions of English as a Foreign Language
142
Engl
ish
and
FL
Necessary for jobs
Enables contact with outer world
Gives opportunities outside Turkey
Necessary for research situations
Enables communication with foreign people
Science and technology produced by foreigners
Enables access to wide range of sources,
Necessary for the future of country
New perspectives & cultural development
A privilege
Positive about learning/speaking English
Turkish language & culture first*
First language awareness to minimize negative
effects*
Equal weight to Turkish & English curricula*
Necessary for jobs
Enables contact with the outer world
Gives opportunities outside Turkey
Necessary for research and sources
Language of science, internet, computers
Enables communication with foreign
people
Positive about speaking English
Turkish language and culture first*
An early start to teaching English*
Continuity of EFL programs needed*
Necessary for jobs
Enables contact with the outer world
Gives opportunities outside Turkey
Necessary for research and university
Societal necessity & big benefit
Necessary for the future of country
Enables communication with people
Positive about speaking English/a FL
Willing to learn English
Necessary to enrich country languagewise
Turkish language and culture first*
An early start to teaching English*
Continuity of EFL programs needed*
Language policy to minimize adverse
effects.*
* signifies condition perceived as necessary Figure 8: Summary of Results to the Second Sub-question – Positive Perceptions of English as a Foreign Language
143
STUDENT TEACHER PARENT
ENGLISH
SCALE
Spread of English affects Turkish negatively
Spread of English affects our culture negatively.
Spread of English affects Turkish negatively.
Spread of English affects our culture negatively.
Spread of English affects Turkish negatively.
Spread of English affects our culture negatively.
OPEN-ENDED
QUESTIONS
(QUANTIFIED)
Not effective FL teaching is provided
Turkish should be given priority.
Should be taught at university.
An extension of colonial aims
Don’t like English
No necessary background conditions
Not sufficient
Wrong methods are employed.
Turkish is under threat.
Turkish must be “protected” from English.
An early start leads to loss of moral values.
FL at primary level is to hard for children.
Not necessary for everyone.
A drag for students who prepare for ÖSS.
Shouldn’t exceed class hours of math & science.
OPEN-ENDED
QUESTIONS
(CATEGORIZED)
English shouldn’t invade our lives.
Corrupts the Turkish language & culture.
Code-mixing and borrowings pose a threat
English gets in the way of ÖSS & other big exams
Not necessary for everyone, just a necessity
Imposing English culture is hazardous.
Not necessary for everyone.
Bound to fail due to poor infrastructure
Difficult for children
Corrupts the language and culture
Has an adverse effect on ÖSS & other courses
INTERVIEWS Having to learn is not nice.
Spread is related to the power of countries-
Wishing Turkish was predominant.
Threat to Turkish language and culture. Extent of
code-mixing is annoying
Demotivating to study in class.
Boring due to content/ methods employed.
Too theory-laden & grammar-based.
Extensive memorization, not much practice
Necessary, not a matter of liking.
Spread is related to the power of countries.
Wishing Turkish was predominant.
Threat to Turkish language and culture. Influx of
borrowings & code-mixing
FL teaching approach based on memorization
Poor FL infrastructure across country
Old-fashioned books & methods
Necessary, not a matter of liking.
Spread is related to the power of countries-
Wishing Turkish was predominant.
Threat to Turkish language and culture.
Influx of borrowings & code-mixing
Poor quality of books & materials
No ownership of FL education and policy
Too many AHS to maintain standards high
Poor infrastructure for FL across country
Figure 9: Summary of Results to the Second Sub-question –Negative Perceptions of English as a Foreign Language
144
4.5 Students’ and Teachers’ Perceptions of the Influence of English-medium
Instruction (EMI) on the Instructional Process
The fourth research question investigated whether the instructional process
was influenced because of English-medium instruction at secondary education,
according to the perceptions of students and teachers.
The question was addressed by taking three aspects into account: These are:
1) students’ learning process of the subject matter in maths and science courses, 2)
students’ linguistic skills in general, and 3) teachers’ teaching performance in these
courses. Each of these aspects corresponds to one of the sub-question of the fourth
main research question. Throughout the presentation of findings of the sub-questions
to this main question, data collected from students will come first, and data from
teachers will come second. Also, for each group quantitative data from the survey
scales will be presented first, followed by data from open-ended questions and
interviews.
4.5.1 Influence of EMI on Students’ Learning of the Subject Matter
The first sub-question was “Does EMI influence students’ learning of the
subject matter?” To answer this question both the perceptions of students and
teachers were explored.
The perceptions of students as to the learning of the subject matter were
treated separately due to alleged distinct natures of math and science courses. The
means and standard deviations of each of the items in both of the scales (scale
INSPRO 1 for science and scale INSPRO 2 for math) are reported in Table 4.25 and
Table 4.26 respectively.
The interpretation of mean values are as follows: 1) The means that are 2.60
and below as indicate disagreement, 2) the means that fall between 2.61 and 3.40
indicate undecidedness, and 3) the means that are 3.41 and above indicate agreement.
Also, because high mean values denote positive opinion, the scores on some
statements with negative meaning (those marked with an asterisks) were reversed.
For example, “Instruction of science subjects in English encourages me to
memorize” is a negative statement since it is an argument against EMI. When
examining the items it should read “Instruction of science subjects does not
encourage me to memorize”, which is a positive statement.
145
As can be seen from Tables 4.25 and 4.26, the range of means for science is
between 2.95 and 1.44, for math between 2.94 and 1.66. For science, students are
undecided about items 17, 8, 10, 9, 6, and for math, they are undecided about items
17, 8, 10, 9, 5, 11. All of these items are related to students’ use of foreign sources,
academic writing skills such as rephrasing and summarizing, and question
answering. The mean values for the rest of the items are below 2.60. Therefore,
students, on the average, disagreed with most of the statements along both of the
scales (for science and math). This suggests that the perceived influence of EMI on
the learning process is negative both in science courses and in math: EMI influences
retention, learning of concepts, grasping the subject matter, student achievement and
exam performance adversely. It encourages memorization and students have to resort
to Turkish sources, translate, work more but they lag behind their peers in Turkish-
medium schools.
146
Table 4.25
Students’ Perceptions of Influence of English-medium Instruction on Learning of the
Subject Matter in Science
Item Item no N M SD Foreign language-medium instruction makes it easy for me to reach information sources in science and technology written in this language (e.g. English).
17
763
2.95
1.277 I can rewrite a topic explained in English using my own English words.
8
741
2.91
1.254
I don’t have difficulty in summarizing a topic in English if it was explained in English.
10
745
2.86
1.319
I can retell a topic explained in English using my own English words.
9
747
2.78
1.239
I have difficulty in answering English questions I am asked in written form during science classes.*
6
754
2.65
1.344 I have difficulty in understanding the answers of questions when the teacher gives them in English in science classes.*
7
753
2.53
1.311 I have difficulty in understanding the English sources and materials used in science classes.*
11
748
2.49
1.268 Because Science subjects are in English we lag behind of the students in the other schools with Turkish medium instruction.*
15
760
2.43
1.278 I can learn the concepts in science courses only if they are explained in Turkish.*
18
794
2.40
1.339
I have difficulty in asking questions in English during science classes.*
4
745
2.38
1.280
I have difficulty in answering English questions I am asked orally during science classes.*
5
748
2.37
1.270
Having to learn both English and Turkish terms in science classes doubles the burden for me.*
13
770
2.19
1.377
I have difficulty in grasping the subject matter when the teacher explains it in English.*
2
761
2.17
1.246
The exams of science courses administered in English affects my exam performance negatively.*
19
767
2.14
1.288 I want the teacher to translate the subjects he explained in English into Turkish.*
3
750
2.06
1.149
That Science classes are in a foreign language makes it harder for me to retain the new terms and concepts I have learnt.*
14
772
2.00
1.198 That Science subjects are in English affects my achievement positively.
1
759
1.91
1.144
Instruction of science subjects in English encourages me to memorize.*
16
767
1.85
1.133
To be able to understand the questions which will appear in Turkish, I feel the need to prepare for Physics, Chemistry, Biology by using Turkish sources.*
12
780
1.44
.854 Note: Statements marked with an asterisk (*) have been reversed prior to computation. For accurate interpretation of result, the statements should be reversed meaningwise (e.g. “I have difficulty in grasping the subject matter when the teacher explains it in English” means “I don’t have difficulty in grasping the subject matter when the teacher explains it in English” )
147
Table 4.26
Students’ Perception of Influence of English-medium Instruction on Learning of the
Subject Matter in Math
Item Item no N Mean SD Foreign language-medium instruction makes it easy for me to reach information sources in math and technology written in this language (e.g. English).
17
696
2.94
1.329 I can rewrite a topic explained in English using my own English words.
8
681
2.78
1.256
I don’t have difficulty in summarizing a topic in English if it was explained in English.
10
680
2.78
1.300
I can retell a topic explained in English using my own English words.
9
681
2.71
1.262
I have difficulty in answering English questions I am asked orally during math classes.*
5
683
2.66
1.359 I have difficulty in understanding the English sources and materials used in math classes.*
11
688
2.65
1.332
I have difficulty in understanding the answers of questions when the teacher gives them in English in math classes.*
7
675
2.60
1.333 Because Math course is in English we lag behind of the students in the other schools with Turkish medium instruction.*
15
689
2.58
1.364 Instruction of math subjects in English encourages me to memorize.*
6
673
2.52
1.299
I have difficulty in asking questions in English during math classes.*
4
674
2.51
1.312
I can learn the concepts in math courses only if they are explained in Turkish.*
18
705
2.50
1.369
I have difficulty in grasping the subject matter when the teacher explains it in English.*
2
690
2.44
1.338
Having to learn both English and Turkish terms in math classes means double burden to me.*
13
695
2.34
1.381 The exams of math courses administered in English affects my exam performance negatively.*
19
585
2.33
1.391 I want the teacher to translate the subjects he explained in English into Turkish.*
3
691
2.31
1.248
That Math classes are in a foreign language makes it harder for me to retain the new terms and concepts I have learnt.*
14
696
2.19
1.278 Instruction of math subjects in English encourages me to memorize.*
16
689
2.19
1.279
That Math course is in English affect my achievement positively.
1
692
1.95
1.060
To be able to understand the question which will appear in Turkish, I feel the need to prepare for Math by using Turkish sources.*
12
708
1.66
1.102 Note: Statements marked with an asterisk (*) have been reversed prior to computation. For accurate interpretation of results, the statements should be reversed meaningwise (e.g. “I have difficulty in grasping the subject matter when the teacher explains it in English” means “I don’t have difficulty in grasping the subject matter when the teacher explains it in English” )
148
A paired sample t-test was conducted to evaluate whether students perceive
the influence of EMI on the learning process in science courses more positively than
that of EMI in math. The results indicated that the mean for the perception of the
influence of EMI on science courses (M = 42.24, SD = 1.09) was not significantly
greater than the mean for the perception of the influence of EMI on math ((M =
43.04 SD = 1.08), t = -1.76. This suggests that students do not perceive that English-
medium instruction to be influencing the instruction of science course differently
than they see it to be influencing the instruction of math. In other words, in terms of
influence on the learning of the subject matter, students perceive math and science
courses similarly.
From the perspective of teachers, the results relating to the instructional
process slightly differ. The means and standard deviations of each of the items on the
scale INSPRO are reported in Table 4.27. The range of means is between 3.68 and
1.56. The values show that teachers think that the influence of English-medium
instruction is positive as it provides ease to students in reaching foreign sources of
science and technology (item 17). They are undecided about some other aspects of
the learning process such as exam performance, understanding the concepts and
teacher’s answers, using academic skills in expressing the subject matter and using
English sources and materials (items, 19, 7, 18, 9, 10, 15, 11). They perceive the
influence of EMI on learning negatively on the other aspects, as they rated the
remaining of the items along the scale unfavorably. The results suggest that teachers
perceive that EMI influences students’ learning of the subject matter negatively or
neutrally.
149
Table 4.27
Teachers’ Perception of Influence of English-medium Instruction on Students’
Learning of the Subject Matter
Item Item no N M SD Foreign language-medium instruction makes it easy for students to reach information sources in my class and technology written in this language (e.g. English).
17
345
3.68
1.183 That students tend to memorize in my classes resultd from their study habits.
19
349
3.38
1.129
Students have difficulty in understanding the answers of questions when I give them in English in my classes.*
7
341
2.96
1.117 Students can learn the concepts in my course only if they are explained in Turkish.*
18
344
2.92
1.278
Students can retell a topic explained in English using their own English words.
9
342
2.92
1.114
Students don’t have difficulty in summarizing a topic in English if it was explained in English.
10
340
2.85
1.127
Because my course is in English we lag behind of the students in the other schools with Turkish medium instruction.*
15
347
2.84
1.298 Students have difficulty in understanding the English sources and materials used in my classes.*
11
343
2.63
1.165 Students have difficulty in answering English questions I ask in written form during my classes.*
6
348
2.55
1.174 That my classes are in a foreign language makes it harder for students to retain the new terms and concepts they have learnt.*
14
344
2.46
1.247 Instruction of subjects in English encourages students to memorize.*
16
345
2.44
1.293
Having to learn both English and Turkish terms in my classes doubles the burden for students.*
13
345
2.41
1.269
That my course is in English affects students’ achievement positively.
1
353
2.35
1.163
Students have difficulty in answering English questions I ask orally during my classes.*
5
346
2.25
1.064
Students have difficulty in grasping the subject matter when I explain it in English.*
2
350
2.20
1.125
Students have difficulty in asking questions in English during my classes.*
4
346
2.12
1.041
Students want me to translate the subjects I explained in English into Turkish.*
3
347
2.05
1.011
To be able to understand the questions which will appear in Turkish, students feel the need to prepare for my course by using Turkish sources.*
12
347
1.56
.815 Note: Statements marked with an asterisk (*) have been reversed prior to computation. For accurate interpretation of results, the statements should be reversed meaningwise (e.g. “Students have difficulty in grasping the subject matter when the teacher explains it in English” means “Students don’t have difficulty in grasping the subject matter when the teacher explains it in English” )
150
In addition to the data obtained from the scales, the open-ended questions that
followed each of the scales (INSPRO 1 [science] and INSPRO [math] 2) provided
insight into students’ perception about the influence of EMI on the learning process.
The students were asked to list the positive aspects of EMI as well as the negative
aspects of EMI. The teachers were asked similar open-ended questions in the last
part of the teacher questionnaire where they were asked to list the advantages and
disadvantages of holding their classes in English. The results obtained from each of
the groups are reported consecutively.
According to data analysis, responses of students to the open-ended questions
in the student survey questionnaire form are presented below:
To the questions about the positive sides of a science course conducted in
English or partially in English, 356 students (36.2%) provided answers. Eighty-five
(23.8%) of the 356 students directly wrote that no positive sides exist. The answers
that the others gave have been summarized as follows:
1. It is useful for research because research is usually done using English sources.
2. We can make use of sources of science and technology.
3. It enables interaction with other nations on scientific matters using the sources like
the Internet.
4. Language of science is English and this will help us benefit from science better.
EMI is useful scientifically even though it forces the student.
5. It familiarizes us with scientific terminology. . It is useful in learning universal
terms.
6. We can understand some terms in a scientific context, i.e. when a foreign scientist
speaks on TV. We can read some science and technology magazines and follow
documentaries in relevant contexts.
7. It is useful for contemporariness. It will help us catch up with science.
8. It can facilitate comprehension of some terms and concepts. It provides
comprehensive learning. Units and terms and some concepts are of English origin.
Some formulas are better retained as they are of English origin. Learning and using
terminology in English is better.
151
9. It is an investment for future; finding jobs will be easier and might be useful for
those planning for a higher education abroad.
10.It is useful / necessary for university especially for those planning to go to an EMI
university as it provides a foundation for university or functions as a preparation. It
can help us pass the English proficiency exam for the preparatory class at university.
It is useful to those who want to study in the areas of medicine and technology.
11.It gives self-confidence.
12. It encourages students to prepare for class.
In addition to the positive aspects mentioned above, some students reported
some conditional points. According to them EMI is useful:
1. if you plan to study abroad or to select a school of medicine
2. if you plan to become a scientist
3. if English teaching is sorted out
4. for learning English version of scientific terms and concepts
5. if a combination of Turkish and English teaching is applied.
Quite a few students indicated that EMI is useful for the university but
paradoxically ÖSS exam is in Turkish.
To the questions about the positive sides a math course conducted in English
or partially in English, 307 participants provided answers. One hundred and two of
them directly wrote “No positive sides at all”. The answers that the remaining
participants gave are very similar to the positive sides provided for science courses
(learning universally and following sources in science and technology) except for a
few points related to the intricacies of math. These have been summarized below:
1. It enables communication with math English at international platforms.
2. It enlarges our terminology stock and help us learn math terms easily.
3. We can understand articles and sources about math.
4. It provides ease in understanding and learning some concepts in math. Units and
terms are of English origin and math is full of English terms. English is helpful in
understanding the logic of a math lesson. The numerical and less conceptual nature
of math makes it easier and more appropriate for English instruction. It is more fun
to learn math in English.
152
5. It will be useful for academic life at university; especially for those who are
planning to study abroad, do master’s or study math or a technical major in the
future.
6. It enriches our culture.
In addition to the positive aspects mentioned above, some students reported
some conditional points. According to them EMI is useful in math:
1. only because of universal terms they learn
2. only because they learn some vocabulary
3. only if it is done partially it is a plus.
To the questions about the negative sides of a science course held in English or
partially in English, 315 students (32%) provided answers. The answers have been
summarized as follows:
1.Understanding the subject matter gets difficult. (While some students state that
they do not understand the subject matter at all, some say they can never “fully”
understand the subject matter. Using the word “grasp” some say grasping the essence
of the subject becomes impossible. Quite a few students state that it is already hard to
understand science concepts in Turkish and they never comprehend the topic when
the teacher introduces it for the first time. They said few students understand and
most cannot. Some said they can comprehend in their native language better).
2.We are learning English instead of science because it takes such a lot of effort to
decipher the language; we focus on English rather than science subjects.
3. We acquire limited knowledge because of the language barrier.
4. We cannot follow the lesson adequately as we have difficulty listening to the
lesson and learn properly.
5. Our interest in the lesson cools off, the lessons get boring and harder, therefore
motivation lessens.
6. It is a waste of time because we have to translate and eventually practice less.
7. It doubles the level of difficulty and stress of science lessons.
8. It encourages memorization. What we learn does not settle and we soon forget
what we memorize. Therefore it results in poor retention of the subject matter.
9. Having to learn the terminology and words is difficult, time-consuming and
confusing. Besides terminology is soon forgotten.
153
10.It decreases productivity of the lessons, reduces our conceptual and rhetorical
power as we have difficulty in expressing our ideas on paper, and decreases students’
ability to think, produce and create in the native language
11. It affects student achievement negatively and lowers our grades in exams because
sometimes we cannot solve the problems whose answers we know as we don’t
understand the question in English. It also reduces AOÖBP (Secondary Education
CGPA).
12. It widens the existing gap between the school and “dersane” (private courses).
13. We have difficulty in understanding Turkish questions. Therefore translation,
recourse to Turkish sources and dictionaries are needed, which takes up a lot of time.
14. It lessens one’s self-confidence and discourages question-asking in class.
15. It is a big disadvantage and not relevant to the existing ÖSS system.
16. Teachers lecture in Turkish, test in English, so we have to study the same topic
English at home, and study it back in Turkish for the “dersane” and ÖSS, ( which is
linked to time-loss, demotivation, confusion, exhaustion and memorization by some
students.)
17. We lag behind the students in mainstream high schools.
18. It is unfair to students with poorer English but successful in numerical subjects as
they under-perform because of English.
19. Not being able to finding and purchase expensive books is a disadvantage.
20. It is hard for the teachers, and lack of teachers’ competence in English impedes
our learning math and science.
To the questions about the negative sides a math course held in English or
partially in English, 363 students (36.9%) provided answers. The answers were
similar to the ones given for the science courses. These have been summarized as
follows:
154
1. Understand the subject matter in English is difficult. (Many students here indicate
that they don’t comprehend the lesson fully or full comprehension never occurs.
Some say that it takes longer time to comprehend).
2. Learning the subject matter is impeded. We learn superficially or cannot learn at
all. The crucial points specific to math go unlearnt. We pass without having
understood the subject. It hinders in-depth learning.
3. Subjects are already hard in English and this doubles level of difficulty.
4. Because we concentrate on terms, we miss out on the essence of subject and thus
fail in exams.
5. Self-expression and interpretation are affected negatively.
6. The lessons get boring, motivation level decreases and our interest in the lesson
cools off.
7. It encourages reliance on memorization. We memorize for exams.
8. It is a waste of time and effort. Math in English takes up the time that could be
allocated to ÖSS preparation. Extra time is needed for self-study (some say through
translation) and interpretation of the lesson. We ask teachers to translate into
Turkish. We solve fewer problems in longer time.
9. We lag behind the other students in other schools because classes in English slow
us down; the teacher lectures both in English and Turkish.
10. It is not fair for students who have poor English; some math wizards go
unnoticed because of their weak proficiency in English. Preparatory English does not
equip us with enough language competence to understand a totally new subject in
English. Those who have weaker English cannot understand the lesson or perform
well.
11.It causes underachievement in exams and our grades lower.
12. It works against us for ÖSS because ÖSS questions are in Turkish.
13. It is unnecessary, confusing and not relevant to the existing exam system, which
is Turkish-based.
14. The language of math is universal, so there is no need to study it in a second
language.
15.Language barrier affects our performance negatively. We fail to answer some
questions just because we cannot understand the problems in English.
16. Vocabulary and terminology get in the way and means extra burden.
155
17. It is difficult to remember and retain terms when they are in English.
18. Teachers cannot explain well in English, so we can’t learn.
Regarding the advantages of holding their classes in English the answers that
206 (53.7%) teachers have provided are summarized under the following categories
below:
1.Because English is akin to language of science it is useful with units, symbols and
connections; these are comprehended, sink in and are kept in mind more easily.
2. These areas, especially biology, are based on foreign-originated words --English
and Latin--; therefore, EMI facilitates the comprehension of these terms.
3. Students can make use of universal sources and the Internet easily.
4. It is an investment for the future. It is useful for students who plan to study
medicine in the future or in many jobs they will choose from in the future. Students
are exempt from the preparatory programs at universities. It provides ease for those
who will continue their studies in English-medium institutions
5. Students are encouraged to do research. Research opportunities increase.
6. It enhances thinking in English.
7. Students understand all that is written about science and technology more easily
and can follow the literature and advances in science and technology. They learn the
language of science and technology.
8. It provides a medium for communication through English and easy communication
through the Internet and different communication methods.
9. The lessons can be exploited with more universal methods.
10. It fosters students’ positive approach to foreign sources.
11. It broadens students’ horizons and increases adaptability to settings outside
Turkey.
12. Because students have to read the English version over and over again, the
knowledge is better retained. Formulas are better retained too.
13. Students can understand the common words (cognates) in Turkish in science
fields, especially medicine.
14. It increases the command of language and terminology.
156
15.It increases ability to understand and power to think and students’ capacity. It also
enhances ability to express oneself.
16. It destroys the flexibility of Turkish with some words.
17. It enhances concentration on the lesson.
18. Students perceive themselves more advantageous, privileged and prestigious,
which increases success.
19. It helps students to build up more self-confidence.
According to 330 teacher participants (86.1 %) who answered these open-
ended questions, the disadvantages of holding their classes in English are:
1. Learning is impeded due to inadequate English proficiency of teacher and student.
2. Students have difficulty in understanding the lesson. Full comprehension of the
lesson and text doesn’t occur. Nuances in comprehension are lost. A new concept
that students have to reflect on is introduced in a language other than the mother
tongue.
3. Instructional process gets more difficult and slows down. Besides it decreases the
productivity of the lesson.
4. Teaching of the subject matter is impeded. It delays comprehension of the topic by
students. The lesson is expressed briefly and details cannot be covered. It cannot be
explained clearly. The examples that are given have to be limited.
5. Not knowing enough science vocabulary and terminology makes it difficult to
understand the subject matter for students.
6. It encourages memorization and spoil students’ concentration.
7. It is time-consuming in the sense that it takes up more class time for us to explain –
repetitions are needed- and it prolongs the comprehension time and there is not
enough time left to attend to students individually.
8. The motivation level of students is lowered; students feel overwhelmed and begin
with an apprehensive approach. It makes subjects such as mathematics more dreadful
for students. Besides, students panic when exams are in Turkish.
9. Negative attitudes of students: Students’ prejudice against EMI because of false
propaganda and the concern about retardation of the Turkish language. Students
157
insist that the classes are held in English. Some students don’t find this natural and
feeling of alienation emerges, which is disturbing.
10.Negative attitude of parents: Parents are not happy with EMI and they insist that
classes be held in Turkish. They are concerned for ÖSS and attribute laziness to the
instructional language.
11. Due to inadequate English students have difficulty at comprehension, application
and interpretation levels.
12. Difficulty in writing, speaking, and in self-expression emerge.
13. It hinders thinking and creativity.
14. Sufficient interaction and activeness in the classroom cannot be maintained.
15. There is a lack of communication with students. We cannot reach students well
enough.
16.Students with weaker English have difficulty in following the lesson.
Linguistically (foreign language), classes are not homogeneous.
17. Students who don’t like English, cool off from math too.
18. Finding and preparing exams in English is a problem.
19. Books and materials are too costly to purchase, hard to find and not varied. We
cannot find many high quality sources in our areas suitable for high school.
20. ÖSS requires preparation in Turkish. It reduces the preparation speed for ÖSS.
We cannot provide instruction in the direction of ÖSS. Students tend to use Turkish
test books for ÖSS.
21.Since students study in Turkish in “dersane”s, English at schools leads to
confusion and lowering achievement.
22.The lessons get monotonous and boring.
For the first sub-question related to the students’ learning of the subject
matter, the interviews with students and teachers provided additional insights.
According to the content analysis of the interviews the influence English-medium
instruction on the learning of the subject matter fall under 11 broad categories: These
are: 1) the learning and teaching of math and science courses in English in terms of
contributions, 2) the learning and teaching of math and science courses in English in
terms drawbacks, 3) mixed-mode teaching and frequency of use of Turkish, 4)
interaction during class, 5) following the lesson and listening comprehension, 6)
158
understanding and grasping the subject matter ,7) ability to summarize and rephrase,
8) exams and exam performance, 9) learning vs. memorization, retention, translation.
10) sources, 11) and nature of the course/subject.
Although these categories overlap with those presented for the first second
and third of the research questions to the first main research question, which
explored the underlying reasons for favoring and not favoring EMI, some additional
categories have emerged and more detail about the instructional process will be
reported. In the presentation of the results, first the perceptions of students and then
the perceptions of teachers will be presented under the same category title where data
is available.
1. Contributions of learning and teaching math and science courses through English:
All of the students stated that they have witnessed no contributions of EMI to their
learning of the subject matter in Math and Science courses. Only one student stated
that he believed there would certainly be some if they had better trained teachers
with proficient English. The student with a neutral attitude towards EMI stated that
although it does not matter to him whether the courses are taught in English or
Turkish said that so far he has not seen any plusses of EMI probably because there
have not been any opportunities to see the advantages of it. One of the students said
the only benefit has been in the area of English proficiency, while another said that
university education will be in English after the preparatory schools, therefore, we
can speak of its contributions will be seen in the future, but it does not contribute to
that particular course. The student who strongly opposed EMI stated that EMI is not
relevant to him because he has to learn the terminology of a course (biology) which
does not interest him at all. His interest lies in computer terminology as his goal is a
career in computer science. Another student stated that the contribution of EMI
depends on the lesson. He stated that it is useful in math, since they familiarize you
with the English terminology, but not in science, which is full of too many terms to
remember.
As for the teachers, only one of the teachers (chemistry) spoke of a
contribution relevant to the teaching and learning process. She stated that studying
math and science contributes to the listening ability of the students in general
because they learn listening actively and, watching people attentively. Another
159
benefit she mentioned was that the students gain self-confidence and performed
better in extra-curricular activities that involve use of foreign language.
2. Drawbacks of learning and teaching math and science courses through English:
Two of the students and one of the teachers stated that see no drawbacks. Although
only one student labeled it as a drawback most of the students stated that they do and
have to do a lot of memorization. Two of the students stated that mixed-mode
teaching (teaching both in English and Turkish) is confusing. She said: “Although
they speak English, they lecture in Turkish in general. We use Turkish but write in
English. Of course there remain some question marks. Because we cannot keep in
mind what teacher says word by word, we doubt whether we can remember the
subject when we write the English version… it is more of a risk when he lectures in
Turkish but writes in English”.
The math teacher stated that whether drawbacks exist depends on the topic
and task; there are no problems with operations with figures and symbols, but with
problem-solving problems arise because when the student does not understand the
problem he loses his chance altogether. Those students who would attempt to solve
the problem does not attempt at all if it is in English. She also points out that interest
of students is decreasing. The field choice of some students would be “verbal” or
“foreign language” at ÖSS and they take math because they have to. She added” On
the top of that, you try to teach them math is in English. Would you listen yourself?
In other words attention is distracted too much”. One of the students also said that
interest decreases and cannot concentrate well enough to follow the lesson.
Another point is that EMI was easier and less problematic in the past; no
problems of comprehending and lecturing existed in the old days of Anatolian high
schools because the students were more interested either because of their enthusiasm
to learn or because of the fact that they were younger. The math teacher said that
quality of instruction was higher in the days of the former system because they
would lay the foundation at Anatolian high school and train them well until high
school. Another teacher (chemistry) also mentioned that students who come from the
new eight-year “İlköğretim” are much weaker; they are too weak for a successful
implementation of EMI. In the former system where Anatolian high schools was
seven years, their students would be shaped and get the study discipline at an early
160
age. But when the new eight-year “İlköğretim” program began to be implemented,
weaker students filled the schools.
The chemistry teacher also stated that she would end up in a disaster if she
were to hold classes in English in her present school but her previous school was a
special one with exclusively bright students having a gift for languages. EMI worked
perfectly well and smoothly and it did not pose any problems then. The ideas of the
chemistry and the math teachers suggest that whether EMI has a drawback on the
teaching and learning process depends on the characteristics and background of
students.
One of the teachers (Biology) stated that when the classes are done in
English, the level of difficulty of the subject matter is doubled. She said this is true of
biology in particular, which is really hard and unpopular among the most hard-
working students since new subjects always build up on the former ones and are full
of unfamiliar terms.
3. Mixed-mode teaching and frequency of use of Turkish.
Except for a student who studies math and science subjects partially in English at the
time of the interview, none of the interview participants, neither students, nor
teachers reported to be engaged in instruction of math and science courses in English
at the time of the interview. The data obtained from the survey questionnaire also
revealed that the current intensity of English use in math and science courses from
the perspective of teachers and students is rather low (see Appendix S).
All of the teacher participants had quit teaching through English due to
various reasons such as changing student profile/school, the decision of the principal,
pressure of students. Two of the teachers have used English extensively during their
classes in the past. One of them stated that he used no Turkish in his first class in
English, which was a shock, as he puts it, to his students, but then he diluted his
classes with some Turkish and students got used to English after a while anyway.
The other teacher reported having used Turkish only in topics of remarkable
difficulty (such as “balance” in chemistry) when students were too tired to
concentrate. One of the two remaining teachers stated that she would use English for
the last 15 minutes of class, while the other reported having taught her classes
161
through English for only one month. In brief, all of the teachers exploited lessons
both in English and in Turkish but the degree and frequency of Turkish use differed.
According to the data obtained from the students, one way or another all of
the students were engaged in mixed-mode teaching in the past when they had EMI in
the middle school. Some of the students reported that when they were holding the
lessons in English, the teacher would put the title on board in English, lecture in
Turkish for the most part and write on black board in English. They would copy the
material on board onto their notebooks and would be tested in English in exams.
Some of the students stated that the teachers sometimes lecture in English and
sometimes in Turkish. The student with a neutral approach to EMI stated that mixed
mode lessons were not very comfortable for himself -and probably not for the teacher
as he was lecturing in Turkish and dictating in English.
4. Interaction during class
According to the students, interaction occurred both in English and Turkish, too, or
only in Turkish. For the most part, classroom interaction was not affected adversely
by English because both the teachers and students resorted to Turkish for asking and
answering questions about the lesson.
Only one of the students stated that some of his teachers did not allow
question-asking in Turkish. Two other students stated that they never asked questions
in English and the answers always came in Turkish. Only one of the students
reported “no difficulty” in interacting in English during class. He said he was able to
ask questions in class with no difficulty. Another student he was having times of
difficulty and had to make a lot of repetitions, which stems from differences in
proficiency levels in class. Referring to the effect of teacher’s competence in
English, another student said “Truthfully, our teachers did not know so well. Since
they did not know so well, they could not teach very well. Take me as an example.
Though I loved English, I would ask questions in Turkish”.
Two points mentioned by students is that students do not have perfect English
after the English preparatory program to be able to interact in English and that
formulation of the question takes longer time in English as it is a foreign language
after all.
162
5. Following the lesson and listening comprehension
Most of the student respondents reported some difficulty in comprehending the
subject matter, which vary in degree. Only one of the students stated that he had no
difficulty in following the lesson because he had no problem with English and the
teacher was very fluent with a beautiful accent. He added that though he was not
having difficulty himself his classmates with poorer English did not feel very
comfortable but this problem would be overcome with teacher’s switching to
Turkish, which took about 5 minutes and did not retard them. On the other side, one
of the students who strongly opposed EMI stated that he had great difficulty in
following the teacher lecture but he was able to follow when the teacher speaks well
and had no accent. This suggests that the teachers’ competence and fluency can be a
factor that may determine students’ ability to follow the lesson.
The unknown and terminology is another issue brought up by some students.
One of them stated that there are about 100 unknown or unfamiliar words in a lesson
if detected. It is impossible to follow the lesson because he cannot even guess them
from context. Therefore, to be able to follow the lesson easily one has to come to
class having prepared for the lesson and searched dictionaries to study the unknown
words, which is impossible given the time constraints and frustrating for him.
Another student stated that they miss some words as they are listening and predicting
the upcoming sentences was sometimes not easy.
Some of the students reported concentration difficulties when listening to the
lesson. One of them said this could sometimes decrease level of interest of students,
however, they would overcome the problem by careful listening. Almost all of the
students mentioned that they would have been listening and following the lesson
with much more ease if it were in Turkish. The student who reported no difficulty
said that Turkish would be easier saying “We are using Turkish for 24 hours after
all”.
6. Understanding concepts and grasping the subject matter
Students, on the whole, did not report difficulties in grasping the subject matter since
they stated that teacher explained difficult subjects in Turkish. The physics teacher
verified this by saying he taught simple topics in English and difficult topics in
Turkish and did not lecture in English for the sake of doing it and at the expense of
163
students’ comprehension. He used his own experience, which made him a sense that
students did not comprehend and thus used his discretion.
However, student reported difficulties when the lecturing is done in English.
A recurring theme is the knowledge of the words and relevant terms. They might be
missing the gist of the lesson when there is an unknown word. They needed to know
the terms since, as one student puts it, “indispensable” for a lesson in English. One of
the students stated that he had comprehension difficulties during the lesson but this
was natural. He added
“… because the language is unfamiliar to you… but, having learnt those words and
terms, you can understand. Very smoothly…. English-proficient students can do very
well if they have the knowledge of terms”.
Another theme that emerged is “the nature of the subject” in question. The
degree of comprehension of students depended on the course. One student said
English made learning much more difficult for natural science subjects but did not
matter for math. He stated that the concepts in science courses, especially biology
abounds in many unfamiliar concepts already hard to grasp in Turkish. He would
memorize biology without understanding.
One of the teachers stated that students tended to memorize structures. He
gave this to their low level of English and tried to discourage it but failed. He added
that they are memorizing Turkish structures anyway. They did not comprehend but
rattled off memorized sentences when asked. Another teacher (biology) emphasized
the challenging nature of biology, which is full of interrelated topics and which needs
interpretation. Students do not understand at all when biology is in English.
The capacity of the students is another factor brought up by some of the
teachers. Students with lower capacity have difficulty in understanding a lesson held
in English more than the students with higher capacity. (This issue was reported
above under the category of drawbacks). The level of proficiency in English is said to
affect the level of comprehension. One of the students stated that they could not
understand so well during the middle school and had to spend a lot of effort but if
EMI were to continue in high school, it would not be so hard because their
proficiency level has increased. He had difficulty in middle school because his
English was not so good.
164
Clear and full understanding is another emerging issue. The same student
(mentioned above) also pointed out that he never understood clearly during the
lesson and he had to force himself to understand at home. He explained that he
normally tries and does grasp the topic during the lesson. Also, he stated he was able
to grasp concepts with their label. For example “convection” stays in his mind as
“convection”. However, he had difficulty recognizing the concepts when he came
across with their Turkish equivalent in “dersane” or a course book in Turkish. As
pointed out elsewhere, most of the students stated that when the teacher is lecturing
or explaining a topic in English it is never as easy as it is to understand the same
thing in Turkish.
7. Ability to summarize and rephrase
Student respondents were asked whether they were able to rephrase and summarize
what they have learnt in English. Different responses came from different students.
As far as rephrasing is concerned, two of the students reported they were rephrasing
when needed easily. One of them said “it was our job to rephrase. We knew that we
would not be asked in exactly the same sentences in the exam”. One of the students
stated that they would not need any rephrasing at all because they were self-studying
in Turkish.
About summarizing, the former stated that it was harder to do as summarizing
as it required knowledge of all the words in that context and she could do it partially.
But she was totally capable of retelling and rephrasing. Two of the students reported
difficulty in rephrasing and summarizing. One said the teacher could do it since he
knew the terms well and can readily translate into English while the students could
not. He added that he had difficulty in writing down what is in his mind because the
terms pose a problem. The other student, similarly, stated that it was very difficult to
rephrase since math and science subjects are vocabulary-laden; it is hard to retrieve
the words although the structures are more easily settle. He added that you can
partially retell a topic in English if it is an already familiar topic but if it has been
explained in English before it is harder. Briefly, the answers the students suggest the
difficulties might have arisen from the vocabulary load.
8. Exams and exam performance
165
One effect of EMI reported by students was decrease in the exam performance.
Comprehending the question and time were two concerns expressed by the students.
One of the students underscored that he always lost time in exams trying to
understand the question. Another said that Turkish enables better comprehension of
the questions in exam. To be able to do the question one needs to comprehend the
question first. Again only one student reported no difficulty. He said having grasped
the topic he was able to express it easily. For example, he was studying Turkish
math books and physics test books for preparation and was able to reflect his true
performance in math and science exams in English. Another student stated it did not
matter for math but in science courses, for example in physics exams English can be
problematic.
Some of the students stated that they would consequently receive lower
scores. On the other hand, one of the students said they would score lower because of
English but “would succeed in real life”. Two of the students reported high grades in
the exams but not as a result of learning but as a result of memorization. One said
“memorization was enough for the exam but not in real life because I would forget
all soon after the exam.”
The mismatch between the language of exam and the language of teaching is
another issue related to exam and exam performance. This will be dealt under the
title translation ahead.
9. Learning vs. memorization, retention, translation
A frequent word that students used was memorization. One of the students reported
that he could see his friends memorizing without grasping the logic behind it,
although they would score high in exams. He said he had to memorize and write
many things in exams he did not learn. Another said it is useless to memorize
without grasping the logic, but English led him to memorize and retain the
information poorly. One of the students complained seriously about lack of retention
and having to memorize. Another student with a positive approach to EMI said she
had to do a lot of memorization without understanding especially for the biology
class. For this reason, she could not learn anything at all.
Because the students were having difficulties in learning the subject matter,
some of them resorted to translation from English to Turkish or from Turkish to
166
English when they were studying by themselves. Except for two of the students, all
the students stated that they needed translation at some point. This might depend on
the exam. As one student put it, “if I translated and studied accordingly, the exam
will be in English again…. I assumed it would muddle my mind”. So, I would read
them read them sentence by sentence over and over again at home”. One comment
from another student is “I felt the need to translate after a lesson in Turkish,
wondering why this lesson is Turkish because I had to translate and memorize the
English version for the exam”.
The need to translate might also depend on the studying strategies of the
student. For example, another student stated just the opposite. He said he needed to
translate so as to grasp and interpret, not memorize. He self-studied always in
Turkish: he said “ ...if it is memorized, it means nothing to me”. An observation of
another student is that her peers whose English was poor worried about translation
of questions, without comprehending the subject matter.
10. Sources
In connection with Turkish sources and materials five of the six student participants
reported no difficulty. One of them said he had difficulty in biology to some extent.
Another said Turkish versions of the same subjects sound strange first but then they
get used to it. With English sources, one of students reported difficulty; he was only
partially comprehending from English sources and he could interpret and understand
the same subject matter from Turkish sources better despite scarcity of identical
sources.
11. Nature of courses/subjects
When asked which school subjects that can be taught in English, most of the student
respondents stated only positive science and math courses can be taught in English.
One of them stated only natural science course in middle school and biology can be
English but she does not want physics, chemistry to be English. Two of the
respondents opposed teaching of math in English. One sees having math in English is
167
not functional as and there is not much in the terms of English. Similarly, another
student said math contains symbols mostly therefore it futile to teach it in English.
The students were asked whether other subjects should be taught in English.
One protested the ideas altogether saying he would “drop out” if other courses were
English too, and the others said social subjects should never be taught in English.
Only one of the students stated among the social science subjects, perhaps geography
could be taught in English as it is more scientific and includes terms. On the other
hand, another student stated that neither history, nor geography should be in English.
In geography they study the geography of Turkey after all, therefore it has to be
Turkish.
As for the teachers, the opinions varied. While the math and biology teacher
argued that EMI should be abolished altogether, the chemistry and physics teacher
stated that positive science can be taught in English, there is no need for other
subjects to be taught in English. The reasons that one gave was that positive sciences
are universal and rules are clear-cut, whereas subjects such as law and public
administration are flexible and different for every country, and there is not a common
terminology.
4.5.1.1 Summary of Perceptions of the Influence of EMI on Learning of the
Subject Matter
The results of data obtained from all data sources suggest that according to
the perceptions of students and teachers, EMI influences learning process a negative
way. Quantitative data showed that except for a few aspects of EMI that students are
not decided about (i.e. the benefit of EMI in reaching information sources in English
and ease in the use of English skills in academic writing), students perceive influence
of EMI on learning process as negative). Also, the statistics showed that EMI
influences the learning of math and science subjects equally from the viewpoint of
students. Teachers responded negatively to EMI on most of the learning-related
issues. Teachers perceive EMI positively only in one aspect: EMI enables students to
reach written sources of science and technology. They are not very decided whether
giving math and science exams in English affects students’ exam performance unlike
students who believe their exam performance is adversely affected.
168
As perceived by students and teachers, the negative influence of EMI occurs
in retention of the newly-learnt material, comprehension and student achievement. It
also leads to memorization and difficulty in learning concepts. Students have to
resort to Turkish sources, translate, work more, and are covering less material in
more time.
The results of the qualitative data validate the above-listed results obtained
from the quantitative data. It also adds to depth and breadth to the quantitative
findings: Regarding the positive sides of holding math and science class in English,
students and teachers reported that EMI enables them to interact in language of
science, to do research on science and technology, to understand foreign sources, to
acquire scientific terminology, and to comprehend scientific concepts and formulas
better. According to teachers, it also makes students more attentive to the lesson and
gives self-confidence, which are supposedly conducive to learning.
On the negative side, students and teacher have most frequently referred to
comprehension and learning difficulties. In their view, full and clear understanding
of the subject matter does not occur. The pace and amount of learning and instruction
go down; students lose interest and motivation; the level of difficulty increases;
memorization is encouraged; retention and acquisition of both knowledge and
terminology gets difficult. Consequently, as reported by students rather than teachers,
the achievement of students lowers. (Some student interviewees did not report lower
performance as they said they memorize for exams and thus get high grades).
Besides students fear that EMI might lower their performance in ÖSS.
Academic skills such as rephrasing and paraphrasing of the subject matter are
not easily employed according to perceptions of students and teachers. In addition,
there are motivational constraints posed by ÖSS; that ÖSS questions are in Turkish
which puts students off from EMI. The students and parents pressurize teachers to
use Turkish as medium of instruction. As reported by students, interaction seldom
occurs in the target language. Mixed mode teaching is preferred, which is confusing
and time-consuming for students and require strategies such as translation. The
nature of the course is related to the learning of the subject matter, too. Difficulties
of EMI increase in vocabulary-laden subjects such as biology as opposed to math,
which is numerical (although relevance and usefulness of teaching math through
English were questioned by some participants). Furthermore, teachers stated and
169
students who are competent in English are few and far between, and students stated
that teachers who are competent in English are few and far between.
4.5.2 Perceptions of the Influence of EMI on Students’ Linguistic Skills
The second sub-question was “Does English-medium instruction influence
the linguistic skills of students according to students’ and teachers’ perceptions?”.
To explore this problem, again results from three sources were used. 1) The results of
the survey questionnaire based both the part 3 scale 2 “LING” (items 20-25) rated by
students and teachers, 2) the remarks made to the open-ended questions by these
groups about the instructional process at the end of the questionnaire (additional
comments section).
The results of quantitative data obtained from the students, the means and
standard deviations of each item on the scale LING are reported in Table 4.28 and
Table 4.29 respectively. The range of means for science courses 3.05 and 2.48, and
for math is 3.12 and 2.48. These indicate that students were neutral about the
influence of EMI on linguistic skills gained in science subjects and in math. In other
words, students cannot decide whether EMI has a positive influence on the
development of “Turkish” proficiency and on the development of language skills in
English such as reading, listening, and writing. The results suggest, however,
students do not believe that EMI both in math and science courses improves
students’ grammar in English (The mean value for item 20 is 2.48 for math and
science, which is below, 2.61).
170
Table 4.28
Students’ Perceptions of Influence of English-medium Instruction on their Linguistic
Skills in Science Courses
Item Item no N M SD
Studying science subjects in English prevents me from improving my Turkish.*
25
771
3.05
1.458
Studying science subjects in English improves my reading comprehension skill in English.
22
768
3.05
1.348 Studying science subjects in English improves my listening comprehension skill in English.
21
769
2.98
1.354 Studying science subjects in English improves my writing skill in English.
23
767
2.94
1.337
Studying science subjects in English improves my speaking skill in English.
24
769
2.89
1.341
Studying science subjects in English improves my grammar in English.
20
765
2.48
1.343
* indicates scores on this item have been reversed prior to computation
Table 4.29
Students’ Perceptions of Influence of English-medium Instruction on their Linguistic
Skills in Math
Item Item no N Mean SD
Studying math in English prevents me from improving my Turkish.*
25
714
3.12
1.473
Studying math in English improves my reading comprehension skill in English.
22
708
2.82
1.339 Studying math in English improves my listening comprehension skill in English.
21
706
2.78
1.351 Studying math in English improves my writing skill in English.
23
707
2.72
1.304
Studying math in English improves my speaking skill in English.
24
708
2.70
1.314
Studying math in English improves my grammar in English.
20
689
2.40
1.292
* indicates scores on this item have been reversed prior to computation
The order of the means and standard deviations for language skills is identical
for science courses and math. To evaluate whether students perceive the influence of
EMI on the linguistic skills in science courses more positively than that of in a math
171
course, a paired sample t-test was conducted. The results indicated that the mean for
the perception of the influence of EMI in science courses on linguistic skills (M =
17.09, SD = 6.50) was significantly greater than the mean for the perception of the
influence of EMI on linguistic skills in math (M = 16.21, SD = 6.57, t = -6.18,
p<0.01. The mean difference was -.87 points between the two 5-point Likert ratings
for math and science courses, which is a small value. There is evidence to suggest
that students perceive the linguistic gains EMI provide in science courses as more
positive than the influence of EMI in math.
The means and standard deviations of LING scale items rated by teachers
suggest that teachers are more positive about the influence of EMI on students’
linguistic skills because the means range from 3.04 to 3.43 (Table 4.30). While the
teachers perceive the influence of EMI on listening and reading skills as positive,
they are not sure that EMI improves students’ speaking and grammar (The mean
values for items 24, 25 and 20 are 3.34, 3.16, and 3.04 respectively. Nor are they
decided whether EMI influences the development of Turkish. In terms of influence
of EMI on Turkish, the results indicate that teachers agree with students (The mean
value is 3.12 on item 25 for both groups.). Regarding the writing skill, the perceived
influence of EMI can be interpreted as being either neutral or positive (M= 3.40)
Table 4.30
Teachers’ Perceptions of Influence of EMI on Students’ Linguistic Skills
Item Item no N Mean SD Studying the subject in English improves students’ listening comprehension skill in English.
21
343
3,43
1,155 Studying the subject in English improves student’s reading comprehension skill in English.
22
345
3,42
1,181 Studying the subject in English improves students’ writing skill in English.
23
342
3,40
1,179 Studying the subject in English improves students’ speaking skill in English.
24
342
3,34
1,170 Studying the subject in English prevents students from improving their Turkish.*
25
343
3,16
1,218 Studying the subject in English improves students’ grammar in English.
20
345
3,04
1,237 * indicates scores on this item have been reversed prior to computation
172
Regarding the influence of EMI on students’ linguistic skills, additional data
were drawn from the answers given to the open-ended questions about the
instructional process. As reported in 4. 1.5, the “positive aspects and negative
aspects” sections were answered by 363 students (36.9%) and 206 (36. 9%) teachers.
Some statements relating to the influence of EMI on students’ English
proficiency appeared in these comments. The students’ comments how EMI
influences their English overlapped to a great extent in answers for science and math
courses. The responses are summarized below:
The students stated that as a result of EMI in science courses, they gain certain
language skills in English. First, a science course in English helps students improve
their competence in English and reinforces their knowledge of the language and it
provides more practice. They stated that in this way they are learning English in
other contexts than daily speech and the domains for English use increases. It
improves sentence making ability and ability to learn the language better. In addition
a science course in English helps them grasp the language better. Furthermore, they
stated that it enlarges their vocabulary stock and using the field-specific terms helps
them achieve universality, too. Thus, they are familiarized with the language of
science.
As regards a math course, the students again stated that a math course in
English improves competence in English as it provides more practice. It also
increases fluency in speech; develops attentive listening (you have to listen to the
lesson more attentively than normal) and reading comprehension. Besides, it
enlarges vocabulary stock and develops field-specific vocabulary. It also improves
ability of sentence-making and grammatical competence. It was also stated by some
students that EMI provides more contact with English and helps students to retain
their knowledge of English.
Concerning the influence of EMI both for math and science courses on their
language skills, several students mentioned Turkish. In summary, they stated that
science and math courses distance students from Turkish/ the native language, or
prevent them from laying a sound foundation of the Turkish language and from
improving their Turkish. Some students stated it helps only with vocabulary
acquisition in English.
173
From the responses that teachers provided, similar themes emerged. These are
listed below:
Positive influences are:
1.Active listening, reading and writing abilities in English improve.
2. The constant use of English and repetitions prevents students from
forgetting English.
3. Both the students and teachers benefit from EMI in terms of their English.
4. It provides an opportunity for language practice and use.
Negative influences are:
1.It “only” helps with development of English Only language competence
improves
2. The scientific discourse mixes up with daily speech.
The results of the interviews revealed that reading comprehension and
vocabulary acquisition are two most important linguistic skills positively influenced
by English-medium instruction. Most of the students stated that the most developed
skills were reading and vocabulary rather than writing, speaking and listening
although some reported partial development on these skills due to EMI.
Three of the students stated that EMI was useful to their reading
comprehension and use of words in English. One of the students stated that her
reading in English has got much faster and fluent due to the English used in science
and math classes. Another said she had to do such a lot of reading that her reading
certainly got better.
Nevertheless, the remark that two students made about the enrichment of
vocabulary somewhat contradicts with the opinions of others. They said that they
learn field-specific vocabulary rather than general vocabulary. One of them stated
that the English used in class is not useful in daily life except when doing research,
using the Internet for homework and talking to teacher in class about the lesson. He
is unlikely to use a biology term in daily life unless it is his area. It is useful only for
temporary vocabulary acquisition; he retained only some of the words but forgot
most of the terms. The other student stated that EMI is useful in the sense that you
174
develop your ear for the language a little bit, but there is not so much general
vocabulary. He pointed out that they learn, for the most part, terminological jargon,
not the vocabulary used in daily life.
On the other hand, one of the students believed that language competence in
English is most probably changing for the better and EMI improves your English
without you knowing it since it is a subconscious process. When you see a familiar
word in a different context than math and science, you can deduce the meaning easily
and accurately. Another student stated that she learnt many words (but she forgot
most of them since they are no longer holding classes in English).
All of the teachers stated their opinions about the influence of EMI on
students’ linguistic skills but their opinions varied. One of them, the physics teacher
stated that students are learning discourse of science English; not only the relevant
words but also the specific grammar of science English alongside that of general
English. Consequently, they can reach a level to follow a field-specific text in
science. The chemistry teacher said that they improve listening skills and writing
fluently, too. Most importantly, vocabulary improves a lot. The biology teacher
stated that she believed there would surely be linguistic gains if teachers are
competent and students have a solid background. She said she believed vocabulary
and reading would improve a lot. Other skills would certainly improve. If there is no
improvement it would mainly result from teacher’s deficiencies. The mathematic
teachers stated that she did not believe English competence would improve in her
course since in math simple tense and numeric operations are common and there is
not much need for sentence-making or interaction.
4.5.2.1 Summary of Perceptions of the Influence of EMI on Linguistic Skills
In the light of the qualitative data obtained from the interviews and the open-
ended questions of the survey questionnaire, it can be concluded that students and
teachers believe that the most positive influence of EMI was on reading and
vocabulary in the target language with respect to linguistic skills.
The results of the LING scale indicated that neither students nor teachers
perceive the effect of EMI to be positive, but they do not perceive it negatively,
either. Relatively speaking, the Turkish proficiency of the students is perceived to
receive the least negative influence from EMI. In terms of English proficiency, the
175
most positive influence occurs in the area of reading among the other skills. The
ordering of the skills in terms of perceived influence of EMI in a science courses
does not vary from that of a math course. According to the comparative statistics,
students’ perceptions of the linguistic influence of EMI on science courses were
slightly more positive than their perceptions of the linguistic influence of EMI on a
math course.
In general, in the interviews and the open-ended questions both students and
teachers reported a positive influence. They pointed out that EMI improves English
competence of students. More specifically, according to students and teachers,
sentence-making ability; English use in the domain of science and technology; field-
specific vocabulary; reading comprehension improves and scientific discourse is
learnt as different from daily discourse in English. In addition, listening ability is
enhanced since students learn to listen attentively to speech while the teacher is
lecturing. While the results of open-ended questions did not highlight a particular
skill, the student respondents of the interview emphasized reading and vocabulary as
being the most important linguistic gains of EMI, although some of the students
stated that they have forgotten the vocabulary they learnt in grades 6, 7, and 8.
4.5.3 Teachers’ Perceptions of the Influence of EMI on their Teaching
Performance
The third sub-question was related to the influence of EMI on teachers’
teaching performance. The means and standard deviation of each of the items along
the survey scale TEACHER (Part 3 Scale3) is reported in table 4.31. The means for
influence of EMI on teachers’ teaching performance ranges from 2.67 to 4.29. The
most positively rated item is “I consider myself as a competent teacher in my area”
and the least positively rated item is “I am happy about teaching in a foreign
language”. These suggest that teachers perceive themselves competent in their area,
but they are not feeling very positive about teaching in a foreign language. Also, on
the scale, one of the neutrally rated items was: “Teaching in a foreign language has a
negative effect on my teaching performance” whose scores were reversed. The result
shows that, as regards the effect of EMI on their teaching performance (item 3),
teachers are not very positive, but they are not negative either (M =2.97, SD =
1.306). The mean values of about half of the items (items, 5, 6, 4, 3, 11, 2, 12) on the
176
scale fall into the range of 2.61 and 3.4, thus indicate undecidedness. The other items
were rated positively by teachers (items 1, 9, 10, 7, 8). These suggest that teachers do
not think EMI influences their teaching performance negatively but positively or
neutrally.
Table 4.31
Teachers’ Perception of Influence of English-medium Instruction on their Teaching
Performance
Item Item no N M SD
I consider myself as a competent teacher in my area.
1
350
4.29
.884
I can prepare the tests I want to give easily.
9
342
3.71
1.092
I have no difficulty in understanding English sources written my area.
10
344
3.67
1.101 I have no difficulty in understanding students’ English statements.
7
343
3.45
1.138 I can rewrite and /or summarize a subject in my area.
8
343
3.44
1.140
I have no difficulty in asking question in my course (maths/ science).
5
342
3.35
1.211 I can easily explain subjects in my class using my own words in English.
6
345
3.25
1.221 I find my knowledge and skills in English adequate enough to hold classes in English.
4
342
3.16
1.230 Teaching in a foreign language has a negative effect on my teaching performance.*
3
344
2.97
1.306 When I have to interact in daily speech during class I can easily do that.
11
342
2.96
1.165 Teaching in a foreign language gains me prestige in the eye of my colleagues.
2
349
2.93
1.180 I am happy about teaching lessons in a foreign language.
12
343
2.67
1.313
Note: Scores on statements marked with an asterisk (*) have been reversed prior to computation.
177
From the answers given to the open-ended questions, some statements as
regards teachers’ perception of influence of EMI on their teaching performance were
drawn in the same manner as the previous sub-question. According to the results,
teachers reported the following positive and negative influences:
Positive influence:
1. It is easier to lecture in English because I studied in an English-medium
institution.
2. I happen to improve my English. It is useful to the teacher in terms of language
3. proficiency. I update my English and keep it alive.
4. I can follow new advances from the sources. The teacher improves himself better.
5. I get extra pay.
6. Sometimes it is easier to explain a term in English.
Negative influence:
1. We have difficulty in finding adequate number of foreign sources to prepare for
the lesson and/or exam preparation and the existing ones are costly.
2. It is a double burden having to lecture in English.
3. The subject cannot be explained clearly and fully./ I cannot explain the subjects
fully. It gets difficult to accurately express the subject matter. I give more concise
information than normal.
4. It is difficult to explain in English the way we like and it prevents us from helping
students in their preparation for ÖSS.
5. Not being able to get through to students properly
6. The difficulty of not being able to use the language adequately and exploit the
lesson comfortably. The ease of the native language does not exist.
7. The fear of making mistakes when speaking.
8. Language comes forth instead of content of the lesson.
9.Difficulty in conducting everyday exchanges in English. Not having the language
practice for speech.
10. Dealing with translations. Translating questions into English at once is hard.
11. Exemplification and indirect expression difficulty.
178
12. Difficulty in detailing and interpretation of the subject.
13. It takes much longer time to prepare exams.
14. Having to explain in Turkish after multiple explanations in English.
15. I take no delight in teaching with a monotonous tone.
16. There are no opportunities for teachers abroad to improve their proficiency in
English.
17.We have to study hard to improve our language proficiency.
The interview questions also investigated whether the teaching performance of
the teachers was influenced by EMI. Most of the teachers reported that their
teaching performance was not negatively influenced. On the contrary, one of them,
the chemistry teacher stated that he found teaching very rewarding and delightful in
her school-- which she calls a very special one. She added that she received very
good foreign language training and concluded that teaching the subject matter was
truly a “plus” for her. The physics teacher gave a similar answer. He said that
teaching in a foreign language was just as enjoyable as it was difficult. He said there
was no possibility of EMI lowering his teaching performance due to his enthusiasm,
excellent preparation and tremendous hard work before going to class. Consequently,
he was able to cope with the hardships of teaching in a foreign language. The math
teacher stated that she was engaged in no additional preparation because of English,
since teaching in an Anatolian High School always requires better preparation than
mainstream school whether in English or in Turkish. The biology teacher, on the
other hand, implied that her performance was negatively influenced. She did not
lecture in English because lecturing biology means speech and speaking is very
difficult.
179
4.5.3.1 Summary of “Teachers’ Perceptions of the Influence of EMI on their
Teaching Performance”
The quantitative data results and interview data suggest that teachers perceive
their teaching performance to remain uninfluenced by EMI. They do not view EMI
as a adverse influence on their teaching performance. Yet, although they have high
confidence in their knowledge in their own content area, they do not feel very
uncomfortable about having to teach and when they teach in a foreign language.
The answers to the open-ended questions contain only a few positive
statements about teaching in a foreign language such as contentment about
developing oneself and the correct match of the linguistic mode of teachers’
education and that of EMI. Most of the answers suggest teaching difficulties such as
inadequate explanation ability due to English, lack of the comfort of the native
language, the emphasis they have to make on the language and inadequate sources
for test construction. The interview results validate some of these findings. Teachers
also point out the necessity for proper teacher training for better proficiency in
English, which has been a recurrent theme throughout this chapter.
180
CHAPTER 5
DISCUSSION, CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS
The purpose of the study was threefold: to determine and describe the
perceptions of students, teachers and parents regarding English-medium (EMI) at
secondary education in Turkey; and to explore the relationship between the
perceptions of EMI and English as a Foreign Language (EFL); to describe
perceptions of students, teachers about a EFL; and finally to find out whether
instructional process was influenced by EMI from the viewpoint of students and
teachers.
This chapter covers discussion of the results, conclusions and implications of
the present study.
5.1 Discussion of Results and Conclusions
The research results are discussed in line with the research questions and
framework for the presentation of results in chapter 4. At the end of each discussion
section, conclusions drawn from the results are presented.
5.1.1 Perceptions of English-medium Instruction
The results provided a clear answer to the first sub-question which explored
the position of students, teachers and parents about English-medium instruction
(EMI). The quantitative data obtained from the EMI scale and the question about
the desired intensity of English use in math and science classes, indicated that none
of the groups favor English as a medium of instruction at secondary education. The
results from EMI scale indicated that the percentages of students, teachers and
parents who do not support EMI range between 25.6 and 84.2; between 25.6 and
80.7; between 19.6 and 80.7 respectively (Table 4.3). Besides, it was found that, in
terms of desired intensity of overall English use in math and science subjects in
181
AHSs, roughly, 80% of students, and 60% of teachers and 60% of parents prefer
only English-medium on average in each content-area (Tables 4.4, 4.5, 4.6).
This finding was supported with the data from the open-ended questions from
the survey instrument, which were responded to by “some” of the participants. (The
results of the open-ended questions were given under the title of reasons for favoring
and not favoring EMI, which correspond to second and third sub-questions
respectively.) The percentages given in this part (see 4.2.1) indicate that the
percentage of the non-favoring arguments outweigh the percentage of favoring
arguments: For students, teachers and parents the percentages of supporting answers
were 17.6%, 19.6% and 16.5% respectively. These figures include statements of
partial and conditional support as well as full support. The answers of majority of the
remaining participants indicated disapproval of EMI. On the other hand, the
qualitative data obtained from the interviews revealed that 50% of the participants
from all groups support EMI, while the remaining do not.
The incongruence between the figures from two different methods of data
collection can be attributed to the limited number of interview participants. While the
survey was conducted nation-wide with 2353 participants, the interview participants
were only 14. More importantly, as mentioned in the analyses of the interviews,
nearly all of the supporters gave certain conditions for support.
Another noteworthy aspect in connection with these findings is that the
responses vary according to the level of education that EMI can be implemented at.
To illustrate, all the interview participants approved of EMI at university while
almost half of them opposed it at secondary level. When frequencies, percentages
and means on the EMI scale (see Appendices, M, N, O, Tables 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8) are
carefully examined it is seen that participants do not favor EMI at secondary
education, but they favor it at university level. Therefore, both quantitative and
qualitative data suggest that perceptions vary according to level of education. One of
the factors that account for this difference may be the fact that ÖSS is ahead of
students at the exit of high schools and it is in Turkish, while there is no such
pressure once students enter the university. In fact, as will be discussed further
ahead, ÖSS is one of the major reasons that underlie the negative perceptions of EMI
at secondary education.
182
Data from the survey questionnaire does not indicate strong disfavor of EMI
in general. None of the groups favor EMI at secondary education but especially
teachers and parents are not decided about the future of EMI at Anatolian high
schools. For example, half of teachers and parents do not believe that all the
Anatolian schools should revert to Turkish-medium while half of them do. For
schools where conditions are favorable, EMI should be kept according to half of
teachers (see Appendices, M, N, O, Tables 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8). This finding is in line
with qualitative data results which suggest that conditions determine the position of
participants to a certain extent.
As regards group differences as to the perceptions of EMI, one-way ANOVA
results indicated that students perceive EMI differently from parents and teachers.
another (see 4.2.3, and Table 4.9). The mean values for EMI perceptions of all
groups suggest that students are less positive about EMI compared to teachers and
parents. This is reminiscent of what the researchers in other contexts than Turkey
have reported; scholars both the US (Grosjean, 1982; Romaine, 1995; Galindo, 1997)
or in post-colonial settings (Boyle, 1997; Flowerdew, Li & Miller, 1999; Rahman,
1997, 2001; Ramanathan, 1999; Tan, 1997; Tickoo, 1996; Tung, Lam & Tsang,
1997) speak of a parental pressure or a parental preference for a shift towards total
English immersion or English-medium instruction. Some of these are reported in
chapter 2, the review of the literature. Although we may not assert that such pressure
exists in Turkey on the basis of the findings of the present study, it would not be
wrong to say that EMI is perceived more positively by parents. The reason that
students are relatively negative might be the fact that they experience instructional
problems closely on a daily basis compared to the parents who are relatively
detached from the actual teaching and learning environment. Moreover, they may be
feeling the pressure of ÖSS more intensely.
It is abundantly clear that groups do not favor English-medium instruction at
secondary education. This validates the results that were previously found by Mirici
et al. (2001) and the ministrial survey in 1997 (Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı, 1997). As
stated earlier, despite being nation-wide surveys, neither of efforts had the scope of
the present study since they do not focus on the underlying reasons. The present
study has provided the underlying reasons using triple data sources. In fact, the
183
second and third sub-questions to the study were related to the underlying reasons for
favoring and not favoring respectively. They are discussed below:
From the viewpoint of students, the most important reason for those who
supported EMI was that it is perceived as necessary “at” university and “for”
university level. According to the data at hand, this signifies two things; first, that
students support EMI at university level although they are unhappy with EMI in their
school (the literal translation of the statement on the EMI scale is: “I think EMI is
necessary “at” higher education (university)”, probably because they want or plan
to enter an English-medium university; and second, that students believe EMI at
secondary education is necessary because the necessary foundation for English-
medium instruction is thus laid, thanks to EMI at AHSs. This might arise from the
math and science orientation of some, perhaps, most of the AHS students, who opt
for medicine and engineering departments of English-medium universities. In fact,
all the interview participants have voiced that they are scientifically or technically
oriented. The same reason is one of the priorities of parents, as the results
quantitative data (of EMI scale) show, and appears among the reasons that teachers
have also given. Another important point is that the most prestigious universities are
English-medium and they may not necessarily prefer these institutions for the
language of instruction, but for the quality of education. In fact, another finding not
reported in the results was that, when the interview participants were asked whether
they would prefer English-medium university for themselves or children, all of them
they said that they would, except for two. When their motives were inquired, none of
them gave the medium of instruction as the primary reason. They reported quality of
education and overall opportunities to improve English competence as priorities.
Another common reason for favoring EMI across groups is related to the
linguistic benefits of EMI. Students, teachers and parents believe that EMI enhances
the development of proficiency in English; it provides a context for language use and
informs the learners about the target culture. In brief, it is seen as an effective tool for
learning English. Some teachers and parents have stated FL learning is not effective
without FLMI and EMI is complimentary to the learning of the target language,
provides a context for practice, and is inevitable for learning the language. To what
extent is this belief grounded? Does linguistic competence of students in English
really increase because of EMI? If it does, to what extent? Some attempt to further
184
inquire this issue has been made within the present study. Relevant findings as to the
influence of EMI on students’ linguistic skills will be discussed under the fourth
section, as the last research question.
Further, EMI or foreign language-medium (FLMI) is perceived as
synonymous with foreign language (FL) learning, according to some participants
who support EMI. For example, some interviewees stated FL is necessary for
contemporariness. They did not distinguish between learning English as a separate
subject and English as a medium of instruction. Some responses to open-ended
questions also implied an identical approach. This distinction may not be meaningful
for some supporters probably because of the belief that English is best learnt in
English-medium schools, be it a high school or university. This belief may be one of
the reasons why English-medium institutions are popular.
These findings are significant in the sense that they throw light into the
beliefs of people regarding the relationship between learning a foreign language and
learning it through the instruction of content, which bring us back to the very
questions that language pedagogist and educators have asked. Is EMI an effective
tool for learning English? Is combining language and content the most efficient way
of learning a foreign language? Although these questions are beyond the scope of
this study, chapter 2 reviews the answers that research has provided. For example,
criticism of Canadian immersion programs, which stood as best examples of
immersion approach that combine language and content teaching, was given. While
renowned second language learning theoreticians such as Krashen believed in the
merits of it (Hammerly, 1984), and researchers have cited successful foreign
language immersion programs in both language minority and majority contexts
(Swain & Lapkin, 1982; Genessee, 1985; Swain, 1986; Hakuta, 1990b; Snow 1990;
Casanova, 1991), recent research does not provide evidence that even in the ideal
context such as Canadian immersion, the linguistic goals of the program (i.e. making
English-speaking children attain native-like competence of French) has been realized
(Snow, 1990). It is argued that there is not empirical evidence and theoretical rigor
supporting the tenets of Content-based Second Language learning, which lies
beneath immersion and hence English-medium instruction programs (Akünal, 1993).
Another group of reasons for favoring EMI is related to the perceptions of the
English language. The international characteristics of English seem to have been
185
recognized and English is perceived as a language of science that provides access to
scientific knowledge. For this reason, its use in the educational domain is seen
justifiable. For example, some teachers believe that math and science should be
taught in English and basic sciences have a universal language. In their view, since
English is the universal language, positive sciences subjects can be taught in English.
Also, the abundance of sources in English is a reason for support of EMI. For the
child to use these sources, EMI is necessary. The perceptions of participants
concerning the English language and its functions will be further discussed in
subsequent sections.
The most striking pattern in the answers of all groups is that the support
provided was conditional to a great extent. These conditions generally are related to
infrastructure: the trained teachers with perfect command of English; a very solid FL
background for students so that they can follow teachers easily and interact in
English. Provision of English version of ÖSS question is among the demands of
students and teachers if EMI were to continue. Some parents argue that ÖSS should
be abolished altogether for EMI to be effective and some teachers argue that AHS
graduates should be provided with incentives such as extra points to sustain the
effectiveness of EMI. Although some might find these unlikely to happen, the
concerns are rightful because neither parents nor teachers want students to suffer
from the disadvantages of the mismatch between the instructional language and
language of the ÖSS. In brief, adjustments on ÖSS need to be made. Apparently,
concerns about the university entrance exam have overshadowed the issue of EMI.
Another condition that participants mention is related to the number and status of
AHS. Both in the interviews and the open-ended questions teachers argued that the
status of AHSs was better in the past when they were seven-year schools. Besides,
implementation of EMI was better because students were the right age for EMI and
hence were more manageable and enthusiastic. All these bring to mind what some
parents have suggested: Fewer AHSs and higher quality. The quantitative results also
show that teachers and parents agree that the number of AHSs should be decreased
instead of reverting to all Turkish-medium. Parents demand proper implementation
and continuity. Student, on the other hand, want EMI only during grades 6, 7, 8 due
to pressure of ÖSS during high school. Only on these conditions do groups favor
EMI.
186
Two aspects of the recent educational profile of the country stand out: ÖSS
and eight-year compulsory education. In earlier studies about EMI and AHSs, these
educational changes were not reported simply because they are relatively new. The
impact on OSS on secondary education seems stronger than before. In addition, the
new restructuring of AHSs, which shifted the exposure to EMI from middle school to
high school years, may have lessened students’ and parents’ interest in EMI, who are
already worried about the upcoming ÖSS. During grades 6, 7, 8 (formerly middle
school education), the pressure of ÖSS may be relatively weak.
Another suggestion of participants is making EMI optional so that students
who have aptitude for English and who are planning to study in an EMI university
can choose the English-medium option of AHSs. This suggestion seems
contradictory at first sight. One might think that parents and students knew that
AHSs would be offering instruction through English before they make their choices.
However, the answers to the question” Why did you choose an Anatolian high
school?” on the survey questionnaire have shown that 72.1 percent (n=1397) of
students and parents (N=1938) chose AHSs for “quality instruction”. Only 5.2
(n=101) percent of these groups preferred an AHS “for EMI” and 5 percent (n=97)
“to learn English better”. The interviewees, regardless of their position on EMI,
stated that the first reason for them to choose an AHS is not and would not be EMI.
When the whole picture is examined, it is seen that the conditions of those
who favor EMI mainly center on implementation problems and ÖSS rather than other
concerns. Interestingly, some of the reasons given by those who do not favor EMI
are related to problems of implementation just the same. The two recurring themes in
the answers from the open-ended questions and interviews are lack of teacher and
student competence in English and ÖSS. This suggests if these problems pertaining
to proper implementation of EMI did not exist, EMI may be favored more.
Participants who do not favor EMI have a number of other reasons. First of
all, all the groups believe that effective foreign language teaching replace EMI
because it would substitute for EMI. In other words, one does not need to learn
content through language to be able to learn a language and an efficient foreign
language instruction would serve the same purpose. This is just the reverse of the
ideas of those who believe in the benefit of EMI as a viable method for learning
English. The second groups of reasons are related to problems of learning the content
187
and effectiveness of instruction, perceived low student achievement and concerns
about ÖSS. All the groups feel that math and science are already hard and
comprehension is impeded because of language of instruction. The reported reasons
suggest that groups perceive that instructional process is being negatively affected.
Third, EMI is perceived as a threat to Turkish culture and language and resented by
participants, probably on political or ideological grounds.
As stated earlier, viability of the theoretical basis of EMI, Content-based
Second Language Instruction, and its effectiveness as method for teaching and
learning a second language, has been questioned by some language specialists and
educators. Obviously, opponents of EMI in all groups in this study are not sure that
FLMI or EMI is an effective way to learn a foreign language, either.
The other two major reasons for not favoring EMI, instructional problems
and perceived linguistic and cultural threat of EMI have naturally led us to very
research questions ahead. The instructional process is dealt with under the fourth
main question in this chapter. Perception of EMI as a threat to cultural and linguistic
identity is a political issue and it is related to perceptions of native language and
target language. These perceptions have to do with the symbolic nature of language
which is not only a means of communication, but is an integral part of national and
ethnic identity. (Hoffman, 1991; Spolsky, 1998). These findings will be discussed in
the third section.
In the light of these results, some conclusions can be drawn for the first main
question. First, EMI is not supported by students, teachers, and parents and
perceived negatively at secondary education, although it is perceived more positively
for tertiary level. Parents perceive EMI at secondary education more positively than
students. There is no significant difference between the perceptions of parents and
those of teachers. The supporters of EMI students gave reasons related to the beliefs
about how foreign languages are learnt and perceptions of the English language as
the universal language of science and technology. The supporters favor EMI on the
condition that the quality of instruction and implementation problems be solved.
Basically, these problems concern the competence of teacher and students in English.
Also, they demand that necessary measures be taken to protect the Turkish language
and culture. These conditions are identical with the reason of the opponents gave for
not favoring EMI, except for the beliefs about learning a foreign language, i. e.
188
effectiveness of EMI as a method to teach a foreign language. The other major
reason for not favoring EMI is the belief that learning of content is impeded, which,
reportedly, threatens the effectiveness of instruction, student achievement and
success in ÖSS.
5.1.2 Relationship between Perceptions of English-medium Instruction and
Perceptions of English as a Foreign Language
The perceptions and attitudes about English-medium instruction (EMI) in
post-colonial contexts are studied and reported as a part of the role of English in
those countries in the literature. In bilingual education contexts of EMI that were
reviewed in this dissertation, the role of English was not an addressed issue.
Evidently, this is due to the second language status of English in the former and its
being the majority language in the latter.
In the Turkish case of EMI, however, there was a need to study EMI
phenomenon on one hand, and to study English on the other. This seemed necessary
because of the arguments for and against EMI that appeared in press and some
academic papers, which were validated by the preliminary findings obtained from the
piloting of the interviews of the present study. The Turkish context was atypical in
the sense that most of the opponents of EMI supported teaching and learning of
foreign languages and of English. For this reason, the relationship between
perceptions of EMI and perceptions of English as a Foreign Language (EFL) was
investigated via correlational statistics. The results indicated that perceptions about
EMI correlated with perceptions about EFL for all groups, which shows if students,
teachers and parents perceive EMI positively, they see EFL positively or vice versa.
In contrast to results of quantitative data analysis, qualitative data analysis obtained
from both the open-ended questions and interviews showed that those who perceive
EMI negatively perceived EFL positively. This idea was manifested in the slogan
“yes to FL, no to FLMI”.
Two reasons may account for different findings from two different sources:
1) The interview participants were few in number and open-ended questions were
answered only part of the surveys participants, 2) the ENGLISH scale and/or EMI
scale had multifactors and was/were not unidimensional (The dimensionality of
ENGLISH scale was tested via principal component analysis, which is reported in
189
chapter 3 and chapter 4, section 4.2.2. The three components of the scale were
necessity of English as a foreign language, teaching and learning of English at
schools, and spread of English and its status).
The hostile sentiments against English were reported in some post-colonial
settings such as India and Pakistan (Rahman, 1997, 2001; Tickoo, 1996; Ramanthan,
1999). However, the educators also reported English-competence is perceived as
necessary because of the pragmatic gains English offers. For this reason, there is a
huge demand for English-medium instruction. Therefore, the context of EMI is
paradoxical in these countries. In some other countries, the role of English is
redefined with newly implemented language policies such as Nigeria (Akinasso,
1991), South Africa (Balfour, 1999), and Namibia (Grant, 1996). Although the
educators see English-medium instruction as a threat to nation-building efforts, in
some of them English is seen indispensable by parents, students and teachers.
Apparently, in both types of contexts, the linguistic profiles are very different from
that of Turkey and English or a Western language has been a part of educational life
as medium of instruction for decades. Therefore, the nature of the relation of English
to EMI is unlikely to apply to a Turkish context, which is basically an EFL one.
Furthermore, the educators examined the relation of English to English-medium
instruction historically, socio-culturally and sociolinguistically and treated it
conceptually rather than empirically. In Europe, EMI at is not uncommon especially
in Sweden (Winsa, 1999) and the Netherlands (Dronkers, 1993; Vinke, Snippe &
Jochems, 1998) for “internalisation” of education, but the role of English in the
Netherlands is not the same as in Turkey and as Phillipson (1992, p. 25) noted the
Nordic countries are now being regarded as ESL contexts because the increasing
native language-English bilingualism. For this reason, they do not apply to the
present context either.
It would not be wrong to say the EMI studies in other contexts do not have
much to offer about the relationship between perceptions of English and perceptions
of EMI. As stated in chapter 1, Turkey is a rare case, if not unique, in terms of
instruction in a foreign language, and hence is worthy of sociolinguistic attention.
190
5.1.3 Perceptions of English as a Foreign Language
As stated in chapter 1, the present study did not assume that English is
synonymous with foreign language according to participants, despite the
acknowledged preeminence of English as a Foreign Language in Turkey. For this
reason, participants were asked what language they associate “yabancı dil” (foreign
language) with. The results have shown that foreign language means English to
students, teachers and parents. This justifies the interchangeable use of FLMI and
EMI in this study (although in the wording of questionnaire items FLMI [yabancı
dille öğretim], or [foreign language-medium instruction] was deliberately preferred
over EMI [İngilizce ile öğretim] for translational accuracy).
As for the second sub-question regarding the perceptions about English as a
foreign language, it was found that English is favored by students, teachers and
parents as a foreign language. Based on the findings of both the survey and
interviews, one can unambiguously say that all the groups perceive English and
foreign languages as an asset. The “main” reason behind this support is economical
for students and parents, and rather educational for teachers. While parents’ and
students’ approach is pragmatic, (i.e. knowledge of English is likely to provide them
with prestigious and well-paid jobs, therefore it is necessary), teachers’ approach is
scientific (i.e. , English provides access to scientific knowledge).
The economic gains that knowledge of English offers in countries other than
inner circle (U.S. Britain, Canada, Australia, New Zealand) are often referred to in
academic papers written for outer circle and expanding circle countries, as defined by
Kachru (as cited in Crystal, 1987). In outer circle countries, which have a colonial
past, hostile sentiments against English prevail in non-elite sections of society as in
the case of India and Pakistan. As stated by Ramanthan (1999) and Rahman (1997)
for upward social mobility for the poor, English competence is a must in these
countries. For this reason, English has kept its preeminence, for example, in Asian
countries and is loved and hated both in a sense (Tickoo, 1996). In the expanding
countries that are developing, the economic gains serve as an incentive for learning
English, plus, negative attitudes may not exist. Alptekin & Alptekin (1984, p. 14)
maintain in non-English-speaking countries, there is a huge need to learn English as
it is the lingua franca of the twentieth century, which is one of the most important
means to acquire access of Anglo-American technology. When the historical link of
191
Turkey to English is considered, relatively positive perception about English as
depicted by the present study is not surprising because English has no colonial past
in Turkey.
The other reasons for perceiving English positively is related to the roles of
English in the international arena. English is seen as a language of science and
technology and of academic life especially at higher education, a gateway to the
outer world, a necessity for globalization and contemporariness, a sign of
educatedness and cultivatedness. Although the results have shown English is
perceived as synonymous with “foreign language”, this does not indicate that English
is favored over other foreign languages. All of the interview participants, for
example, stated that their perceptions, whether negative or positive, would not
change if another language than English were in question. They explained the
preeminence of English by the word “power”, which appears as a disputable
construct in terms of language spread in the literature (Conrad, 1992; Phillipson,
1992, p.26) and stated that they wished Turkish would be spreading instead of
English.
The interview participants and those who answered the open-ended questions
expressed their concern for the preservation of Turkish. The gist of what they say
was “Turkish and Turkish culture first”. Evidently, teaching and learning of English
or any other foreign language is not approved at the expense of Turkish. This
suggests a high value of the native language and ownership of Turkish and cultural
values. When this finding is combined with that of the quantitative data of the
ENGLISH scale, the picture gets clearer. The statements that received the lowest
ratings on the scale were “The spread of English has a positive effect on our culture”
and “The spread of English has a positive effect on Turkish” for all groups. This
suggests although they perceive English positively as a foreign language, students,
teachers and parents are worried about the effects of the growing spread of English,
as they think it might be detrimental to Turkish language and culture. Frequently,
references to influx of code-mixes and lexical borrowings from English were made.
For example, most of thee interview participants stated that they find foreign words
in Turkish rather disturbing.
Other conditions focus on the quality of foreign language instruction. All
groups emphasized the necessity of learning one and more than one foreign language
192
–for cultural enrichment and wider job opportunities- at schools as long as they are
“effectively” taught by “competent” teachers.
Some participants that answered the open-ended questions believed that
English or another FL should have elective status of English but the answers to the
ENGLISH scale (see Appendices P, Q, R) show that groups favor compulsory status
of English even though they do not think a FL other than English should be
compulsory. The reason that the results of the open-ended questions contradict that
of the ENGLISH scale is the fact that not all participants answered the open-ended
questions and not all of the participants mentioned elective status of English or other
languages.
In general, survey participants supported teaching of a foreign language in
public schools. A minority of participants stated that they did not support FL
teaching because they suspected the effectiveness of instruction. Besides survey
participants, the interview participants reported discontentment with the present FL
teaching practice. In fact, the negative perceptions, by large, were related to the
quality of FL teaching in schools. Competent teachers, practice-based approaches
and quality materials are needed to render FL teaching more effective not only in
mainstream high schools but in AHSs too. All these suggest that even though the
groups perceive English positively as a foreign language and approve its being taught
at schools as a subject, they are not satisfied with the existing FL curriculum even in
AHSs, which are secondary education institutions known for intensive FL instruction
they offer.
Although English is perceived positively as a foreign language, some
participants and participants mentioned the negative aspects of EFL. Also, among the
minority who did not support FL instruction at public schools gave some reasons.
The negative aspects of groups’ perception of English as a Foreign Language (EFL)
again center on two dimensions: educational and sociocultural-sociolinguistic aspects
of EFL.
Firstly, the ideas of students and teachers who perceive teaching of Foreign
Languages (FL) negatively center on old approaches and poor implementation of FL
teaching at schools rather than EFL itself. In fact, the interviews showed that all
groups complained about the old-fashioned materials and methods, limited
193
opportunities to practice in class as well as other deficiencies. Students in particular
did not like English as a subject at school as the classes are not enjoyable.
Secondly, all the students, teachers and parents who took the interview
expressed discontentment about spread of English because of its perceived possible
hazards for the Turkish language. Code-mixing and lexical borrowings were
particularly referred to as a source of worry. The “threat” theme occurred in the
answers of the survey participants (parents and students) who did not support
teaching of English or FL.
Interestingly, these two main reasons for not supporting FL instruction at
schools correspond to the conditions set down by the participants who did support FL
instruction at schools. Therefore, it would not be wrong to say FL instruction is
supported at large but concerns exist.
The unfavorable perceptions of English concern two aspects of the language;
its spread and the problems related to ELT. The former may result from the fear that
English might overtake Turkish culture and language. On the other hand, the same
groups favor the learning and teaching of English and acknowledge the international
role of English in major domains of language use, which implies that English is
valued in a sense. These ambivalent feelings are linked to the different identities that
individuals possess. As individuals we have multiple identities which may conflict.
“The discrepancy between the local (personal) assessment and the national (general)
assessment of the influence and value of English arises because these assessments
come from two identities” (Stalker, 2000, p.23). In a study of Turkish attitudes
toward English conducted among Turkish teachers’ of ELT, Stalker found that
teachers perceive the influence of Turkish negative but all of them strongly believe
that English should be taught throughout schooling as a required subject.
The third sub-question investigated whether groups differ in their perceptions
of EFL. The results showed that students were significantly less positive than the
teachers and students in the way they see EFL. Nevertheless, teachers’ and parents’
perceptions did not differ. This is the opposite of group differences in terms of
perceptions relating to EMI, except that teachers and students differed in their
perception of EMI. The reason that EFL is perceived more positively by parents and
teachers may be that students want to focus on ÖSS during high school and feel less
positive about English simply because they have to study it as a school subject,
194
which they apparently do not find very enjoyable. Teachers may be feeling the
“need” of speaking and improving English in their professional lives which require
English competence. The results indicate stronger instrumental motivation on the
part of the parents as well as on the part of the teachers. In fact, data on parents’
knowledge of a foreign language collected via the survey questionnaire, part 1
showed that 51.3 percent of parents (n=506) speak a foreign language and only 15. 9
and 23.7 percent of these parents reported a “very good” and “good level”,
respectively. The percentage of English speakers is 384 (76.8%) out of the 506.
These show that the majority of the parents do not speak English but they wish to.
Also, they are happy that their children are learning it. Several studies and papers
cited in the literature review of this dissertation report parents’ inclination and
demand for English for their children throughout various stages of schooling.
Several conclusions can be drawn on the evidence from the findings to the
second main research question. First of all, “foreign language” is equated with
English and English is perceived positively by students, teachers and parents as a
foreign language. Second, groups support teaching of a foreign language in public
schools as a subject, primarily because English is seen as a “necessity” especially for
work life by parents and students, and as a means to access scientific knowledge by
teachers. Parents and teachers are more positive than students about English as a
foreign language probably due to stronger instrumental orientation and the gains it
might offer to themselves/ their children. However, English is perceived to have
negative influences on the Turkish language and culture. All of the groups express
concern about the preservation of Turkish language and culture and demand priority
of Turkish in school curricula. The failing current FL teaching policy and
implementation is another negative point about EFL. These negative aspects are
reasons for disfavor of FL teaching at schools and at the same time are major
reservations that supporters have on the matter of teaching EFL as a foreign
language.
5.1.4 Perceptions as to the Influence of English-medium Instruction on the
Instructional Process
The last research question investigated whether the instructional process was
influenced because of the instructional mode according to the perceptions of students
195
and teachers. Three aspects of instructional process were included: learning of the
subject matter, development of linguistic skills and teacher’s teaching performance.
The results of both quantitative and qualitative data analyses indicated that students
and teachers perceive that the learning of the subject matter is adversely affected by
the medium of English in math and science classes.
The quantitative data and statistics suggested that about the influence of EMI
on learning the subject matter, mathematics and science courses did not make much
difference. To illustrate, no significant differences were found in the perceptions of
the influence of math and science courses as a result of the t-test run between these
variables (t=-1.76). In the open-ended questions, students reported similar
advantages and disadvantages for math and science courses. However, qualitative
data suggested there was disagreement on the relevance and usefulness of math
course through English. While some students and teachers stated that symbolic and
numeric nature of math does not pose any disadvantages when it is in English –for
students with poor English-, some stated that using English is pointless because there
is not much language in math course; so it does not help with the language skills. The
interview participants stated that math does not require much English, except for
problems; students need to understand the problems first, so that they can attempt to
solve them. It appears that approaches to math are paradoxical. Is the effect EMI on a
non-language subject such as math course weaker than the effect of science courses?
According to students, it is not. The reason that different methods yielded different
findings might be due to the students need to –as the results have shown- learn the
English terminology either in math or science and fear lowering achievement in math
exams, lest they fail to understand the questions in English. Or it can be attributed to
exhaustion during the completion of the survey scales.
Another distinction that appeared in qualitative data was related to biology.
Some survey participants made references to the learning difficulties in biology in
particular, and almost all the student interviewees reported difficulties specific to
biology. They mentioned a biology course in English calls for too much
memorization of terms and words which are too hard to remember. The biology
teacher perceives the subject particularly difficult herself.
Also, the results from all data sources suggested that students, teachers and
parents did not favor the teaching of a social science subject in English. It was found
196
that on the EMI scale, the item “In AHSs at least one social science subjects must be
studied in English” received the second lowest ratings from the students and teachers
and fourth from parents (see Appendices M, N, O, Tables 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8) . This might
be because they are viewed as culture-laden subjects; teaching them through a
foreign language might hurt one’s feelings of national identity, whereas math and
science may be viewed as posing less threat.
Marsch, Hau & Kong (2000) state that the immersion literature reports high
achievement in math and language subjects but they argue that these studies have
focused on early immersion rather than late immersion. Besides, the studies
neglected science and social science subjects. This suggests even in the research-
prolific context of bilingual education, there was not special focus on student
achievement in science subjects. Marsch et al. have found in Hong Kong high
schools (a case of late immersion) EMI has a negative effect on the academic growth
of students.
The EMI in Hong Kong can be considered as more proximate to AHS context
of EMI in Turkey than to bilingual education settings. For this reason, it has certain
implications. However, for these findings to be totally relevant to the present study
students’ achievement needs to be measured in math and science subjects to make a
comparison. What the present study reports are perceptions regarding the
instructional process within a descriptive framework.
The major difficulty lies with understanding the lesson, which hinders
learning. Both students and teachers report that full and clear understanding of the
lesson does not occur. This is presumed to be lowering achievement. Academic
achievement is important for AHS students because they are heading towards
university, and the higher AOÖBP (High School Achievement Score Index), the
better chances they have to enter the university. Other consequences of not having
comprehended math and science are reported as poor retention, memorization, lower
levels of motivation, time-loss, resorting to translation to be able to comprehend.
When these difficulties are coupled with the pressure of Turkish-medium
ÖSS, learning is largely hindered. As a consequence, students pressurize teachers to
break to Turkish and interaction begins to take place in Turkish. In other words,
lessons are held half in English half in Turkish. This finding is the same as what
Akünal (1994) and Somer (2001) have reported in their studies at tertiary level EMI
197
institutions. Somer found that all professors believe that a certain level must be
attained when the language before the content began to be taught in English. And
that dual instructional mode was preferred due to limited English proficiency of
students.
In Erdem’s (1990) study students reported the biggest effect of FLMI on
math and science was difficulty in learning the subject matter. The central theme that
appeared in the open-ended questions of the present study was congruent with this
finding; a multitude of students complained about difficulties in learning the content
because they do not comprehend well enough. Erdem did not find evidence for
higher achievement in math and science in FLMI schools when compared to
Turkish-medium schools with intensive foreign language instruction. Similarly,
Akünal (1994) found instruction through English was detrimental to the learning of
content. Aksu and Akarsu (1985) who studied on perceptions of AHS teachers found
that student achievement is affected negatively in teachers’ opinion.
Although the purpose of this study was not to explore the reasons behind poor
learning of content in EMI or FLMI situations, some answers appeared as a result of
data analysis. Teachers and students repeatedly reported lack of English proficiency
as a reason for students’ not comprehending the subject matter. With the data at
hand, it cannot be concluded that lack of proficiency accounts for comprehension
difficulties in math and science, but it certainly is related to the poor comprehension
of content. This has implications for the threshold hypothesis put forth by Cummins
(1979), which suggests that there is a threshold level needed for positive effects of
bilingualism to appear. If we consider the limited input that AHS students receive in
English, compared to the linguistically rich second language environment of the
bilingual or would-be bilingual child, it is not a surprising finding that Turkish
students experience learning difficulties. And it is not known whether the English
proficiency of students is at the required level. Teachers and some of the students
themselves complained about low proficiency level of students, according to findings
obtained from the qualitative data.
There are some positive effects reported by the groups. These center on the
use of foreign sources and the internet with ease, being able to communicate with
their foreign counterparts science-related subjects. Also, unlike the views about the
negative effects of EMI on learner, some participants emphasized that learning math
198
and science is conducive to learning because the language of these subjects
predominantly English and students understand origins of concepts and formulas
better.
The linguistic gains skills was another area explored in the present study
under the second sub-question. It was found that students and teachers do not think
that EMI has not influenced students’ overall Turkish proficiency in a positive or
negative way. This is in keeping with the arguments of the supporters of EMI
(summarized in Görgülü, 1998) who argue that EMI does not influence native
language as students find enough opportunities to practice Turkish in other courses
and out of school. Yet, studies carried out in Turkish context have not measured the
actual performance of AHS students on Turkish in an EMI context. There is not
enough evidence to suggest that Turkish remains unaffected. Besides, as reported by
interviewees, many students attend “dersane”s (private courses).
As regards the effect of EMI on the linguistic skills in English, the students
are not positive, yet they are not strongly negative either. From the findings of the
quantitative data, it can be concluded that students perceive no significant
contribution to development of English proficiency. On the other hand, according to
qualitative data, students reported improvement of FL proficiency but did not
mention the extent of the contribution of EMI. Also, they reported improvement
mainly in academic language in English. Results from both data collection methods
suggest that students benefit from EMI mostly in the areas of reading and
vocabulary. Listening, writing, speaking follow these. Yet, grammar does not seem
to have improved.
This finding is in line with what has been reported in the literature in terms of
linguistic development. Recent studies have shown that in foreign language
immersion programs in US and Canada, the receptive skills -reading and listening-
of language minority students were found to be native-like as opposed to the
productive skills -writing and speaking (Snow, 1990). This suggests receptive skills
have developed more than productive skills. Although this parallelism is significant
because the instructional models in these contexts (early immersion with bilingual
teachers), and status of the target languages (i. e. , in Canada) are not identical with
that of the AHSs contexts, the methodological approaches of the research studies
199
seem to involve testing the language proficiency of pupils, which has not been done
in the present study and previous Turkish studies.
Relatively less positive influence of EMI on productive skills may arise from
the limited opportunities to “use” the target language because of various reasons such
as perceived limited interaction in the classroom, perceived teacher-centeredness,
and presumed limited English proficiency of the student and/or teacher. In fact,
though not quite verified quantitatively, the findings of the qualitative data suggested
limited interaction in the classroom (question-asking and answering) as well as
limited self-expression; use of academic skills such as rephrasing and summarizing
when the medium of instruction is in English, which are similar to the findings of
Akünal’ study (1994) obtained from Middle East Technical University (METU)
classrooms, teachers and students.
Akünal found no significant contribution of EMI to second language
development at tertiary level education. In another setting in Hong Kong high
schools Marsch, et al. (2000) found immersion in English had positive effects on
language achievement in English and to a smaller extent on Chinese. The differential
might arise from the dissimilarities in Turkish and Chinese teaching contexts and
methodological differences. (In the latter linguistic achievement was measured via
pre-tests and post-tests, initial student [N=12784] differences were controlled, and
multilevel growth modeling statistics was used for longitudinal data).
Qualitative data of the study suggests that English proficiency of students
develop in field-specific vocabulary. While this is perceived as an asset by some
participants, some see it as useless. These distinct attitudes may be related to the
purpose of the learner. The interview findings suggest that students find EMI
relevant to their needs as most of them plan to study in science and technical areas.
However, for example, one student opposed EMI at secondary level, saying that he
targets a computer department and biology vocabulary is useless to him.
Another finding of qualitative data from the interviews is that students
reported they have forgotten the English vocabulary they learnt in math and science
courses in grades 6, 7 ,8 because they have now switched to Turkish-medium. In
fact, another reason that accounts for conflicting results in this study may be that
most of the AHSs have shifted to only Turkish-medium (for the percentages of
current English use in schools, see Appendix S) and some intend to do so.
200
Also, although students do not differentiate EMI’s influence science from its
influence on math in terms of learning the content, data on the linguistic gains
indicated that the influence of science courses is stronger than that of a math course
in the positive direction as far as English is concerned. This can be attributed to the
nature of science courses, which are considered mainly as language subjects,
providing more linguistic input to learners.
The third sub-question was related to the teacher’s teaching performance. The
quantitative data showed that teachers perceive themselves as proficient in their
content-area. However, in terms of ease in using English as a medium of instruction
while teaching and testing, they were either undecided or positive. Concerning how
they feel about teaching in English, they were neutral, too. The interview results
indicated similar perceptions (no negative influence of EMI on their performance).
Interestingly, data from open-ended questions suggest that teachers perceive negative
influence of EMI on the teacher’s performance although some teachers directly
mentioned their teaching performance and the majority of teachers reported overall
negative effects of EMI on instruction. It is possible that teachers did not chose to
say their performance is negatively or positively affected but , obviously, they are not
very happy about having to teach in English.
The conclusions that can be drawn about the teacher and student perceptions
of the influence of EMI on the instructional process are: 1) Learning of content in
math and science are adversely influenced by EMI according to both teachers and
students. 2) EMI affects math and science equally as perceived by students. 3)
Biology poses additional difficulties as it is characterized by terminology and
vocabulary rich language according to teachers and students. 3) Students, teachers
and parents disfavor teaching of a social science subject in English. 4) The major
difficulty students experience is understanding the subject matter - full and clear
understanding of content does not occur. 5) Poor comprehension is linked to lower
levels of achievement and motivation, memorization, poor retention and time loss.
6) Instructional mode is often switched and classroom interaction is mainly carried
out in Turkish. 7) Students and teachers report lowering levels of achievement. 8)
Students’ burden is doubled as they have to prepare for ÖSS which is in Turkish. 9)
Positive sides of EMI include ease in using foreign sources and the internet,
encouragement of doing research and better understanding of the origins of concepts
201
and formulas in math and science, which are conducive to learning. 10) Limited
English proficiency is related to poor comprehension and classroom interaction that
is held in Turkish. 11) Overall Turkish proficiency is not influenced by EMI, 12)
EMI does not contribute significantly to linguistic proficiency in English. 13) The
most positive influence of EMI has been in the areas of receptive skills and
vocabulary. 14) Linguistic gains may be lost if the continuity of EMI cannot be
sustained.
5.2 Implications
The implications of the present study are presented in two sections. First
educational implications will be listed, followed by implications for further research.
5.2.1 Educational Implications
The following immediate educational implications have been worked out on
the discussion of results and conclusion from the present study:
1. The results have shown reasons for favoring and not favoring EMI for students,
parents and teachers are educational rather than ideological and political. If the
decisions about the future of EMI at secondary school were to be based on
educational grounds, educational reasons should serve as a basis for the decision-
making process. Undoubtedly, students, teachers and parents’ opinions are valuable
whenever an educational practice is concerned. Therefore, in the decision-making
process about the future of EMI or FLMI at secondary level, or at any level, their
perceptions need to be valued.
2. The results also suggest that implementational problems were the common ground
both for those who favor and do not favor EMI. In other words, supporters of EMI
set down certain conditions and these conditions are identical with most of the
reasons given by the participants who do not favor EMI. A recurrently stated
problem is lack of trained teachers and poor background of students in English.
Before these implementational problems are solved, it would not be a sound
approach to make a conclusion about whether EMI works or not in AHSs.
202
3. Another suggestion put forward by teachers was that the past status of AHS should
be regained. This has certain implications about the past, present and future of EMI
at AHSs. One needs to consider and investigate whether EMI at AHSs was working
in the past, and if it was, what were the conditions that made them work then, if it
was working; and what are the conditions that prevent it from working now? These
questions should be answered before any decision is taken.
4. Another suggestion by teachers and parents were “fewer AHSs” to be able to keep
the EMI standards high. The decision-makers and educational planners should take
this suggestion into account. If it is not feasible to maintain high standards in all
schools in terms of the targeted medium of instruction, fewer AHSs can be a
solution. Educational feasibility for such a large group of schools should be
considered as well as uniformity.
5. The present study suggests that two major reasons account for the existing
problems and reversion to Turkish-medium in most of the AHSs: 1) Insufficient
number of teachers and students proficient enough in English and, 2) the fact that
ÖSS is in Turkish. If EMI is to be kept as a part of AHSs, first of all the teachers
competent not only in their area but in the foreign languages are needed. This implies
the necessity of provision of trained teachers. Ministry of National Education should
pay attention to the issue of who should be appointed as a teacher to these schools.
Also, the students’ level of English proficiency needs to be raised to the required
level. Similarly, if EMI is to continue in AHSs, students should not be allowed to
suffer from the mismatch of the language at school and at ÖSS. If a solution can be
found, the backwash effect of ÖSS on EMI is likely to be minimized.
6. The studies on immersion programs and similar contexts of EMI have significant
implications for EMI in Turkey. A threshold level of competence in the second
language is seen as necessary for positive impact of two-language instructional
programs to appear. In other words, when this level is not attained, the intended
educational outcome cannot be achieved. On the contrary, detrimental effects such as
poor learning of content might appear. The findings of the present study were in line
of previous research. Therefore, it might not be realistic to expect EMI to be a
203
problem-free instructional model before the necessary background conditions are
provided. The problems relating to implementation should not be mixed with the
soundness of the instructional model, which is another issue that calls for scientific
treatment.
7. If EMI were to be abandoned in AHSs altogether, alternative instructional and/or
language teaching models need to be proposed, or adopted, or designed, which calls
for extensive research and educational planning. In immersion models for language
majority students, for example, other ways than EMI have been experimented on .to
combine instruction of language and content.
8. The issue of effective FL teaching, which is seen as an alternative to EMI, need to
be addressed with reference to particular types of second language proficiency
(conversational vs. academic).
9. If other alternatives such as “a terminology course in English plus Turkish-
medium instruction” are to be put into practice, the ways in which language should
be contextualized needs to be considered for the course not to be memorization-
based.
10. The current situation of FL teaching and learning is perceived as inadequate by
students, teachers and parents. An official proclamation and revision of foreign
language policy and planning might be needed.
11. The quality of FL teaching at AHSs should be raised, which is a prerequisite to
produce desirable educational outcomes from EMI.
12. IF EMI were banned in AHSs and other secondary education institutions, there is
no guarantee that the demand for EMI would not perpetuate. The results of the
present study suggest that EMI is regarded more positively at tertiary level and EMI
is regarded as a viable means to achieve competence in English by students, teachers
and parents.
204
13. If EMI were to be kept in AHSs, due attention must be paid to continuity of the
program. The results of the present study indicates that continuity is important and
EMI is found more effective in grades 6, 7, 8 by teachers and favored better by
students.
14. There is not enough research evidence to make binding decisions about EMI (i. e.
whether EMI is inherently an asset or a handicap.)
5.2.2 Implications for Further Research
The present study has many implications for further research, mainly because
EMI is yet full of unknowns in an EFL setting. Some major research implications are
pointed out below:
1. The effect of EMI as an independent variable on the learning of content need to be
explored via experimental studies in EFL settings.
2. The achievement level of AHS students in non-language subjects (i.e. math) need
to be measured to validate lowering levels of achievement (The present study was
limited to the perceptions of students and teachers).
3. Influence of EMI on achievement in language subjects –English, Turkish and
science subjects should be explored to validate the present research findings (The
present study was limited to the perceptions of students and teachers).
4. Whether EMI hinders creativity and results in poor retention of the subject and
memorization are very crucial instructional aspects that await research. (The
perceptions reported by students and teachers did not always match according to
results of the present study).
5. The type of immersion (early vs. late) was found to be an important factor in the
literature. Is it better to start EMI in grades 6, 7, 8 or high school, or at tertiary level?
What are the cognitive, academic and linguistic advantages and disadvantages of
each type of immersion in EFL contexts? These issues should be addressed too.
205
6. The perceived poor comprehension of science and math in English and its reasons
need to be explored comprehensively.
7. Is learning impeded because of English? What are the reasons for the poor
comprehension reported by students? How much of an impediment is EMI on the
way to learning the subject matter? There is an urgent need to conduct substantial
research dealing with these problems
8. The other alternatives for effective language teaching should be evaluated. For
example, are “Turkish-medium instruction plus intensive English programs” working
better than EMI in terms of FL development and academic achievement”?
9. Is EMI/FLMI the best conceivable method of learning a second language? If yes,
under what circumstances? For whom? And in which social, economical,
sociological and linguistic contexts? These are some of the answers we need answers
to.
10. Effectiveness of FLMI as a method of learning foreign languages should be
investigated. This will bring up the issue whether Content-based second language
instruction is theoretically and empirically grounded and/or whether it is working in
EFL contexts vs. immersion programs in ESL/ bilingual settings.
11. It is suggested that EMI influences classroom interaction in a negative way and
hence is detrimental to learning of content. There is not enough evidence to suggest
English accounts for limited classroom interaction in content-area courses by itself.
The studies that focus on EMI should explore how EMI influences classroom
interaction via observations.
12. The linguistic gains (or losses) of students who receive instruction in a foreign
language in Turkey should be studied more comprehensively.
206
13. There is a need to explore why English and/or EMI are perceived as a cultural
and linguistic threat and whether they really pose a threat via sociolinguistic and
linguistic studies.
14. The present study should be replicated at tertiary level, for the demand for EMI at
university level seems to be existent. The same research issues as listed above need
to be addressed in studies at tertiary level EMI contexts.
15. There is a need to go beyond the students, teachers and parents perceptions and
attitudes to research into instructional problems with experimental, correlational and
curriculum evaluation studies.
16. The role of SES and EFL proficiency in terms of attitudes toward English and
EMI also need to be investigated.
17. The relationship between EMI and EFL proficiency and academic achievement
can be examined.
18. EMI is a sociological phenomenon as well as educational. How it affects society
need to be described too.
207
REFERENCES
Akinnaso, F. N. (1991). On the modern tongue education in Nigeria Educational Review, 43(1), 89-107. Retrieved March 3, 2000, from EBSCOhost database. Aksu, M. (1990). Anadolu Liseleri [Anatolian high schools]. Eğitim ve Bilim, Ocak, 3-13. Aksu, M., & Akarsu, F. (1985). Anadolu Liselerinin mevcut durumuna ilişkin bir çalışma [A study on the present state of Anatolian high schools]. Eğitim ve Bilim, 57, 12-25. Akünal, Z. (1993). English-medium education in Turkey: A myth or an achievable goal: an evaluation of content-based second language instruction at the Middle East Technical University. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Kent at Canterbury, Canterbury. Alptekin, C., & Alptekin. M. (1984). The question of culture: EFL teaching in non-
English speaking countries. ELT Journal, 38(1), 14-20. Balfour, R. J. (1999). Naming the father: Re-examining the role of English as a medium of insruction in South African education. Changing English: Studies in Reading and Culture, 6(1), 103-114. Retrieved April 6, 2000, from EBSCOhost database. Baron, R. A. & Byrne, D. (1997). Social Psychology (8th ed.). MA, Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Bear, J. M. (1985). Historical factors influencing attitudes toward foreign language learning in Turkey. Journal of Human Sciences, 1(1), 27-36. Beardsmore, B. H. (1982). Bilingualism: basic principles. Clevedon, Avon: Multilingual Matters. Boyle, J. (1997). Imperialism and the English language in Hong Kong. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 18(3), 169-181. Brinton, D. M, Snow, M. A., & Wesche M. B. (1989). Content-based second language instruction. New York: Newbury House.
208
Candlin, C. N. (1986). Preface in J. Cummins & M. Swain (authors), Bilingualism in education : Aspects of theory, research, and practice. London: Longman. Casanova, U. (1991). Bilingual education: Politics or pedagogy? In O. Garcia (Ed.), Bilingual education: Vol. 1. (pp. 167-180). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Chojnacka, E., Macukow, B. (1995). Engineering education taught in foreign languages in Poland. European Journal of Engineering Education, 20, 31- 39. Christian, D., Spanos, G., Crandall, J., Simich-Dudgeon, C., & Willetts K. (1990).Combining language and content for second-language students. In A. M., Padilla, H. H. Fairchild & M. V. Concepciõn. (Eds.), Bilingual education: Issues and strategies (pp. 141-148). CA: Corwin Press. Coleman, L. & Werten, B. (1998). Classroom English: Engels als doeltaal én instructietaal [Classroom English: English as target language and medium of instruction]. Levende Talen, 530, 274-278. Abstract obtained from Language teaching: The International Abstracting Journal for Language Teachers, Educators and Researchers, 1999, April, Abstract No. 173. Conrad, A. W. (1996). The international role of English: the state of the discussion. In J. A. Fishman, A. W. Conrad & A. Rubal-Lopez (Eds.). Post-imperial English: Status change in former British and American colonies: 1940- 1990 ( pp.13-36). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Crandhall, J. & Tucker, G. R. (1990). Content-based instruction in second and foreign languages. In A. M. Padilla, H. H. Fairchild & M. V. Concepciõn. (Eds.), Foreign language education: Issues and strategies (pp. 187-200). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Creswell, J. W. (1994). Research design: Qualitative and quantative approaches. Thousand Oaks: Sage. Crystal, D. (1987). The cambridge encylopedia of language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Crystal, D. (1997). English as a global language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Cummins, J. (1979). Linguistic independence and the educational development of bilingual children. Review of Educational Research, 49, 222-251. Cummins, J., & Swain, M. (1986). Bilingualism in education: Aspects of theory, research, and practice. London: Longman. Demircan, Ö. (1988). Dünden bugüne Türkiye’de yabancı dil [Foreign languages in Turkey from past to today]. İstanbul: Remzi Kitapevi.
209
Devlin, B. (2003). Links between first and second language instruction in Northern Territory bilingual programs: Evolving policies, theories and practice. Retrieved September 26, 2003, from the Bilingual Interface Project Web site: http://www.gu.edu.au/school/cls/clearinghouse/1997_bilingual/content03. html. Doğançay-Aktuna, S. (1998). The spread of English in Turkey and its current sociolinguistic profile. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 19(1), 24-39. Dronkers, J. (1993). The causes of growth of English education in the Netherlands: a class or internalization [Electronic version]. European Journal of Education, 28(3), 295-307. Eastman, C. M. (1983). Language planning: an introduction. San Francisco: Chandler and Sharp. Eiser, J. R. (1994). Attitudes, chaos and the connectionist mind. Oxford: Blackwell. Eiser, J. R., & Van der Plight, J. (1988). Attitudes and decisions. New York: Routlage. Emiroğlu, İ. (1995). Anadolu liseleri [Anatolian High Schools]. İzmir: İzmir Matbaası. Erdem, E. (1990). Türkiye'de yabancı dille öğretim yapan öğretim kurumlarında fen öğretimi ve sorunları [Science education and the related problems in foreign language-medium institutions in Turkey]. Unpublished Master's thesis. Hacettepe Üniversitesi, Ankara. Ertuğrul, H. (1998). Azınlık ve yabancı okulları: Türk toplumuna etkisi [Minority and foreign schools: Their influence on Turkish society]. Istanbul: Nesil. Evans, S. (2002). The medium of instruction in Hong Kong: Policy and practice in the new English and Chinese streams [Electronic version]. Research Papers in Education, 17(1), 97-120. Fishbein, M. & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention and behavior: An introduction to theory and research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Fishman, J. A. (1992). Sociology of English as an international language. In B.B. Kachru (Ed.), The other tongue: English across cultures (2nd ed.) (pp. 19- 26). Urbana, Chicago: University of Illinois Press. Fishman, J. A. (1996). Summary and interpretation: post-imperial English 1940- 1990. In J. A. Fishman, A. W. Conrad & A. Rubal-Lopez (Eds.), Post- imperial English: Status change in former British and American colonies: 1940- 1990 (pp. 623-643) Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
210
Fiske, S. T. & Taylor, S. E. (1991). Social cognition (2nd ed.). Singapore: Mc Graw Hill. Flowerdew, J., Li, D., & Miller, L. (1998). Attitudes toward English and Cantonese among Hong Kong Chinese university lecturers. TESOL Quarterly, 32(2), 201-231. Galindo, R. (1997). Language wars: the ideological dimensions of the debates on bilingual education. Bilingual Research Journal, 21, 163-202. Genessee, F. (1985). Second language through immersion: A review of U. S. Programs. Review of Educational Research, 55(4), 541-561. Genessee, F., Holobow, N. E., Lambert W. E, & Chartrand, L. (1989). Three elementary school alternatives for learning through a second language. The Modern Language Journal, 73, (iii), 259-263. Görgülü, B. (1998). Foreign language medium education in secondary schools in Turkey. Unpublished Master’s thesis. Middle East Technical University, Ankara. Grant, S. R. (1996). Toward identity and community in Namibia and the United States: a disturbing conrast. Social Studies, 87(2), 64-68. Retrieved August 8, 2000, from EBSCOhost database. Grosjean, F. (1982). Life with two languages. MA: Harvard University Press. Hakuta, K. (1990a). Bilingualism and bilingual education: A research perspective. Retrieved July 6, 2000 from http://tc.unl.edu/enemeth/biling/focus1. html. Hakuta, K. (1990b). Language and cognition in bilingual children. In M. P. Amado, H. F. Halford & M. V. Concepciõn. (Eds.), Bilingual education: Issues and strategies. (pp.47-50). CA: Corwin Press. Hammerly, H. (1987). The immersion approach: Litmus test of second language acquisition through classroom communication. The Modern Language Journal, 71(iv), 395- 401. Hlavicka, J., & Pekarek, S. (1995). Engineering courses taught in English language at the Czech Technical University in Prague. European Journal of Engineering Education, 20, 41-44. Hoffmann, C. (1991). An introduction to bilingualism. London and New York: Longman. Ho1mes, J. (1997). An introduction to sociolinguistics. London and New York: Longman.
211
Huibregste, I., de Bot, K., Coleman, L. & Westhoff, G. (1998). Een evaluative van tweetalig voortgezet onderwijs in Nederland [An evaluation of immersion education in Dutch secondary schools]. Toegepaste Taalwetenschap in Artikelen, 58, 219-228. Abstract obtained from Language teaching: The international abstracting journal for language teachers, educators and researchers, 1999, April, Abstract No: 179. Jensen, P., & Johannesson, H. (1995). Engineering courses taught in English: an experience from Denmark. European Journal of Engineering Education, 20, 19-24. Kalfazade, N. Oran, N. Sekban, M. Tınaz, P.(1989). Research conducted at Marmara University on student opinion on English-medium education and preparatory school education. Marmara Üniversitesi Yabancı Diller Eğitim ve Öğretim Araştırma ve Uygulama Merkezi, yayın no: 89/6, İstanbul. Kessler, C., & Quinn, M. E. (1982). Cognitive developments in bilingual environments. In B. Hatford et al. (Eds.). Issues in international Bilingual education: the role of the vernacular (pp. 53-79). New York: Plenum Publishers. Kilimci, A. (1998). Anadilinde çocuk olmak [Being a child in the mother tongue]. İstanbul: Papirüs. Lindholm, K. J. (1991). Theoretical assumption and empirical evidence for academic achievement in two languages. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 13(1), 3-17. Lucas, T., & Katz, A. (1994). Reframing the debate: the roles of native languages in English-only programs for language minority students. TESOL Quarterly, 28(3), 537-561. Malakoff, M., & Hakuta, K. (1990). History of language minority education in the United States. In M. P, Amado, H. F. Halford & M. V. Concepciõn. (Eds.), Bilingual education: Issues and strategies (pp. 27-43). CA: Corwin Press. Markowski, K. & Mainwaring, D. (1995). Engineering study abroad? “It’s like expecting Carl Lewis to run backwards without any training!”. European Journal of Engineering Education, 20, 31-39. Marsh, H., Hau, K. & Kong C. (2000). Late immersion and language of instruction in Hong Kong high schools: Achievement growth in language and non-language subjects. Harward Educational Review, 70(3), 303-345. Master, P. (1998). Positive and negative aspects of the dominance of English. TESOL Quarterly, 32, 716-727.
212
Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı (1997). Anadolu liselerindeki Matematik ve Fen grubu derslerinin Türkçe okutulmasına ilişkin rapor. Orta Öğretim Genel Müdürlüğü, Şubat 1997, Ankara. Mirici, İ. H., Arslan, M. A., Hoşgörür, V. & Aydın, A. (2000). Anadolu liselerinde uygulanan yabancı dille öğretim programlarının değerlendirilmesi ve toplam kalite yönetimi uygulaması (İngilizce fen bilimleri dersleri örneği [An evaluation study on foreign language- medium instruction programs in Anatolian high schools and application of total quality management (case of science subjects taught in English)]. Unpublished manuscript. Kırıkkale Üniversitesi, Fen ve Edebiyat Fakülteleri, Kırıkkale. Oppenheim, A. N. (1992). Questionnaire design, interviewing and attitude measurement (2nd ed.). London and New York: Pinter Publishers. Oskamp, S. (1977). Attitudes and opinions (in collob. with Catherine Cameron et al.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Padilla, A. M. (1990). Bilingual education: Issues and perspectives. In M. P, Amado, H. F. Halford, & M. V. Concepciõn (Eds.), Bilingual education: Issues and strategies (pp. 15-26). California: Corwin Press. Patton, M. Q. (1987). How to use qualitative methods in evaluation. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Payne, D. A (1994). Designing educational projects and program evaluations. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Pennycook, A. (1994). The cultural politics of English as an international language. London: Longman. Phillipson, R. (1992). Linguistic imperialism. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Rahman, T. (1997). The medium of instruction controversy in Pakistan. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 18(2),145-154. Rahman, T. (2001). English-teaching institutions in Pakistan. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 22,3, 242-261. Ramanathan, V. (1999). "English is here to stay”: A critical look at institutional and educational practices in India. TESOL Quarterly, 33(2), 211-231. Ramirez, A. G. (1985). Bilingualism through schooling: Cross cultural education for minority. Albany: State University of New York. Resmi Gazete [Official Gazette], Nov..5, 1999, No. 23867. Romaine, S. (1995). Bilingualism (2nd ed.). Oxford-Massachusettes. Blackwell.
213
Sayısal Veriler Milli Eğitim 2003 [Statistic National Education 2003]. Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı, Araştırma ve Planlama Komisyonu Başkanlığı. Ankara, M.E.B. Sinanoğlu, O. (2000). Bir New York rüyası: “Bye-bye” Türkçe [A New York dream: “Bye-bye” Turkish]. İstanbul: Otopsi. Skutnabb-Kangas, T. (1984). Bilingualism or not: Education of minorities. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Snow, M. A. (1990). Language immersion: an overview and comparison. In A. M. Padilla , H. H. Fairchild & M. V. Concepciõn. (Eds.). Foreign language education: issues and strategies (pp. 109-126). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Somer, S. (2001). The role of English-medium instruction in engineering and architecture courses at Anadolu University. Unpublished Master’s Thesis, Billkent University, Ankara, Turkey. Spolsky, B. (1998). Sociolinguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Stalker, J. C. (2000, May). The kiss of the vampire: Identity, communication, and Turkish attitudes toward English. Paper presented at METU Conference, Ankara, Turkey. Sternfeld, S. (1988). The applicability of the immersion approach to college foreign language instruction. Foreign Language Annals, 21(3), 221-226. Strevens, P. (1992). English as an international language: direction in the 1990s (2nd ed. ). In B.B. Kachru (Ed.), The other tongue: English across cultures. (pp. 27-47). Urbana/ Chicago: University of Illinois Press. Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (1982). Canadian immersion and adult second language teaching: What is the connection? The Modern Language Journal, 73(ii), 150-159. Tan. J. (1997). Education and colonial transition in Singapore and Hong Kong: comparison and contrasts. Comparative Education, 33(2), 303-313. Retrieved February, 13, 2001, from EBSCOhost database. T. C. Anayasası [The Constitution of the Republic of Turkey]. Retrieved August 21, 2003, from http://www.tbmm.gov.tr/ anayasa/main/html. Tickoo, M. L. (1996). English in Asian bilingual education: from hatred to harmony. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 17(2-4), 225-240. Tung, P., Lam, R., & Tsang, W. K. (1997). English as a medium of instruction in post-1997 Hong Kong: What students, teachers and parents think [Electronic version]. Journal of Pragmatics, 28, 441-459. Willig, A.C. (1985). A meta-analysis of selected studies on the effectiveness of bilingual education. Review of Educational Research, 55(3), 269-317.
214
Winsa, B. (1999). Language planning in Sweden. Journal of Multilingual and Multilingual Development, 20, 376- 473. Vinke, A. A., Snippe, J. Jochems, W. (1998). English-medium content courses in non-English higher education: a study of lecturer experiences and teacher behaviors. Teaching in Higher Education, 3(3), 383-395. Retrieved April 6, 2000, from EBSCOhost database. Yıldırım, A., & Şimşek, H. (1999). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri. [Qualitative research methods in social sciences]. Ankara: Seçkin. Zorlu, E. (1991). Teknoloji derslerinde salt yabancı dille ve ana dil desteğinde yabancı dille gören öğrencilerin bilişsel alanda erişileri ve yeni öğrenilen davranışların kalıcılığı yönünden değerlendirilmesi. (Cognitive development and evaluation of the retention of newly-acquired knowledge of students that receive instruction only in the foreign language and students that receive instruction with the support of their native language in technology courses). Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Hacettepe University, Ankara, Turkey. Zuckerman, M. B. (1998). The facts of life in America. U.S. News and World report. 124, 20, 68.
215
APPENDICES
216
APPENDIX A SURVEY SAMPLING TABLE FOR ANATOLIAN HIGH SCHOOLS (ÖRNEKLEM TABLOSU)
No İl Okul kodu
Okul adı- İlçe Adı Okulun örnekleme il bazında oranı (%)
10. sınıf FEN şube
sayısı
Yaklaşık öğrenci sayısı
Örnekleme dahil
ÖĞRENCİ sayısı
Örnekleme dahil VELİ sayısı
Mat. ve Fen
öğretmen sayısı
Örnekleme dahil ÖĞRETMEN sayısı
1 Adana 111632 Kurttepe Anadolu Lisesi (Seyhan)
1.04 9* 240 50 50 14* 14
2 Afyon 114864 Kocatepe Anadolu Lisesi (Merkez)
1.17 2 60 10 10 7 7
3 119556 Ankara Atatürk Lisesi (Çankaya)
16 600 90 90 33 33
123144 Gazi Anadolu Lisesi (Yenimahalle)
11* 292 45 45 24* 24
317403 Kalaba Anadolu Lisesi 5 150 20 20 11 11
4 5 6
Ankara
300159 Mehmet Emin Resulzade Anadolu Lisesi (Çankaya)
3.64
6 200 30 30 14 14
7 123791 Anadolu Lisesi (Merkez) 11* 336 50 50 20 20 8
Antalya 352882 Hacı Melike Mehmet
Bileydi Anadolu Lisesi (Merkez)
1.69 4 140 20 20 4 4
9 Bursa 134726 Bursa Anadolu Lisesi (Osmangazi)
7 120 20 20 12 12
10 134738 Ulubatlı Hasan Anadolu Lisesi (Yıldırım)
1.95
5 200 30 30 13 13
11 Aydın 126339 Aydın Menderes Anadolu Lisesi (Merkez)
0.78 7* 200 30 30 14 14
12 Çanakkale 136367 Milli Piyango Anadolu Lisesi (Merkez)
0.52 8* 218 35 35 12 12
13 Çorum 138773 Anadolu Lisesi (Merkez) 5 150 25 25 8 8 14 Diyarbakır 141997 Merkez Anadolu Lisesi 0.26 ? 50 10 10 10* 10 15 Edirne 143080 Anadolu Lisesi (Merkez) 0.52 4 125 20 20 3 3 16 148286 Anadolu Lisesi (Merkez) 8 250 40 40 19* 19 17
Eskişehir 325755 Fatih Anadolu Lisesi
(Merkez)
1.8 6 200 30 30 10 10
217
No İl Okul
kodu Okul adı- İlçe Adı Okulun
örnekleme il bazında oranı (%)
10. sınıf FEN şube
sayısı
Yaklaşık öğrenci sayısı
Örnekleme dahil
ÖĞRENCİ sayısı
Örnekleme dahil VELİ sayısı
Mat. ve Fen
öğretmen sayısı
Örnekleme dahil ÖĞRETMEN sayısı
18 Gaziantep 149613 Anadolu Lisesi (Şehitkamil)
0.65 9 240 35 35 17 17
19 Giresun 150951 Hamdi Bozbağ Anadolu Lisesi (Merkez)
0.39 5 194 30 30 13* 13
20 Isparta 154997 Anadolu Lisesi (Merkez) 0.78 7 218 35 35 15 15 21
İçel 156589 Anadolu Lisesi (Mersin) 1.43 13 400 60 60 3 3
22 158838 Atatürk Anadolu Lisesi (Beşiktaş)
6 240 35 35 17 17
159283 Anadolu Lisesi (Beyoğlu) 3 100 15 15 4 4 162343 Nişantaşı Anadolu Lisesi
(Şişli) 3 60 10 10 5 5
23 24 25
İstanbul
160991 Anadolu Lisesi (Kadıköy)
4.68
? 400 60 60 15 15 26 İzmir 164773 Bornova Anadolu Lisesi
2.47 12 416 60 60 36 36
27 Karabük 215775 75. yıl Karabük Anadolu Lisesi (Merkez)
0.26 6 150 25 25 13 13
28 Kırıkkale 121503 Anadolu Lisesi (Merkez) 0.13 6 240 35 35 8 8 29 Kırklareli 171353 Anadolu Lisesi (Merkez) 0.52 5 170 25 25 7 7 30 174943 Anadolu Lisesi (Meram) 8 243 35 35 10 10 31
Konya 176679 Anadolu Lisesi (Ereğli)
2.21 4 110 15 15 7 7
32 Kütahya 178583 Ali Güral Lisesi (Merkez) 0.65 4 120 20 20 7 7 33 Muğla 186384 Anadolu Lisesi (Merkez) 1.04 5 150 25 25 10 10 34 Samsun 195201 Anadolu Lisesi (Merkez) 1.96 2 60 10 10 4 4 35 Sinop 197680 Sinop Anadolu Lisesi
(Merkez) 0.52 3 55 10 10 0 0
218
No İl Okul kodu Okul adı- İlçe Adı Okulun
örnekleme il bazında oranı (%)
10. sınıf FEN şube sayısı
Yaklaşık öğrenci sayısı
Örnekleme dahil
ÖĞRENCİ sayısı
Örnekleme dahil VELİ sayısı
Mat. ve Fen
öğretmen sayısı
Örnekleme dahil ÖĞRETMEN sayısı
36 Sivas 198600 Selçuk Anadolu Lisesi (Merkez)
0.52 7 260 40 40 4 4
37 Şanlıurfa 205676 Anadolu Lisesi (Merkez) 0.78 5 170 25 25 8 8 38 Tekirdağ 200230 Anadolu Lisesi (Merkez) 0.91 8 216 35 35 7 7 39 Trabzon 202934 Kanuni Anadolu Lisesi
(Merkez) 0.65 8 200 30 30 25 25
40 Uşak 206621 Orhan Dengiz Anadolu Lisesi (Merkez)
0.39 6 180 25 25 8 8
41 Yozgat 208308 Anadolu Lisesi (Merkez) 0.52 4 100 15 15 7 7 42 Zongulda
k 210879 Anadolu Lisesi (Ereğli) 0.78 6 190 30 30 10 10
TOPLAM 261 8413 1295 1295 488 488 *Tüm şube sayısını belirtmektedir.
219
APPENDIX B
INTERVIEW PARTICIPANTS
Participant No
Grade/Branch/Profession
Gender Location of interview
Date of interview
Student 1 9 Male Ankara October 2001 Student 2 10 Male Ankara
June 2002
Student 3 10
Female Antalya June 2002
Student 4 10
Male Antalya June 2002
Student 5 9 Female Ankara
June 2002
Student 6 10 Male Ankara
June 2002
Teacher 1 Physics, Natural Science
Male Samsun October 2001
Teacher 2 Chemistry
Female Ankara May 2002
Teacher 3 Mathematics
Female Antalya June 2002
Teacher 4 Biology
Female Antalya June 2002
Parent 1 Kindergarten teacher
Female Samsun October 2001
Parent 2 Professor
Male Ankara June 2002
Parent 3 Retired teacher
Male Antalya June 2002
Parent 4 Bureaucrat
Male Ankara June 2002
Total 14
220
APPENDIX C
STUDENT QUESTIONNAIRE FORM
Öğrenci Anket Formu
Değerli öğrencimiz, yabancı dil olarak İngilizce ve ortaöğretimde bazı okullarda öğretimin İngilizce olarak yapılması hakkında yurt çapında öğrenci, öğretmen, veli, yönetici, ve uzman görüşleri ile ilgili bir araştırma yürütmekteyiz. Amacımız toplumumuzda büyük bir kesimi ilgilendiren bu uygulama hakkında neler düşündüğünüzü ve hissettiğinizi araştırmaktır. Dolduracağınız bu anket Anadolu liselerindeki Fen ve Matematik derslerinin İngilizce (ya da yabancı dille) yapılması hakkında görüşlerinizi saptamamamıza yardımcı olacaktır. Lütfen ankete isminizi yazmayınız. Cevaplarınız yalnızca araştırma kapsamında kullanılacaktır. Bu nedenle her soruyu dikkatli bir şekilde okuyarak içtenlikle yanıtlamanızı rica ederiz. Katkılarınız için teşekkür ederiz.
Şahika Tarhan Yard. Doç. Dr. Ahmet Ok Orta Doğu Teknik Üniversitesi Orta Doğu Teknik Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Bölümü Doktora Öğrencisi Eğitim Fakültesi Öğretim Üyesi Modern Diller Bölümü Öğretim Görevlisi Tez Danışmanı e-posta adresi: [email protected]
I. BÖLÜM: Kişisel Bilgiler
1. Cinsiyetiniz: K E 2.Kaçıncı sınıf öğrencisiniz? Lise 1 Lise 2 Lise 3 3. Şubeniz: ___________________ 4.Liseden önce hangi tür okulda öğrenim gördünüz?
Devlet ilköğretim okulu Anadolu Lisesi (ilk öğretim kısmı) Özel ilköğretim okulu Diğer _________________(Lütfen belirtiniz)
5. .Ailenizin aylık geliri: ____________________ (TL olarak) 6. Aile bireylerinin eğitim durumu: (En son bitirdikleri eğitim kurumu/düzeyi)
Annenizin: Okul bitirmemiş İlkokul Ortaokul Lise Üniversite (yüksek okul/fakülte) Lisansüstü (master/doktora) Babanızın : Okul bitirmemiş İlkokul Ortaokul Lise Üniversite (yüksek okul/fakülte) Lisansüstü (master/doktora)
7. .Anadolu lisesine girmeyi öncelikle neden tercih ettiniz? Lütfen bir seçenek işaretleyiniz.
Kaliteli bir eğitim almak için İngilizce’yi daha iyi öğrenmek için Yabancı dille öğretim sağladığı için Ailem istediği için Seviyesi nispeten yukarıda olan öğrencilerle aynı ortamı paylaşmak için Diğer ________________________________________ (Lütfen belirtiniz.)
Yabancı Dil Bilgisi: 8.Okul hayatınızda ya da dışarıda İngilizce dışında bir dilin eğitimini aldınız mı veya alıyor musunuz? Evet Hayır
221
Cevabınız evet ise hangi dil/ler olduğunu ve bu dil/dillerdeki yeterlik düzeyinizi aşağıda belirtiniz. Dil 1: ____________________ Oldukça iyi İyi Orta Ortanın altı Az Dil 2: ____________________ Oldukça iyi İyi Orta Ortanın altı Az 9. Geçen yıl İngilizce’den sınıf geçme notunuzu yazınız: __________________ 10. İngilizce’deki kendi yeterlik düzeyinizi her bir dil becerisi için aşağıdaki kutucuklara bir işaret koyarak belirtiniz. Dil becerisi Çok iyi İyi Orta Ortanın altı Zayıf Okuma Dinleme Yazma Konuşma Dilbilgisi Sözcük bilgisi İngilizce Kullanımı: 11. Aşağıdaki tabloda her bir ders için bir kutucuğu işaretleyerek şimdiye kadar ders anlatımı bakımından İngilizce kullanılma oranını belirtiniz Ders
Sadece İngilizce
Çoğunlukla İngilizce
Kısmen İngilizce
SadeceTürkçe
Fizik Kimya Biyoloji Matematik 12. Aşağıdaki tabloda her bir ders için bir kutucuğu işaretleyerek şimdiye kadar sınavlarda İngilizce kullanılma oranını belirtiniz Ders
Sadece İngilizce
Çoğunlukla İngilizce
Kısmen İngilizce
Sadece Türkçe
Fizik Kimya Biyoloji Matematik 12. Aşağıdaki tabloda her bir ders için bir kutucuğu işaretleyerek 6.7.8. sınıflardaki Fen ve Matematik derslerinde İngilizce kullanımının ne yoğunlukta olmasını istiyordunuz belirtiniz. Ders
Sadece İngilizce
Çoğunlukla İngilizce
Kısmen İngilizce
Sadece Türkçe
Fen Bilgisi Matematik 13. Aşağıdaki tabloda her bir ders için bir kutucuğu işaretleyerek lise boyunca Fen ve Matematik derslerinde İngilizce kullanımının ne yoğunlukta olmasını isterdiniz belirtiniz.
Ders
Sadece İngilizce
Çoğunlukla İngilizce
Kısmen İngilizce
Sadece Türkçe
Fizik Kimya Biyoloji Matematik
222
II. BÖLÜM: Yabancı Dil a. 1. Yabancı bir dil denince aklınıza en önce hangi dil geliyor? _____________________________ Neden bu dili yazdığınızı lütfen kısaca açıklayınız. _________________________________________________________________________________ 2. Milli Eğitim Bakanlığına bağlı okullar genelinde yabancı dil öğretilmesini destekliyor musunuz?
Cevabınızın nedenini kısaca açıklayınız.
Destekliyorum
çünkü_______________________________________________________________ Desteklemiyorum çünkü____________________________________________________________
3. Yukarıdaki soruya cevabınız evet ise sizce birinci yabancı dil olarak hangi dil okutulmalı?
_____________________________________
4. Milli Eğitim Bakanlığına bağlı okullar genelinde ikinci bir yabancı dil öğretilmesini destekliyor
musunuz? Cevabınızın nedenini kısaca açıklayınız.
Destekliyorum çünkü_______________________________________________________________
Desteklemiyorum çünkü____________________________________________________________
5. Yukarıdaki soruya cevabınız evet ise sizce ikinci yabancı dil olarak hangi dil okutulmalı?
_____________________________________
b. Aşağıdaki ifadeler sizin “yabancı dil” ve “yabancı dil olarak İngilizce” hakkında görüşleriniz saptamak için yazılmıştır. Her ifadeyi dikkatle okuyarak verilen derecelendirme üzerinde sizin için en uygun seçeneği lütfen işaretleyiniz. Lütfen cevapsız ifade bırakmayınız. (5) Tamamen katılıyorum (4) Katılıyorum (3) Fikrim yok (2) Katılmıyorum (1) Hiç katılmıyorum
YABANCI DİL ve İNGİLİZCE’YE İLİŞKİN İFADELER
T
amam
en
katılıy
orum
Katılı
yoru
m
Fikr
im y
ok
Katılmıy
orum
Hiç
katılmıy
orum
1. Yabancı bir dil öğrenmenin ülkemizdeki herkes için gerekli olduğunu düşünüyorum.. 5 4 3 2 1
2 .İngilizce öğrenmenin ülkemizdeki herkes için gerekli olduğunu düşünüyorum. 5 4 3 2 1
3. Yabancı bir dil öğrenmenin kendim için gerekli olduğunu düşünüyorum. 5 4 3 2 1
4. İngilizce öğrenmenin kendim için gerekli olduğunu düşünüyorum. 5 4 3 2 1
223
5. İngilizce öğreniyor olmaktan hoşnutum. 5 4 3 2 1 6. İngilizce biliyor olmak kişiye toplumda saygınlık kazandırmaktadır. 5 4 3 2 1 7 . İngilizce’yi çok iyi düzeyde öğrenmek istiyorum. 5 4 3 2 1 8. İngilizce’yi bir dil (lisan) olarak beğeniyorum. 5 4 3 2 1 9. Ülkemizde İngilizce’nin yaygınlaşması kültürümüzü olumlu yönde etkilemektedir. 5 4 3 2 1
10. İngilizce bilmenin bana ileride avantaj sağlayacağına inanıyorum. 5 4 3 2 1 11. Yabancı dil olarak orta öğretimde (lise) İngilizce dışında başka diller de zorunlu-seçmeli ders olarak okutulmalı. 5 4 3 2 1
12. İlköğretimin ilk kademesinde (4.ve 5.sınıflarda) İngilizce zorunlu ders olarak okutulmalı. 5 4 3 2 1
13. İlköğretimin ikinci kademesinde (6-8. sınıflarda) İngilizce zorunlu ders olarak okutulmalı. 5 4 3 2 1
14. Yabancı dil olarak İngilizce orta öğretimde (lise) zorunlu ders olarak okutulmalı 5 4 3 2 1
15. Yabancı dil öğretimi üniversite düzeyinde yürütülmelidir. 5 4 3 2 1 16. Ülkemizde İngilizce’nin yaygınlaşması Türkçe’yi olumlu yönde etkilemektedir. 5 4 3 2 1
Yukarıdaki ifadeler ile ilgili olarak eklemek istediğiniz görüşlerinizi lütfen belirtiniz.
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________ III. BÖLÜM: Yabancı dille öğretim
1. Genel Tutum
Aşağıdaki ifadelerle sizlerin yabancı dille öğretime genel tutumunuzu ölçmek istiyoruz. Her ifadeyi dikkatle okuyarak verilen derecelendirme üzerinde sizin için en uygun seçeneği lütfen işaretleyiniz. İşaretlemek için sizce uygun olan rakamı daire içine alınız. (5) Tamamen katılıyorum (4) Katılıyorum (3) Fikrim yok (2) Katılmıyorum (1) Hiç katılmıyorum
YABANCI DİLLE ÖĞRETİME İLİŞKİN İFADELER
GENEL TUTUM Ta
mam
en
katılıy
orum
Katılı
yoru
m
Fikr
im y
ok
Katılmıy
orum
Hiç
ka
tılmıy
orum
1. Yabancı bir dille öğretimi yararlı buluyorum. 5 4 3 2 1 2. İngilizce ile öğretimi yararlı buluyorum. 5 4 3 2 1 3. Orta öğretimde (lise) İngilizce ile öğretim gereklidir. 5 4 3 2 1 4. Yüksek öğretimde (üniversite) İngilizce ile öğretim gereklidir. 5 4 3 2 1
224
5. Anadolu Liselerinde Fen dersleri (Fizik, Kimya, Biyoloji) İngilizce yapılmalı. 5 4 3 2 1
6. Anadolu Liselerinde Matematik dersi İngilizce yapılmalı. 5 4 3 2 1 7. Anadolu Liselerinde sosyal derslerden en az biri İngilizce olarak okutulmalı. 5 4 3 2 1
8. Tüm Anadolu liselerinde yabancı dille (İngilizce) öğretimden tamamıyla vazgeçilmeli. 5 4 3 2 1
9. Yabancı dille öğretim yapmak yerine yabancı dilin daha etkin öğretilmesi gerekir. 5 4 3 2 1
10. Yabancı dille öğretim öğrencilerin alan derslerindeki başarısını olumsuz olarak etkiler. 5 4 3 2 1
11. Genel olarak Fen ve Matematik derslerinin yabancı dille yapılmasını uygun buluyorum. 5 4 3 2 1
12. Anadolu liselerinde tamamen Türkçe öğretimine dönülmesi yerine, var olan sistemin iyileştirilmesi gerekir. 5 4 3 2 1
13. Öğrencilerin İngilizce temeli daha sağlam olursa Fen (Fizik, Kimya, Biyoloji) ve Matematik derslerindeki başarıları artar. 5 4 3 2 1
14. Fen (Fizik, Kimya, Biyoloji) ve Matematik derslerini veren öğretmenlerin İngilizce’ye hakim olması, öğrencilerin bu dersleri öğrenmesini kolaylaştıracaktır.
5 4 3 2 1
15. Fen (Fizik, Kimya, Biyoloji) ve Matematik derslerinin İngilizce yapılması üniversite giriş sınavındaki başarıyı olumsuz etkilemez. 5 4 3 2 1
16. Koşulları uygun olan Anadolu Liselerinde, Fen ve Matematik öğretimi İngilizce/yabancı dil olarak kalmalı. 5 4 3 2 1
17. Yabancı dille öğretim öğrencilerin bilişsel (zihinsel) gelişimine katkı sağlamaktadır. 5 4 3 2 1
18. Yabancı dille öğretim yapan bir kuruma devam etmek toplum içerisinde kişiye saygınlık kazandırmaktadır. 5 4 3 2 1
19.Yabancı dille öğretim hedef dilin (örn. İngilizce) kültürünü tanımaya katkı sağlamaktadır. 5 4 3 2 1
20.Yabancı dille öğretim Fen ve Matematik derslerinin verimliliğini olumsuz olarak etkilemektedir. 5 4 3 2 1
21. Yabancı dille öğretim, öğrencilere o dili kullanım ortamı yarattığı için, hedef dilin (örn. İngilizce) gelişmesini sağlamaktadır. 5 4 3 2 1
22. Anadolu liselerinde yabancı dille öğretim sürmeli, ancak bu liselerin sayıları azaltılmalıdır. 5 4 3 2 1
23. Fen ve Matematik derslerinin İngilizce olması Anadolu Lisesi öğrencilerinin bilim ve teknoloji dilini öğrenmesini sağlar. 5 4 3 2 1
24.Yabancı dille öğretim yaratıcılığı sınırlamaktadır. 5 4 3 2 1 25.İngilizce artık uluslararası bir dil haline geldiğinden, İngilizce ile öğretim kültürel açıdan yozlaşmaya yol açmaz. 5 4 3 2 1
26. Yabancı dille öğretim bilim ve teknoloji alanlarında Türkçe sözcüklerin üretilmesini olumsuz yönde etkilemektedir. 5 4 3 2 1
27. Anadolu Liselerinde Matematik ve Fen alanları dışında Türkçe yapılan yeterince ders olduğundan, yabancı dille öğretim öğrencilerin ana dilini kullanmasını engellemez.
5 4 3 2 1
28. Yabancı dille öğretim yabancı dili öğretmek için etkili bir yöntemdir. 5 4 3 2 1
Yukarıdaki ifadeler ile ilgili olarak eklemek istediğiniz görüşlerinizi lütfen belirtiniz.
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
225
2. Öğretim Süreci Aşağıdaki ifadeler aracılığıyla yabancı dille öğretim sürecine ilişkin görüşleriniz ve deneyimleriniz hakkında bilgi toplamak istiyoruz. Bu bölüm iki alt bölümden oluşmaktadır. Birinci alt bölümdeki ifadeleri Fen grubu derslerini, diğer bir deyişle, Fizik, Kimya, Biyoloji derslerinden birini, ikisini ya da tümünü birden düşünerek cevaplamanız gerekmektedir. İkinci alt bölümdeki ifadeler birincidekilere paralel olup Matematik dersi hakkındadır. 1. Fen Grubu Dersleri (Fizik, Kimya, Biyoloji) Aşağıdaki verilen her ifadeyi dikkatle okuyarak ölçek üzerinde sizin için en uygun seçeneği lütfen işaretleyiniz.. Eğer belirtilen ders grubunu (Fen veya Matematik) ŞİMDİYE KADAR tamamen Türkçe yaptıysanız o bölümdeki ifadelerin tümünü “Geçerli değil” , “GD” olarak işaretleyiniz. İfadede belirtilen bir durum sizin kurumunuzda geçerli değilse ve hiç olmadıysa, o ifadeyi “GD” olarak işaretleyiniz. Eğer belirtilen ders grubunu yabancı dille ancak geçmişte gördüyseniz , ifadeleri geçmişe yönelik deneyimlerinizden yola çıkarak cevaplayınız. Lütfen cevapsız ifade bırakmayınız. (5) Tamamen katılıyorum (4) Katılıyorum (3) Fikrim yok (2) Katılmıyorum (1) Hiç katılmıyorum a. Ders içeriğini öğrenme
YABANCI DİLLE ÖĞRETİME İLİŞKİN İFADELER
ÖĞRETİM SÜRECİ-fen T
amam
en
katılıy
orum
Katılı
yoru
m
Fikr
im y
ok
Katılmıy
orum
Hiç
katılmıy
orum
Geç
erli
deği
l
1. Fen derslerinin İngilizce olması derslerdeki başarımı olumlu yönde etkiliyor. 5 4 3 2 1 GD
2. Fen derslerinde öğretmen bir konuyu İngilizce olarak anlattığında kavramakta zorluk çekiyorum. 5 4 3 2 1 GD
3. Fen derslerinde öğretmenin İngilizce olarak anlattığı konuları Türkçe’ye çevirmesini istiyorum. 5 4 3 2 1 GD
4. Fen derslerinde İngilizce olarak soru sormakta zorluk çekiyorum. 5 4 3 2 1 GD
5 Fen derslerinde İngilizce olarak sorulan sözlü sorulara cevap vermekte zorluk çekiyorum. 5 4 3 2 1 GD
6. Fen derslerinde İngilizce olarak sorulan yazılı sorulara cevap vermekte zorluk çekiyorum. 5 4 3 2 1 GD
7. Fen derslerinde öğretmen sorulara İngilizce olarak cevap verdiğinde cevabı anlamakta zorluk çekiyorum. 5 4 3 2 1 GD
8. Fen derslerinde İngilizce olarak işlenen bir konuyu kendi cümlelerimle İngilizce olarak tekrar yazabiliyorum. 5 4 3 2 1 GD
9. Fen derslerinde İngilizce olarak işlenen bir konuyu kendi cümlelerimle İngilizce olarak tekrar anlatabiliyorum. 5 4 3 2 1 GD
10. Fen derslerinde İngilizce olarak işlenen bir konuyu İngilizce olarak özetlemekte zorluk çekmiyorum. 5 4 3 2 1 GD
11. Fen derslerinde kullanılan İngilizce kaynakları anlamakta zorluk çekiyorum. 5 4 3 2 1 GD
12. Üniversite sınavında Türkçe gelecek olan soruları anlayabilmek için Fen (Fizik, Kimya, Biyoloji) sorularına Türkçe kaynaklardan hazırlanma gereği duyuyorum.
5 4 3 2 1 GD
13. Fen derslerinde terimlerin hem İngilizcesi hem Türkçesini öğrenmek bana artı bir yük getirmektedir. 5 4 3 2 1 GD
14. Fen derslerinin yabancı dilde olması yeni öğrenilen terimlerin ve kavramların aklımda kalmasını zorlaştırıyor. 5 4 3 2 1 GD
15. Fen dersi programı İngilizce olduğu için Türkçe öğretim 5 4 3 2 1 GD
226
yapan diğer okullardaki öğrencilerden geri kalıyoruz.
16. Fen derslerinin yabancı dille öğretimi beni ezberciliğe yöneltiyor. 5 4 3 2 1 GD
17. Yabancı dille öğretim benim fen ve teknoloji alanında bu dilde (örn. İngilizce) yazılmış bilgi kaynaklarına ulaşmamı kolaylaştırmaktadır.
5 4 3 2 1 GD
18. Fen derslerindeki kavramları ancak Türkçe olarak öğrenebilirim. 5 4 3 2 1 GD
19. Fen derslerinin sınavlarının İngilizce yapılması başarımı olumsuz yönde etkiliyor. 5 4 3 2 1 GD
Fen derslerini İngilizce ya da kısmen İngilizce olarak yapmanın olumlu yönleri sizce nelerdir? Lütfen maddeler halinde yazınız.
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
Fen derslerini İngilizce ya da kısmen İngilizce olarak yapmanın olumsuz yönleri sizce nelerdir? Lütfen maddeler halinde yazınız. ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ b. dil becerileri 20.Fen derslerinin İngilizce yapılması İngilizce dilbilgimi (grammar) geliştiriyor. 5 4 3 2 1 GD
21.Derslerin İngilizce yapılması İngilizcedeki dinleme becerimi geliştiriyor. 5 4 3 2 1 GD
22.Derslerin İngilizce yapılması İngilizcedeki okuma ve okuduğunu anlama becerimi geliştiriyor. 5 4 3 2 1 GD
23.Derslerin İngilizce yapılması İngilizcedeki yazma becerimi geliştiriyor. 5 4 3 2 1 GD
24.Derslerin İngilizce yapılması İngilizcedeki konuşma becerimi geliştiriyor. 5 4 3 2 1 GD
25.Derslerin İngilizce olarak yapılması Türkçemi geliştirmeme engel oluyor. 5 4 3 2 1 GD
2. Matematik Dersi
Bu bölümdeki her ifadeyi dikkatle okuyarak verilen derecelendirme üzerinde sizin için en uygun seçeneği lütfen işaretleyiniz.. Eğer belirtilen ders grubunu (Fen veya Matematik) ŞİMDİYE KADAR tamamen Türkçe yaptıysanız o bölümdeki ifadeleri “Geçerli değil” , GD olarak işaretleyiniz. İşaretlemek için sizce uygun olan rakamı ya da harfleri daire içine alınız. (5) Tamamen katılıyorum (4) Katılıyorum (3) Fikrim yok (2) Katılmıyorum (1) Hiç katılmıyorum
227
a. Ders içeriği öğrenme
YABANCI DİLLE ÖĞRETİME İLİŞKİN İFADELER
ÖĞRETİM SÜRECİ- matematik T
amam
en
katılıy
orum
Katılı
yoru
m
Fikr
im y
ok
Katılmıy
orum
Hiç
katılmıy
orum
Geç
erli
deği
l
1.Matematik dersini İngilizce olması derslerdeki başarımı olumlu yönde etkiliyor. 5 4 3 2 1 GD
2. Matematik dersinde öğretmen bir konuyu İngilizce olarak anlattığında kavramakta zorluk çekiyorum. 5 4 3 2 1 GD
3. Matematik dersinde öğretmenin İngilizce olarak anlattığı konuları ve/veya soruları Türkçe’ye çevirmesini istiyorum. 5 4 3 2 1 GD
4. Matematik dersinde İngilizce olarak soru sormakta zorluk çekiyorum. 5 4 3 2 1 GD
5. Matematik dersinde İngilizce olarak sorulan yazılı sorulara cevap vermekte zorluk çekiyorum. 5 4 3 2 1 GD
6. Matematik dersinde İngilizce olarak sorulan sözlü sorulara cevap vermekte zorluk çekiyorum. 5 4 3 2 1 GD
7. Matematik dersinde öğretmen sorulara İngilizce olarak cevap verdiğinde cevabı anlamakta zorluk çekiyorum. 5 4 3 2 1 GD
8. Matematik dersinde İngilizce olarak işlenen bir konuyu kendi cümlelerimle İngilizce olarak tekrar yazabiliyorum. 5 4 3 2 1 GD
9. Matematik dersinde İngilizce olarak işlenen bir konuyu kendi cümlelerimle İngilizce olarak tekrar anlatabiliyorum. 5 4 3 2 1 GD
10. Matematik dersinde İngilizce olarak işlenen bir konuyu İngilizce olarak “özetleyebiliyorum”. 5 4 3 2 1 GD
11. Matematik dersinde kullanılan İngilizce kaynakları anlamakta zorluk çekiyorum. 5 4 3 2 1 GD
12. Üniversite sınavında Türkçe gelecek soruları anlayabilmek için Matematik sorularına Türkçe kaynaklardan hazırlanma gereği duyuyorum.
5 4 3 2 1 GD
13. Matematik dersinde terimlerin hem İngilizce hem Türkçesini öğrenmek bana artı bir yük getirmektedir. 5 4 3 2 1 GD
14. Matematik dersinin yabancı dilde olması yeni öğrenilen terimlerin ve kavramların aklımda kalmasını güçleştiriyor. 5 4 3 2 1 GD
15. Matematik dersi programı İngilizce olduğu için Türkçe öğretim yapan diğer okullardaki öğrencilerden geri kalıyoruz.
5 4 3 2 1 GD
16. Matematik dersinin yabancı dille öğretimi beni ezberciliğe yöneltiyor. 5 4 3 2 1 GD
17.Yabancı dille öğretim benim fen ve teknoloji alanında bu dilde yazılmış bilgi kaynaklarına ulaşmamı kolaylaştırmaktadır.
5 4 3 2 1 GD
18. Matematik dersindeki kavramları ancak Türkçe olarak öğrenebilirim. 5 4 3 2 1 GD
19. Matematik derslerinin sınavlarının İngilizce yapılması başarımı olumsuz yönde etkiliyor. 5 4 3 2 1 GD
228
b. Dil becerileri 20.Matematik derslerinin İngilizce yapılması İngilizce dilbilgimi (grammar) geliştiriyor. 5 4 3 2 1 GD
21.Derslerin İngilizce yapılması İngilizcedeki dinleme becerimi geliştiriyor. 5 4 3 2 1 GD
22.Derslerin İngilizce yapılması İngilizcedeki okuma ve okuduğunu anlama becerimi geliştiriyor. 5 4 3 2 1 GD
23.Derslerin İngilizce yapılması İngilizcedeki yazma becerimi geliştiriyor. 5 4 3 2 1 GD
24.Derslerin İngilizce yapılması İngilizcedeki konuşma becerimi geliştiriyor. 5 4 3 2 1 GD
25.Derslerin İngilizce olarak yapılması Türkçemi geliştirmeme engel oluyor. 5 4 3 2 1 GD
Matematik derslerini İngilizce ya da kısmen İngilizce olarak yapmanın olumlu yönleri sizce nelerdir? Lütfen maddeler halinde yazınız.
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________ Matematik derslerini İngilizce ya da kısmen İngilizce olarak yapmanın olumsuz yönleri sizce nelerdir? Lütfen maddeler halinde yazınız.
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________
Bu bölümdeki tüm ifadelere ek olarak belirtmek istediğiniz görüşlerinizi lütfen
yazınız.
____________________________________________________________________
229
APPENDIX D
TEACHER QUESTIONNAIRE FORM
Öğretmen Anket Formu
Değerli meslektaşım, ortaöğretimde bazı okullarda öğretimin yabancı dille yapılması hakkında yurt çapında öğrenci, öğretmen, veli, yönetici ve uzman görüşleri ile ilgili bir araştırma yürütmekteyiz. Amacımız toplumumuzda büyük bir kesimi ilgilendiren bu uygulama hakkında neler düşündüğünüzü ve hissettiğinizi araştırmaktır. Dolduracağınız bu anket Anadolu liselerindeki Fen ve Matematik derslerinin İngilizce (ya da yabancı dille) yapılması hakkında görüşlerinizi saptamamamıza yardımcı olacaktır. Lütfen ankete isminizi yazmayınız. Cevaplarınız yalnızca araştırma kapsamında kullanılacaktır. Bu nedenle her soruyu dikkatli bir şekilde okuyarak içtenlikle yanıtlamanızı rica ederiz. Katkılarınız için teşekkür ederiz.
Şahika Tarhan Yr. Doç. Dr. Ahmet Ok Orta Doğu Teknik Üniversitesi Orta Doğu Teknik Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Bölümü Doktora Öğrencisi Eğitim Fakültesi Öğretim Üyesi Modern Diller Bölümü Öğretim Görevlisi Tez Danışmanı e-posta adresi: [email protected]
I. BÖLÜM: Kişisel Bilgiler
1. Yaşınız: ______________ (Bitirdiğiniz yaşı yazınız.) 2. Cinsiyetiniz: K E 3. Eğitim Durumunuz: İki yıllık yüksek okul
Dört yıllık üniversite Diğer _________________________________(Lütfen
belirtiniz.) 4. Mezun olduğunuz üniversite/yüksekokul adı ( lisans diploması)________________________________ 5. Branşınız: _____________________ 6. Kaç yıldır öğretmenlik yapıyorsunuz? ____________________________ 7. Anadolu liselerinde kaç yıldır çalışıyorsunuz? ______________________ Yabancı Dil Bilgisi: 8. İngilizce’deki kendi yeterlik düzeyinizi her bir dil becerisi için aşağıdaki kutucuklara bir işaret koyarak belirtiniz. Dil becerisi Çok iyi İyi Orta Ortanın altı Zayıf Okuma Dinleme Yazma Konuşma Dilbilgisi Sözcük bilgisi
230
9.Standart bir yeterlik sınavında (KPDS, TOEFL, vb.) elde ettiğiniz en son sonuç (varsa): ________________ 10. İngilizce dışında bildiğiniz yabancı dil var mı?
Evet Hayır Cevabınız evet ise hangi dil/ler olduğunu ve bu dil/dillerdeki yeterlik düzeyinizi aşağıda belirtiniz. Dil 1: ____________________ Oldukça iyi İyi Orta Ortanın altı Az Dil 2: ____________________ Oldukça iyi İyi Orta Ortanın altı Az
11. İngilizceyi nerede öğrendiniz? ( Bu soruda birden fazla seçenek işaretleyebilirsiniz.)
lisede/ özel okulda fakültede MEB'in hizmet-içi
kurslarında özel dil kurslarında yurtdışında diğer ________________________________ (belirtiniz)
İngilizce Kullanımı: 12. Aşağıdaki tabloda sorumlu olduğunuz ders/leri işaretleyerek bu yıl ders anlatımı bakımından İngilizce kullanılma oranını belirtiniz Ders
Sadece İngilizce
Çoğunlukla İngilizce
Kısmen İngilizce
SadeceTürkçe
Fizik Kimya Biyoloji Matematik 13. Aşağıdaki tabloda sorumlu olduğunuz ders/leri işaretleyerek bu yıl sınavlarda İngilizce kullanılma oranını belirtiniz Ders
Sadece İngilizce
Çoğunlukla İngilizce
Kısmen İngilizce
Sadece Türkçe
Fizik Kimya Biyoloji Matematik 14. Aşağıdaki tabloda sorumlu olduğunuz ders/leri işaretleyerek bu ders/lerde İngilizce kullanımının ne yoğunlukta olmasını istediğinizi belirtiniz.
Ders Sadece
İngilizce Çoğunlukla İngilizce
Kısmen İngilizce
Sadece Türkçe
Fizik Kimya Biyoloji Matematik
231
II. BÖLÜM: Yabancı Dil a. a. 1. Yabancı bir dil denince aklınıza en önce hangi dil geliyor? ________________________
Neden bu dili yazdığınızı lütfen kısaca açıklayınız. _________________________________________________________________________________
2. Milli Eğitim Bakanlığına bağlı okullarda yabancı dil öğretilmesini destekliyor musunuz?
Cevabınızın nedenini kısaca açıklayınız.
Destekliyorum çünkü_______________________________________________________________
Desteklemiyorum çünkü____________________________________________________________
3. Yukarıdaki soruya cevabınız evet ise sizce 1. yabancı dil olarak hangi dil okutulmalı?
_____________________________________
4. Milli Eğitim Bakanlığına bağlı okullarda 2. bir yabancı dil öğretilmesini destekliyor musunuz?
Cevabınızın nedenini kısaca açıklayınız.
Destekliyorum çünkü_______________________________________________________________
Desteklemiyorum çünkü____________________________________________________________
5. Yukarıdaki soruya cevabınız evet ise sizce 2. yabancı dil olarak hangi dil okutulmalı?
_____________________________________
b. Aşağıdaki ifadeler sizin “yabancı dil” ve “yabancı dil olarak İngilizce” hakkında görüşleriniz saptamak için yazılmıştır. Her ifadeyi dikkatle okuyarak verilen derecelendirme üzerinde sizin için en uygun seçeneği lütfen işaretleyiniz. Lütfen cevapsız ifade bırakmayınız. (5) Tamamen katılıyorum (4) Katılıyorum (3) Fikrim yok (2) Katılmıyorum (1) Hiç katılmıyorum
YABANCI DİL ve İNGİLİZCE’YE İLİŞKİN İFADELER
T
amam
en
katılıy
orum
Katılı
yoru
m
Fikr
im y
ok
Katılmıy
orum
Hiç
katılmıy
orum
1. Yabancı bir dil öğrenmenin ülkemizdeki herkes için gerekli olduğunu düşünüyorum.. 5 4 3 2 1
2 .İngilizce öğrenmenin ülkemizdeki herkes için gerekli olduğunu düşünüyorum. 5 4 3 2 1
3. Yabancı bir dil öğrenmenin kendim için gerekli olduğunu düşünüyorum. 5 4 3 2 1
4. İngilizce öğrenmenin kendim için gerekli olduğunu düşünüyorum. 5 4 3 2 1 5. İngilizce öğreniyor olmaktan hoşnutum. 5 4 3 2 1
232
6. İngilizce biliyor olmak kişiye toplumda saygınlık kazandırmaktadır. 5 4 3 2 1 7 . İngilizce’yi çok iyi düzeyde öğrenmek istiyorum. 5 4 3 2 1 8. İngilizce’yi bir dil (lisan) olarak beğeniyorum. 5 4 3 2 1 9. Ülkemizde İngilizce’nin yaygınlaşması kültürümüzü olumlu yönde etkilemektedir. 5 4 3 2 1
10. İngilizce bilmenin bana ileride avantaj sağlayacağına inanıyorum. 5 4 3 2 1 11. Yabancı dil olarak orta öğretimde (lise) İngilizce dışında başka diller de zorunlu-seçmeli ders olarak okutulmalı. 5 4 3 2 1
12. İlköğretimin ilk kademesinde (4.ve 5.sınıflarda) İngilizce zorunlu ders olarak okutulmalı. 5 4 3 2 1
13. İlköğretimin ikinci kademesinde (6-8. sınıflarda) İngilizce zorunlu ders olarak okutulmalı. 5 4 3 2 1
14. Yabancı dil olarak İngilizce orta öğretimde (lise) zorunlu ders olarak okutulmalı 5 4 3 2 1
15. Yabancı dil öğretimi üniversite düzeyinde yürütülmelidir. 5 4 3 2 1 16. Ülkemizde İngilizce’nin yaygınlaşması Türkçe’yi olumlu yönde etkilemektedir. 5 4 3 2 1
Yukarıdaki maddeler ile ilgili olarak eklemek istediklerinizi lütfen belirtiniz.
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
III. BÖLÜM: Yabancı dille öğretim 1. Genel Tutum Aşağıdaki ifadelerle sizlerin yabancı dille öğretime genel tutumunuzu ölçmek istiyoruz. Her ifadeyi dikkatle okuyarak verilen derecelendirme üzerinde sizin için en uygun seçeneği lütfen işaretleyiniz.
İşaretlemek için sizce uygun olan rakamı daire içine alınız. Lütfen cevapsız ifade
bırakmayınız. (5) Tamamen katılıyorum (4) Katılıyorum (3) Fikrim yok (2) Katılmıyorum (1) Hiç katılmıyorum
YABANCI DİLLE ÖĞRETİME İLİŞKİN İFADELER
Genel Tutum Tam
amen
ka
tılıy
orum
Katılı
yoru
m
Fikr
im y
ok
Katılmıy
orum
Hiç
ka
tılmıy
orum
1. Yabancı bir dille öğretimi yararlı buluyorum. 5 4 3 2 1 2. İngilizce ile öğretimi yararlı buluyorum. 5 4 3 2 1 3. Orta öğretimde (lise) İngilizce ile öğretim gereklidir. 5 4 3 2 1
233
4. Yüksek öğretimde (üniversite) İngilizce ile öğretim gereklidir. 5 4 3 2 1 5. Anadolu Liselerinde Fen dersleri (Fizik, Kimya, Biyoloji) İngilizce yapılmalı. 5 4 3 2 1
6. Anadolu Liselerinde Matematik dersi İngilizce yapılmalı. 5 4 3 2 1 7. Anadolu Liselerinde sosyal derslerden en az biri İngilizce olarak okutulmalı. 5 4 3 2 1
8. Tüm Anadolu liselerinde yabancı dille (İngilizce) öğretimden tamamıyla vazgeçilmeli. 5 4 3 2 1
9. Yabancı dille öğretim yapmak yerine yabancı dilin daha etkin öğretilmesi gerekir. 5 4 3 2 1
10. Yabancı dille öğretim öğrencilerin alan derslerindeki başarısını olumsuz olarak etkiler. 5 4 3 2 1
11. Genel olarak Fen ve Matematik derslerinin yabancı dille yapılmasını uygun buluyorum. 5 4 3 2 1
12. Anadolu liselerinde tamamen Türkçe öğretimine dönülmesi yerine, var olan sistemin iyileştirilmesi gerekir. 5 4 3 2 1
13. Öğrencilerin İngilizce temeli daha sağlam olursa Fen (Fizik, Kimya, Biyoloji) ve Matematik derslerindeki başarıları artar. 5 4 3 2 1
14. Fen (Fizik, Kimya, Biyoloji) ve Matematik derslerini veren öğretmenlerin İngilizce’ye hakim olması, öğrencilerin bu dersleri öğrenmesini kolaylaştıracaktır.
5 4 3 2 1
15. Fen (Fizik, Kimya, Biyoloji) ve Matematik derslerinin İngilizce yapılması üniversite giriş sınavındaki başarıyı olumsuz etkilemez. 5 4 3 2 1
16. Koşulları uygun olan Anadolu Liselerinde, Fen ve Matematik öğretimi İngilizce/yabancı dil olarak kalmalı. 5 4 3 2 1
17. Yabancı dille öğretim öğrencilerin bilişsel (zihinsel) gelişimine katkı sağlamaktadır. 5 4 3 2 1
18. Yabancı dille öğretim yapan bir kuruma devam etmek toplum içerisinde kişiye saygınlık kazandırmaktadır. 5 4 3 2 1
19.Yabancı dille öğretim hedef dilin (örn. İngilizce) kültürünü tanımaya katkı sağlamaktadır. 5 4 3 2 1
20.Yabancı dille öğretim Fen ve Matematik derslerinin verimliliğini olumsuz olarak etkilemektedir. 5 4 3 2 1
21. Yabancı dille öğretim, öğrencilere o dili kullanım ortamı yarattığı için, hedef dilin (örn. İngilizce) gelişmesini sağlamaktadır. 5 4 3 2 1
22. Anadolu liselerinde yabancı dille öğretim sürmeli, ancak bu liselerin sayıları azaltılmalıdır. 5 4 3 2 1
23. Fen ve Matematik derslerinin İngilizce olması Anadolu Lisesi öğrencilerinin bilim ve teknoloji dilini öğrenmesini sağlar. 5 4 3 2 1
24.Yabancı dille öğretim yaratıcılığı sınırlamaktadır. 5 4 3 2 1 25.İngilizce artık uluslararası bir dil haline geldiğinden, İngilizce ile öğretim kültürel açıdan yozlaşmaya yol açmaz. 5 4 3 2 1
26. Yabancı dille öğretim bilim ve teknoloji alanlarında Türkçe sözcüklerin üretilmesini olumsuz yönde etkilemektedir. 5 4 3 2 1
27. Anadolu Liselerinde Matematik ve Fen alanları dışında Türkçe yapılan yeterince ders olduğundan, yabancı dille öğretim öğrencilerin ana dilini kullanmasını engellemez.
5 4 3 2 1
28. Yabancı dille öğretim yabancı dili öğretmek için etkili bir yöntemdir. 5 4 3 2 1
Yukarıdaki ifadeler ile ilgili olarak eklemek istediğiniz görüşlerinizi lütfen belirtiniz.
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
234
2. Öğretim Süreci Aşağıdaki ifadeler aracılığıyla yabancı dille öğretim sürecine ilişkin görüşleriniz ve deneyimleriniz hakkında bilgi toplamak istiyoruz. Bu bölüm iki alt bölümden oluşmaktadır. Birinci alt bölümdeki sorular kendi branş dersleriniz kapsamında öğrencilerine ilişkin ifadeler, ikinci alt bölümde ise öğretmene ilişkin ifadeler yer almaktadır. Her ifadeyi dikkatle okuyarak verilen derecelendirme üzerinde sizin için en uygun seçeneği lütfen işaretleyiniz. Eğer şu anda dersinizi yabancı dille yürütmüyorsanız, ifadeleri geçmişteki deneyimlerinizden yola çıkarak cevaplayınız. Lütfen cevapsız ifade bıramayınız. (5) Tamamen katılıyorum (4) Katılıyorum (3) Fikrim yok (2) Katılmıyorum (1) Hiç katılmıyorum a. Öğrenci ve alan dersi içeriği
YABANCI DİLLE ÖĞRETİME İLİŞKİN İFADELER
ÖĞRETİM SÜRECİ T
amam
en
katılıy
orum
Katılı
yoru
m
Fikr
im y
ok
Katılmıy
orum
Hiç
ka
tılmıy
orum
1. Okuttuğum dersin İngilizce olması öğrencilerin derslerdeki başarısını olumlu yönde etkiliyor.
5 4 3 2 1
2. Öğrencilere bir konuyu İngilizce olarak anlattığımda kavramakta zorluk çekiyorlar.
5 4 3 2 1
3. Öğrenciler dersimde İngilizce olarak anlattığım konuları ve/veya soruları Türkçe’ye çevirmemi istiyorlar.
5 4 3 2 1
4. Dersimde öğrenciler İngilizce olarak soru sormakta zorluk çekiyorlar.
5 4 3 2 1
5. Dersimde öğrenciler İngilizce olarak sorulan sözlü sorulara cevap vermekte zorluk çekiyorlar.
5 4 3 2 1
6. Dersimde öğrenciler İngilizce olarak sorulan yazılı sorulara cevap vermekte zorluk çekiyorlar.
5 4 3 2 1
7. Dersimde öğrenciler İngilizce olarak işlenen bir konuyu kendi cümleleriyle tekrar yazabiliyorlar.
5 4 3 2 1
9. Dersimde öğrenciler İngilizce olarak işlenen bir konuyu kendi cümleleriyle anlatabiliyorlar. 5 4 3 2 1
10.Dersimde öğrenciler İngilizce olarak işlenen bir konuyu özetleyebiliyorlar. 5 4 3 2 1
11.Öğrenciler kullanılan İngilizce kaynakları anlamakta zorluk çekiyorlar. 5 4 3 2 1
12.Üniversite sınavına hazırlık için öğrenciler sorularına Türkçe kaynaklardan hazırlanma gereği duyuyorlar. 5 4 3 2 1
13.Dersimde terimlerin hem İngilizce hem Türkçe verilmesi öğrencilere artı bir yük getirmektedir. 5 4 3 2 1
14.Dersimin yabancı dilde olması yeni öğrenilen terimlerin ve kavramların öğrencinin aklında kalmasını güçleştiriyor. 5 4 3 2 1
15.İngilizce yapılan ders programı diğer okullardaki Türkçe öğretim programına göre geri kalmaktadır. 5 4 3 2 1
16.Okuttuğum dersin yabancı dille yapılması öğrencileri ezberciliğe yöneltmektedir. 5 4 3 2 1
17. Yabancı dille öğretim öğrencilerin fen ve teknoloji alanında bu dilde yazılmış bilgi kaynaklarına ulaşmasını kolaylaştırmaktadır. 5 4 3 2 1
18.Öğrenciler dersimdeki kavramları ancak Türkçe olarak öğrenebilirler. 5 4 3 2 1 19.Öğrencilerin dersimde ezberlemeye yönelmeleri yerleşmiş çalışma/öğrenme alışkanlıklarından kaynaklanmaktadır. 5 4 3 2 1
235
b. öğrencinin dil becerileri 20. Okuttuğum dersin İngilizce yapılması öğrencilerin İngilizce
dilbilgisini (grammar) geliştiriyor. 5 4 3 2 1
21. Okuttuğum dersin İngilizce yapılması öğrencilerin İngilizcedeki dinleme becerisini geliştiriyor.
5 4 3 2 1
22. Okuttuğum dersin İngilizce yapılması öğrencilerin İngilizcedeki okuma ve okuduğunu anlama becerisini geliştiriyor.
5 4 3 2 1
23. Okuttuğum dersin İngilizce yapılması öğrencilerin İngilizcedeki yazma becerisini geliştiriyor.
5 4 3 2 1
24. Okuttuğum dersin İngilizce yapılması İngilizcedeki konuşma becerisini geliştiriyor.
5 4 3 2 1
25. Okuttuğum dersin İngilizce olarak yapılması öğrencilerin Türkçelerini geliştirmelerine engel oluyor.
5 4 3 2 1
c. öğretmen
YABANCI DİLLE ÖĞRETİME İLİŞKİN İFADELER Öğretim Süreci
Tam
amen
ka
tılıy
orum
Katılı
yoru
m
Fikr
im y
ok
Katılmıy
orum
Hiç
katılmıy
orum
1. Kendimi branşımda öğretmen olarak yeterli görüyorum. 5 4 3 2 1 2. Dersi yabancı bir dilde yapmak bana diğer branş meslekdaşlarım gözünde itibar kazandırmaktadır 5 4 3 2 1
3. Yabancı dille ders yapmak benim öğretmenlik performansımı olumsuz yönde etkilemektedir. 5 4 3 2 1
4. İngilizce bilgi ve becerilerimi dersi İngilizce yapmak için yeterli buluyorum. 5 4 3 2 1
5. Fen /Matematik (branş) derslerinde İngilizce soru sormakta zorluk çekmiyorum. 5 4 3 2 1
6. Konuları İngilizce olarak kendi cümlelerimle rahatça anlatabiliyorum. 5 4 3 2 1
7. Öğrencilerin İngilizce ifadelerini anlamakta güçlük çekmiyorum. 5 4 3 2 1 8. Branşımdaki bir konuyu kendi cümlelerimle İngilizce olarak tekrar ifade edebiliyor ve/veya özetleyebiliyorum. 5 4 3 2 1
9. Yapacağım sınavı İngilizce olarak rahatça hazırlayabiliyorum. 5 4 3 2 1 10. Branşımda yazılmış İngilizce kaynakları anlamakta zorluk çekmiyorum. 5 4 3 2 1
11. Ders esnasında günlük konuşmaları yapmam gerektiğinde bunu İngilizce olarak rahatça yapabiliyorum. 5 4 3 2 1
12. Dersin işlenişini İngilizce olarak yapmaktan hoşnutum. 5 4 3 2 1 Branşınızdaki bir dersi İngilizce olarak yapmanın avantajları nelerdir? Lütfen maddeler halinde yazınız.
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
236
____________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________ Branşınızdaki bir dersi İngilizce olarak yapmanın dezavantajları nelerdir? Lütfen maddeler halinde yazınız.
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________ Tüm sorulara ek olarak belirtmek istediğiniz görüşlerinizi yazınız.
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________
237
APPENDIX E
PARENT QUESTIONNAIRE FORM
Veli Anket Formu
Değerli veli, ortaöğretimde bazı okullarda öğretimin yabancı dille yapılması hakkında yurt çapında öğrenci, öğretmen, veli, yönetici, ve uzman görüşleri ile ilgili bir araştırma yürütmekteyiz. Amacımız toplumumuzda büyük bir kesimi ilgilendiren bu uygulama hakkında neler düşündüğünüzü ve hissettiğinizi araştırmaktır. Dolduracağınuz bu anket Anadolu liselerindeki Fen ve Matematik derslerinin İngilizce (ya da yabancı dille) yapılması hakkında görüşlerinizi saptamamamıza yardımcı olacaktır. Lütfen ankete isminizi yazmayınız. Cevaplarınız yalnızca araştırma kapsamında kullanılacaktır.Bu nedenle her soruyu dikkatli bir şekilde okuyarak içtenlikle yanıtlamanızı rica ederiz. Katkılarınız için teşekkür ederiz.
Şahika Tarhan Yard. Doç. Dr. Ahmet Ok Orta Doğu Teknik Üniversitesi Orta Doğu TeknikÜniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Bölümü Doktora Öğrencisi Eğitim Fakültesi Öğretim Üyesi Modern Diller Bölümü Öğretim Görevlisi Tez Danışmanı e-posta adresi: [email protected] I. BÖLÜM: Kişisel ve Kurumsal Bilgiler
1. Yaşınız: ______________ (Bitirdiğiniz yaşı yazınız.) 2. Cinsiyetiniz: K E
3. Aylık geliriniz: _______________________ (Sadece kendi gelirinizi yazınız.) 4. Eğitim Durumunuz:
Okul bitirmemiş İlkokul Ortaokul Lise Üniversite Lisansüstü
Yabancı Dil Bilgisi: 5. Yabancı dil biliyor musunuz?
Evet Hayır Cevabınız evet ise hangi yabancı dil/dilleri biliyorsunuz?
Dil 1: ____________ Dil 2: ____________
Bu dil/dillerdeki yeterlik düzeyinizi nasıl tanımlarsınız? Dil 1: Az Orta İyi Oldukça iyi Dil 2: Az Orta İyi Oldukça iyi
Cevabınız hayır ise imkanınız olduğu takdirde bir yabancı dil öğrenmek ister misiniz? Evet Hayır Cevabınız evet ise bu dil hangisi/hangileri olur? ________________________ 6. İngilizce biliyorsanız, İngilizce’deki kendi yeterlik düzeyinizi her bir dil becerisi için aşağıdaki kutucuklara bir işaret koyarak belirtiniz. Dil becerisi Çok iyi İyi Orta Ortanın altı Zayıf Okuma Dinleme Yazma Konuşma Dilbilgisi Sözcük bilgisi
238
7. Anadolu lisesine çocuğunuzu yollamayı öncelikle neden tercih ettiniz? Lütfen bir seçenek işaretleyiniz.
Kaliteli bir eğitim alması için İngilizce’yi daha iyi öğrenmesi için Yabancı dille öğretim sağladığı için Seviyesi nispeten yukarıda olan öğrencilerle aynı ortamı paylaşması için Diğer _______________________________________________(Lütfen belirtiniz.)
8.Aşağıdaki tabloda her bir ders için bir kutucuğu işaretleyerek Fen ve Matematik derslerinde İngilizce kullanımının ne yoğunlukta olmasını istediğinizi belirtiniz.
Ders
Sadece İngilizce Çoğunlukla İngilizce
Kısmen İngilizce Sadece Türkçe
Fizik Kimya Biyoloji Matematik II. BÖLÜM: Yabancı Dil a. 1. Yabancı bir dil denince aklınıza en önce hangi dil geliyor? ________________________ Neden bu dili yazdığınızı lütfen kısaca açıklayınız. _______________________________________________________________________________
2. Milli Eğitim Bakanlığına bağlı okullarda yabancı dil öğretilmesini destekliyor musunuz?
Cevabınızın nedenini kısaca açıklayınız.
Destekliyorum çünkü_______________________________________________________________
Desteklemiyorum çünkü____________________________________________________________
3. Yukarıdaki soruya cevabınız evet ise sizce 1. yabancı dil olarak hangi dil okutulmalı?
_____________________________________
4. Milli Eğitim Bakanlığına bağlı okullarda 2. bir yabancı dil öğretilmesini destekliyor musunuz?
Cevabınızın nedenini kısaca açıklayınız.
Destekliyorum çünkü_______________________________________________________________
Desteklemiyorum çünkü____________________________________________________________
5. Yukarıdaki soruya cevabınız evet ise sizce 2. yabancı dil olarak hangi dil okutulmalı?
_____________________________________ b. Aşağıdaki ifadeler sizin “yabancı dil” ve “yabancı dil olarak İngilizce” hakkında görüşleriniz saptamak için yazılmıştır. Her ifadeyi dikkatle okuyarak verilen derecelendirme üzerinde sizin için en uygun seçeneği lütfen işaretleyiniz. Lütfen cevapsız ifade bırakmayınız. (5) Tamamen katılıyorum (4) Katılıyorum (3) Fikrim yok (2) Katılmıyorum (1) Hiç katılmıyorum
239
YABANCI DİL ve İNGİLİZCE’YE İLİŞKİN
İFADELER
T
amam
en k
atılı
yoru
m
Katılı
yoru
m
Fikr
im y
ok
Katılmıy
orum
Hiç
katılmıy
orum
1. Yabancı bir dil öğrenmenin ülkemizdeki herkes için gerekli olduğunu düşünüyorum.. 5 4 3 2 1
2 .İngilizce öğrenmenin ülkemizdeki herkes için gerekli olduğunu düşünüyorum. 5 4 3 2 1
3. Yabancı bir dil öğrenmenin kendim için gerekli olduğunu düşünüyorum. 5 4 3 2 1
4. İngilizce öğrenmenin kendim için gerekli olduğunu düşünüyorum. 5 4 3 2 1 5. Çocuğumun İngilizce biliyor olmasından hoşnutum. 5 4 3 2 1 6. İngilizce biliyor olmak kişiye toplumda saygınlık kazandırmaktadır. 5 4 3 2 1 7 . Çocuğumun İngilizce’yi çok iyi düzeyde öğrenmesini istiyorum. 5 4 3 2 1 8. İngilizce’yi bir dil (lisan) olarak beğeniyorum. 5 4 3 2 1 9. Ülkemizde İngilizce’nin yaygınlaşması kültürümüzü olumlu yönde etkilemektedir. 5 4 3 2 1
10. . İngilizce bilmenin çocuğuma ileride avantaj sağlayacağına inanıyorum. 5 4 3 2 1
11. Yabancı dil olarak orta öğretimde (lise) İngilizce dışında başka diller de zorunlu-seçmeli ders olarak okutulmalı. 5 4 3 2 1
12. İlköğretimin ilk kademesinde (4.ve 5.sınıflarda) İngilizce zorunlu ders olarak okutulmalı. 5 4 3 2 1
13. İlköğretimin ikinci kademesinde (6-8. sınıflarda) İngilizce zorunlu ders olarak okutulmalı. 5 4 3 2 1
14. Yabancı dil olarak İngilizce orta öğretimde (lise) zorunlu ders olarak okutulmalı 5 4 3 2 1
15. Yabancı dil öğretimi üniversite düzeyinde yürütülmelidir. 5 4 3 2 1 16. Ülkemizde İngilizce’nin yaygınlaşması Türkçe’yi olumlu yönde etkilemektedir. 5 4 3 2 1
Yukarıdaki maddeler ile ilgili olarak eklemek istediklerinizi lütfen belirtiniz.
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
240
III. BÖLÜM: Yabancı dille öğretim 1. Genel Tutum Aşağıdaki ifadelerle sizlerin yabancı dille öğretime genel tutumunuzu ölçmek istiyoruz. Her ifadeyi dikkatle okuyarak verilen derecelendirme üzerinde sizin için en uygun seçeneği lütfen işaretleyiniz.
İşaretlemek için sizce uygun olan rakamı daire içine alınız. Lütfen cevapsız ifade
bırakmayınız. (5) Tamamen katılıyorum (4) Katılıyorum (3) Fikrim yok (2) Katılmıyorum (1) Hiç katılmıyorum YABANCI DİLLE ÖĞRETİME İLİŞKİN İFADELER
Genel Tutum Ta
mam
en
katılıy
orum
Katılı
yoru
m
Fikr
im y
ok
Katılmıy
orum
Hiç
ka
tılmıy
orum
1. Yabancı bir dille öğretimi yararlı buluyorum. 5 4 3 2 1 2. İngilizce ile öğretimi yararlı buluyorum. 5 4 3 2 1 3. Orta öğretimde (lise) İngilizce ile öğretim gereklidir. 5 4 3 2 1 4. Yüksek öğretimde (üniversite) İngilizce ile öğretim gereklidir. 5 4 3 2 1 5. Anadolu Liselerinde Fen dersleri (Fizik, Kimya, Biyoloji) İngilizce yapılmalı. 5 4 3 2 1
6. Anadolu Liselerinde Matematik dersi İngilizce yapılmalı. 5 4 3 2 1 7. Anadolu Liselerinde sosyal derslerden en az biri İngilizce olarak okutulmalı. 5 4 3 2 1
8. Tüm Anadolu liselerinde yabancı dille (İngilizce) öğretimden tamamıyla vazgeçilmeli. 5 4 3 2 1
9. Yabancı dille öğretim yapmak yerine yabancı dilin daha etkin öğretilmesi gerekir. 5 4 3 2 1
10. Yabancı dille öğretim öğrencilerin alan derslerindeki başarısını olumsuz olarak etkiler. 5 4 3 2 1
11. Genel olarak Fen ve Matematik derslerinin yabancı dille yapılmasını uygun buluyorum. 5 4 3 2 1
12. Anadolu liselerinde tamamen Türkçe öğretimine dönülmesi yerine, var olan sistemin iyileştirilmesi gerekir. 5 4 3 2 1
13. Öğrencilerin İngilizce temeli daha sağlam olursa Fen (Fizik, Kimya, Biyoloji) ve Matematik derslerindeki başarıları artar. 5 4 3 2 1
14. Fen (Fizik, Kimya, Biyoloji) ve Matematik derslerini veren öğretmenlerin İngilizce’ye hakim olması, öğrencilerin bu dersleri öğrenmesini kolaylaştıracaktır.
5 4 3 2 1
15. Fen (Fizik, Kimya, Biyoloji) ve Matematik derslerinin İngilizce yapılması üniversite giriş sınavındaki başarıyı olumsuz etkilemez. 5 4 3 2 1
16. Koşulları uygun olan Anadolu Liselerinde, Fen ve Matematik öğretimi İngilizce/yabancı dil olarak kalmalı. 5 4 3 2 1
17. Yabancı dille öğretim öğrencilerin bilişsel (zihinsel) gelişimine katkı sağlamaktadır. 5 4 3 2 1
18. Yabancı dille öğretim yapan bir kuruma devam etmek toplum 5 4 3 2 1
241
içerisinde kişiye saygınlık kazandırmaktadır.
19.Yabancı dille öğretim hedef dilin (örn. İngilizce) kültürünü tanımaya katkı sağlamaktadır. 5 4 3 2 1
20.Yabancı dille öğretim Fen ve Matematik derslerinin verimliliğini olumsuz olarak etkilemektedir. 5 4 3 2 1
21. Yabancı dille öğretim, öğrencilere o dili kullanım ortamı yarattığı için, hedef dilin (örn. İngilizce) gelişmesini sağlamaktadır. 5 4 3 2 1
22. Anadolu liselerinde yabancı dille öğretim sürmeli, ancak bu liselerin sayıları azaltılmalıdır. 5 4 3 2 1
23. Fen ve Matematik derslerinin İngilizce olması Anadolu Lisesi öğrencilerinin bilim ve teknoloji dilini öğrenmesini sağlar. 5 4 3 2 1
24.Yabancı dille öğretim yaratıcılığı sınırlamaktadır. 5 4 3 2 1 25.İngilizce artık uluslararası bir dil haline geldiğinden, İngilizce ile öğretim kültürel açıdan yozlaşmaya yol açmaz. 5 4 3 2 1
26. Yabancı dille öğretim bilim ve teknoloji alanlarında Türkçe sözcüklerin üretilmesini olumsuz yönde etkilemektedir. 5 4 3 2 1
27. Anadolu Liselerinde Matematik ve Fen alanları dışında Türkçe yapılan yeterince ders olduğundan, yabancı dille öğretim öğrencilerin ana dilini kullanmasını engellemez.
5 4 3 2 1
28. Yabancı dille öğretim yabancı dili öğretmek için etkili bir yöntemdir. 5 4 3 2 1
Yukarıdaki ifadeler ile ilgili olarak eklemek istediğiniz görüşlerinizi lütfen belirtiniz.
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
242
APPENDIX F
INTERVIEW PROTOCOL FOR STUDENTS
Öğrenci MÜLAKAT FORMU
Tarih: Bölge- İl: Başlangıç: Bitiş:
Değerli öğrencimiz, ortaöğretimde bazı okullarda öğretimin yabancı dille yapılması hakkında yurt çapında öğretmen, yönetici, öğrenci, veli görüşleri ile ilgili bir araştırma yürütmekteyim. Amacım toplumumuzda büyük bir kesimi ilgilendiren bu uygulama hakkında neler düşündüğünüzü ve hissettiğinizi araştırmaktır. Sizinle yapacağımız bu görüşme, Anadolu liselerindeki Fen ve Matematik derslerinin İngilizce (ya da yabancı dille) yapılması hakkında görüşlerinizi saptamama yardımcı olacaktır.
• Bu araştırmada sizden edineceğimiz bilgiler yalnızca araştırma amacyla kullanılacak ve kimliğiniz hiç bir şekilde belirtilmeyecektir.
• Verilerin çözümlemesini kolaylaştıracağı için izin verirseniz ses cihazımla bu görüşmeyi kayıt etmek istiyorum.
• Bu konuda sormak istediğiniz bir şey varsa sormaktan çekinmeyin. Kişisel Bilgiler Formu 1. Görüşmemize başlamadan önce, sizden şu bilgileri alabilir miyim?
• Yaşınız: ______________ (Bitirdiğiniz yaşı yazınız.) • Cinsiyetiniz: K E • Kaçıncı sınıf öğrencisiniz? Lise 1 Lise 2 Lise 3 • Liseden önce hangi tür okulda öğrenim gördünüz? • İlköğretim okulu Anadolu Lisesi Diğer • Ailenizin aylık geliri: ____________________ • Aile bireylerinin eğitim durumu: (En son bitirdikleri eğitim kurumu/düzeyi) Annenizin: Okul bitirmemiş İlkokul Ortaokul Lise Üniversite Lisansüstü Babanızın : Okul bitirmemiş İlkokul Ortaokul Lise Üniversite Lisansüstü
2. Anadolu lisesine girmeyi neden tercih ettiniz? Bu tercihte kimin/kimlerin etkisi oldu?
243
MÜLAKAT SORULARI Yabancı Dil ile İlgili Sorular 1. Sizce bir yabancı dil bilmek ve öğrenmek gerekli mi?
• Neden? • Kimler için?
2. Yabancı dil olarak İngilizce hakkında görüşleriniz nelerdir?
• Kimi kişiler İngilizce gerekli diyor, kimileri öğrenmek zorunluluğu olmasaydı diyor. Siz bu konuda ne düşünüyorsunuz?
• (İngilizce biliyorsa yanıtlanacak). İngilizce biliyor olmaktan hoşnut musunuz? Neden?
3. İngilizce'nin genelde dünyada bu kadar yaygınlaşması hakkında ne
düşünüyorsunuz?
• Dilimize, ülkemiz ve kültürümüz üzerine etkileri nelerdir? • Bu başka bir dil olsaydı neler düşünürdünüz?
4. Eğitim sistemimizde yabancı dili öğrenmenin yeri ve önemi nedir, ne olmalıdır?
• Ana dilin yeri ve önemi ne olmalıdır? Yabancı Dille Öğretime İlişkin Sorular 1. Yabancı dille öğretim hakkında genel düşünceniz nedir? 2. Anadolu Liselerinde Fen ve Matematik derslerinin İngilizce yapılması hakkında ne düşünüyorsunuz?
• Yabancı dille öğretimin bu derslere katkısı var mı? Bunlar nelerdir? • Yabancı dilde öğretim yapmanın sizce sakıncaları var mı? Varsa bunlar
neler?
3. Hangi dersler yabancı dille öğretilebilir? Ya da öğretilmelidir?
• Fen ve Matematik derslerinden başka dersler de İngilizce öğretilmeli mi? Neden?
4. A. Fen ve Matematik derslerinin yabancı dilde öğretilmesi derslerdeki başarınızı etkiliyor mu? Neden?
• Derslerinize katkısı var mı? Ne gibi? • Olumsuz etkisi var mı? Varsa bunlar neler?
244
• Dersin işlenişini etkiliyor mu (siz ya da öğretmeniz açısından)? Neden? • Dersi izlemek ve anlamakta, yeni kavramları öğrenmekte ne gibi etkisi
oluyor? Neden? • İngilizce anlatılan bir dersi anlatım esnasında veya daha sonra
çalışırken Türkçe’ye çevirme ihtiyacı duyuyor musunuz? Neden? • Derslerde İngilizce olarak soru sormakta, cevap vermekte, ve verilen
cevabı anlamakta güçlük çekiyor musunuz? Neden? • İşlenen bir konuyu İngilizce olarak kendi cümlelerinizle tekrar
anlatabiliyor, yazabiliyor ve özetleyebiliyor musunuz? Neden? • Fen ve Matematikte Türkçe kaynakları anlamakta zorluk çekiyor
musunuz? Neden? B. Fen ve Matematik derslerinin İngilizce yapılıyor olması İngilizce’deki dil becerilerinizin gelişmesine yardımcı oluyor mu?
• Okuma, yazma, konuşma, dinleme, dilbilgisi, sözcük dağarcığı, vb.
C. Yabancı dil dersleri dışında derslerin tamamıyla Türkçe yapıldığı bir okula gitmek ister miydiniz? Neden? 5. Anadolu liselerinde Türkçe öğretime dönülmeli mi? Neden? 6. Orta öğreniminizi tamamladığınızda İngilizce ya da bir yabancı dille öğretim
yapan bir yüksek öğretim kurumuna gitmeyi düşünür müsünüz? Neden? 7. Şimdiye dek söylediklerinizin dışında eklemek istedikleriniz var mı?
245
APPENDIX G
INTERVIEW PROTOCOL FOR TEACHERS
Öğretmen MÜLAKAT FORMU
Tarih: Bölge- İl: Başlangıç: Bitiş:
Değerli meslekdaşım, ortaöğretimde bazı okullarda öğretimin yabancı dille yapılması hakkında yurt çapında öğretmen, yönetici, öğrenci, veli görüşleri ile ilgili bir araştırma yürütmekteyim. Amacım toplumumuzda büyük bir kesimi ilgilendiren bu uygulama hakkında neler düşündüğünüzü ve hissettiğinizi araştırmaktır. Sizinle yapacağımız bu görüşme, Anadolu liselerindeki Fen ve Matematik derslerinin İngilizce (ya da yabancı dille) yapılması hakkında görüşlerinizi saptamama yardımcı olacaktır.
• Bu araştırmada sizden edineceğimiz bilgiler yalnızca araştırma amacyla kullanılacak ve kimliğiniz hiç bir şekilde belirtilmeyecektir.
• Verilerin çözümlemesini kolaylaştıracağı için izin verirseniz ses cihazımla bu görüşmeyi kayıt etmek istiyorum.
• Bu konuda sormak istediğiniz bir şey varsa sormaktan çekinmeyin. Kişisel Bilgiler Formu Görüşmemize başlamadan önce, sizden şu bilgileri alabilir miyim?
• Yaşınız: ______________ (Bitirdiğiniz yaşı yazınız.) • Cinsiyetiniz: K E • Aylık geliriniz: _______________________ (Sadece kendi gelirinizi yazınız.) • Eğitim Durumunuz: İki yıllık yüksek okul
Dört yıllık üniversite Diğer
• Mezun olduğunuz kurum adı: : ________________________________ • Branşınız: _____________________ • Kaç yıldır öğretmenlik yapıyorsunuz? ____________________________ • Anadolu liselerinde kaç yıldır çalışıyorsunuz? ______________________
• Hangi yabancı dil/dilleri biliyorsunuz? Dil 1: ____________ Dil 2: ____________ Dil 3: ____________
Bu dil/dillerdeki yeterlik düzeyinizi nasıl tanımlarsınız?
Dil 1: Az Orta İyi Oldukça iyi Dil 2: Az Orta İyi Oldukça iyi Dil 3: Az Orta İyi Oldukça iyi
Sonucunu belitmek istediğiniz standart bir sınav var mı (KPDS, TOEFL, vb.)
_______________________ • İngilizceyi nerede ve nasıl öğrendiniz?
lisede/ özel okulda fakültede MEB'in hizmet-içi kurslarında özel dil kurslarında yurtdışında diğer ____________________ yukarıdakilerin tümü
246
MÜLAKAT SORULARI Yabancı Dil ile İlgili Sorular 1. Sizce bir yabancı dil bilmek ve öğrenmek gerekli mi?
• Neden? • Kimler için?
4. Yabancı dil olarak İngilizce hakkında görüşleriniz nelerdir?
• Kimi kişiler İngilizce gerekli diyor, kimileri öğrenmek zorunluluğu olmasaydı diyor. Siz bu konuda ne düşünüyorsunuz?
• İngilizce biliyor olmaktan hoşnut musunuz? Neden? 5. İngilizce'nin genelde dünyada bu kadar yaygınlaşması hakkında ne
düşünüyorsunuz?
• Dilimize, ülkemiz ve kültürümüz üzerine etkileri nelerdir? • Bu başka bir dil olsaydı neler düşünürdünüz?
4. Eğitim sistemimizde yabancı dili öğrenmenin yeri ve önemi nedir, ne olmalıdır?
• Ana dilin yeri ve önemi ne olmalıdır?
Yabancı Dille Öğretime Yönelik Sorular 1. Yabancı dille öğretim hakkında genel düşünceniz nedir? 2. Bu okulda ve diğer Anadolu liseleri genelinde Fen ve Matematik deslerinin
İngilizce yapılması hakkında ne düşünüyorsunuz? 3. Hangi dersler yabancı dille öğretilebilir? Ya da öğretilmelidir?
• Fen ve Matematik derslerinden başka dersler de İngilizce öğretilmeli mi? Neden?
4. A. Öğrencilerinizin dersinize yönelik eğilimleri nasıldır?
• Dersi seviyorlar mı, ilgililer mi? Neden? • Hangi durumlarda zorluk çekiyorlar? Sebebleri nelerdir? • Zorluk çekiyorlarsa bunda öğretim dilinin payı var mı?
247
B. Gözlemlerinize göre İngilizce öğretim öğrenciyi nasıl etkiliyor?
• İngilizce öğrenmelerine katkısı var mı? Bunlar nelerdir? • Dersin İngilizce yapıyor olması öğrencilerin okuma, yazma, sözcük bilgisi,
gibi yabancı dil becerilerini geliştiriyor mu? • Yabancı dilde öğretim yapmanın sizce sakıncaları var mı? Varsa bunlar
neler? • (Olumsuz etki/lerden sözederse sorulacak) Bu konuda ne yapılmalıdır? (Örn. öğretmen ve öğrencilerin yabancı dil bilgisi ve becerileri temelini güçlendirmek/ üniversite giriş sınavındaki bu derslere ilişkin soruların İngilizce olarak da sorulması.)
5. Anadolu liselerinde Fen ve Matematik derslerinde Türkçe öğretime dönülmeli midir? Neden? 6. (Çocuğu varsa yanıtlanacak.) İmkanlarınızın uygun olması halinde, çocuğunuzun
ne tür bir ortaöğretim kurumuna gitmesini isterdiniz (Fen lisesi, özel lise, vb.)? Neden?
7. (Çocuğu varsa yanıtlanacak.) Orta öğrenimini tamamladığında çocuğunuzun
İngilizce/yabancı dille öğretim yapan bir yükseköğretim kurumuna gitmesini tercih eder misiniz? Evet ise öncelikle neden?
8. Ders esnasında Türkçe kullanıyor musunuz?
• Kullanıyorsanız, hangi sıklıkla ve özellikle hangi durumlarda? 9. İngilizce ders anlatmak öğretmenlik performansınızı etkiliyor mu? Neden? Nasıl? 10. Şimdiye dek söyledikleriniz dışında eklemek istedikleriniz var mı?
248
APPENDIX H
INTERVIEW PROTOCOL FOR PARENTS
Veli MÜLAKAT FORMU
Tarih: Bölge- İl: Başlangıç: Bitiş:
Sayın veli, ortaöğretimde bazı okullarda eğitimin yabancı dille yapılması hakkında yurt çapında öğretmen, yönetici, öğrenci, veli görüşleri ile ilgili bir araştırma yürütmekteyim. Amacım toplumumuzda büyük bir kesimi ilgilendiren bu uygulama hakkında neler düşündüğünüzü ve hissettiğinizi araştırmaktır. Sizinle yapacağımız bu görüşme, Anadolu liselerindeki Fen ve Matematik derslerinin İngilizce (ya da yabancı dille) yapılması hakkında görüşlerinizi saptamama yardımcı olacaktır.
• Bu araştırmada sizden edineceğimiz bilgiler yalnızca araştırma amacIyla kullanılacak ve kimliğiniz hiç bir şekilde belirtilmeyecektir.
• Bizim verileri çözümlememizi kolaylaştıracağı için izin verirseniz ses cihazımızla bu görüşmeyi kayıt etmek istiyorum.
• Bu konuda sormak istediğiniz bir şey varsa sormaktan çekinmeyin. Kişisel Bilgiler Formu 1.Görüşmemize başlamadan önce, sizden şu bilgileri alabilir miyim?
• Yaşınız: ______________ (Bitirdiğiniz yaşı yazınız.) • Cinsiyetiniz: K E • Mesleğiniz: ______________ • Aylık geliriniz: _________________ (Sadece kendi gelirinizi yazınız.) • Öğrenim durumunuz:
okul bitirmemiş ilkokul mezunu ortaokul mezunu lise mezunu üniversite mezunu lisansüstü
• Yabancı dil biliyor musunuz? Evet Hayır
Cevabınız evet ise hangi dil/dilleri biliyorsunuz? Dil 1: ____________ Dil 2: ____________ Dil 3: ____________ Bu dil/dillerdeki yeterlik düzeyinizi nasıl tanımlarsınız?
Dil 1: Az Orta İyi Oldukça iyi Dil 2: Az Orta İyi Oldukça iyi Dil 3: Az Orta İyi Oldukça iyi
Sonucunu belirtmek istediğiniz standart bir sınav var mı (KPDS, TOEFL, vb.) _______________________
Cevabınız hayır ise imkanınız olduğu takdirde bir yabancı dil öğrenmek ister misiniz? Evet Hayır
Cevabınız evet ise bu dil hangisi/hangileri olur? ________________________
249
MÜLAKAT SORULARI Yabancı Dil ile İlgili Sorular 1. Sizce bir yabancı dil bilmek ve öğrenmek gerekli mi?
• Neden? • Kimler için?
2. Yabancı dil olarak İngilizce hakkında görüşleriniz nelerdir?
• Kimi kişiler İngilizce gerekli diyor, kimileri öğrenmek zorunluluğu olmasaydı diyor. Siz bu konuda ne düşünüyorsunuz?
• (İngilizce biliyorsa yanıtlanacak). İngilizce biliyor olmaktan hoşnut musunuz? Neden?
3. İngilizce'nin genelde dünyada bu kadar yaygınlaşması hakkında ne
düşünüyorsunuz?
• Dilimize, ülkemiz ve kültürümüz üzerine etkileri nelerdir? • Bu başka bir dil olsaydı neler düşünürdünüz?
4. Eğitim sistemimizde yabancı dili öğrenmenin yeri ve önemi nedir, ne olmalıdır?
• Ana dilin yeri ve önemi ne olmalıdır?
Yabancı Dille Öğretime Yönelik Sorular 1. Yabancı dille öğretim hakkında genel düşünceniz nedir? 2. Anadolu Liselerinde Fen ve Matematik derslerinin İngilizce yapılması hakkında ne düşünüyorsunuz?
• Yabancı dille öğretimin bu derslere katkısı var mı? Bunlar nelerdir? • Yabancı dilde öğretim yapmanın sizce sakıncaları var mı? Varsa bunlar
neler?
4. Hangi dersler yabancı dille öğretilebilir? Ya da öğretilmelidir?
• Fen ve Matematik derslerinden başka dersler de İngilizce öğretilmeli mi? Neden?
5. Sizce yabancı dille öğretim çocuğunuzun Fen ve Matematik derslerindeki başarısını etkiliyor mu? Nasıl? Ne yönde?
• (Olumsuz etki/lerden sözederse sorulacak) Bu konuda ne yapılmalıdır?
250
(Örn. öğretmen ve öğrencilerin yabancı dil bilgisi ve becerileri temelini güçlendirmek/ üniversite giriş sınavındaki bu derslere ilişkin soruların İngilizce olarak da sorulması.)
6. Anadolu liselerinde Fen ve Matematik derslerinde Türkçe öğretime dönülmeli
mi? Neden? 7. Orta öğrenimini tamamladığında çocuğunuzun İngilizce/yabancı dille eğitim
yapan bir yükseköğretim kurumuna gitmesini tercih eder misiniz? Evet ise öncelikle neden?
8. Çocuğunuzu/çocuklarınızı neden bir Anadolu lisesine gönderiyorsunuz?
• Bu nedenleri sıralarsak birinci sırada hangisi yer alır? • Çocuğunuzu/çocuklarınızı bir Anadolu lisesine gönderme kararı kimler
tarafından nasıl alındı? • Çocuğunuzu Anadolu liseleri dışında bir okula göndermek ister miydiniz?
Evet ise hangi tür bir okula göndermek isterdiniz?
9. Şimdiye dek söyledikleriniz dışında eklemek istedikleriniz var mı?
251
APPENDIX I
INSTRUCTIONS ON HOW TO ADMINISTER THE SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE
ANKET UYGULAMA YÖNERGESİ
Sayın okul müdürümüz, Yabancı dil olarak İngilizce ve İngilizce ile öğretim hakkındaki yürütmekte olduğumuz araştırma kapsamında okulunuz veri tabanımız içinde yer almaktadır. Size iletilen zarfın içinde Öğrenci Anket Formu, Veli Anket Formu ve Öğretmen Anket Formu olmak üzere üç tip anket formu yer almaktadır. Bunlardan öğrenci ve veli anket formu aynı sayıdadır. Öğretmen anket formu ise okulunuzdaki Fen ve Matematik derslerini yürüten öğretmen arkadaşlara yöneliktir kurumuzdaki anket koşullarını sağlayan öğretmen sayısı kadardır. Lütfen anketin sağlıklı uygulanabilmesi için aşağıdaki maddeleri dikkatle okuyunuz. 1. Öğrenci anket formu uygulaması: Okulunuz için gönderilen formlar
................. adettir. Öğrencilerin anketi tamamlaması yaklaşık 30 dakika sürmektedir. Bu nedenle anketi bir öğretmen gözetiminde öğrencilere uygun olan bir ders saati içinde uygulatmanız önerilir. Öğrenci grubunu saptarken lütfen aşağıdaki koşulları göz önüne alınız.
a. Eğer okulunuzda halen Fen grubu (Fizik, Kimya, Biyoloji ) ve
Matematik derslerinden biri veya birkaçı İngilizce olarak, ya da kısmen İngilizce olarak yürütülüyorsa, bu anketleri FEN ŞUBESİ 10. SINIF (Lise 2)öğrencilerine uygulayınız. Bunun için zarfın içinde bulunan anket sayısına göre uygulamayı bir, iki ya da üç şubede gönüllü öğrencilere öncelik vererek yapmanız gerekmektedir.
b. Eğer okulunuz yukarıdaki koşulu sağlamıyorsa; Fen ve Matematik derslerinden hiç biri kısmen de olsa artık İngilizce olarak yapılmıyorsa, ve geçmişte orta kısımda Fen Bilgisi adı altında bu dersler İngilizce olarak yapılmışsa, anketleri yalnızca sizin kurumunuzda ortaokulu okumuş olan öğrencilere uygulayınız. Eğer bu öğrenciler şu anda 10. sınıfta ise 10.SINIF (Lise 2) öğrencilerine, eğer 11. sınıfta (Lise 3) iseler anketi 11.SINIF öğrencilerine uygulayınız. Bu öğrenciler her iki sınıfta da bulunuyorlarsa anketleri iki eşit sayıya bölerek 10. sınıf ve 11. sınıf öğrencilerine uygulayınız. Okulunuz bu koşulu sağlıyorsa, öğrencilerin şu anda Fen şubesi, Türkçe-Matematik şubesi, ya da Yabancı Dil şubesi mi olduğu bir önem teşkil etmemektedir. Ortaokulu kurumunuzda okumuş öğrenciler ayrı ayrı şubelerde olabilir. Bu nedenle sizin bu öğrencileri saptayıp anketleri yalnızca onlara uygulamanız gerekmektedir.
c. Eğer okulunuz yukarıdaki iki koşulu da sağlamıyorsa anketleri 9. SINIF
(Lise 1) ve 10. SINIF (Lise 2) FEN ŞUBESİ öğrencilerine uygulayınız.
252
2. Veli Anket Formu Uygulaması: Veli anketini uygulayabilmek için öğrenci
anketini uygularken veli anket formlarını da hazır bulundurmanız gerekmektedir. Bunun için yine uygun bir ders saati içinde bir öğretmen arkadaşı görevlendirebilirsiniz. Öğretmenimiz Öğrenci Anket Formunu dağıttığı her öğrenciye bir de Veli Anket Formu vermelidir. Lütfen anketi uygulayan öğretmen arkadaşların aracılığıyla öğrencilerin velilerine anketlerin ulaşmasını ve geri dönmesini sağlayınız.
3. Öğretmen Anket Formu Uygulaması: Öğretmen anket formları halen
okulunuzda İngilizce olarak ya da kısmen İngilizce olarak ders veren ya da geçmişte ne kadar süreyle olursa olsun Anadolu Liselerinde ya da özel okullarda bu şekilde ders vermiş olan tüm Matematik, Fizik, Kimya, Biyoloji branşlarındaki öğretmen arkadaşlara yöneliktir. Ayrıca bu arkadaşların ortaokul düzeyinde daha önce Fen Bilgisi ve/veya Matematik derslerini de İngilizce ya da kısmen İngilizce olarak vermiş olmaları, soruları yanıtlayabilmeleri için yeterli bir koşuldur. Anket formları sizin ya da yardımcınızın daha önce telefon ön görüşmesinde belirttiğiniz öğretmen sayısı kadardır. Ek olarak her okul için birer yedek kopya eklenmiştir. Öğretmen arkadaşların en kısa süre içinde anketleri şahsınıza iletmesini rica ediniz.
Yardımlarınız için teşekkürler. Yr. Doç. Dr. Ahmet Ok Orta Doğu Teknik Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Eğitim Bilimleri Bölümü Öğretim Üyesi Şahika Tarhan Orta Doğu Teknik Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Doktora Öğrencisi Modern Diller Bölümü Öğretim Görevlisi Sorularınız ve yorumlarınız için, bize aşağıdaki elektronik-posta adresinden ulaşabilirsiniz: [email protected]
253
254
APPENDIX K
INDEXING OF INTERVIEW CODES Ability to summarize and rephrase eg for homework, a definition Participant Page no Teacher rephrases easily because he knows the terms Teacher can readily translate into English we cannot Difficulty in writing down in what is in our head Terms cause the problem Can invent to same the same thing in Turkish No difficulty Able to make summaries partially Not needing as self-studying in Turkish Capable of retelling and rephrasing in English Capable of writing after doing the lesson in English Summarizing, a bit more difficult as it requires knowledge of words of that particular context Able to rephrase-it was our job to rephrase- were not being asked with the same sentences in the exam Very difficult to rephrase, M& S vocabulary-laden, difficult to retrieve words although structures settled Familiar contexts in Turkish you can half-retell in English, but if explained in English before it is difficult
S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6
9 7 5 5 9
Difficulty in following Turkish sources Only in biology Half- comprehending from English sources No difficulty in understanding Turkish sources Could interpret and understand the same subject matter from Turkish sources No time for such sources No identical sources No difficulty in following Turkish sources Turkish versions sounds strange first but understood later
S1 S3, s2,s4, s5 S6
9 5, 7,5,6 9
255
APPENDIX L
Table 1. Correlations between the EFL items and the EFL components
İtem English
learning &
teaching
Necessity of
English
Spread of
English and
its status
Items on FL & English learning and teaching
At elementary education English should be taught as a
compulsory course in grades 6-8.
0.75
.22
.20
English should be taught as a foreign language in high
schools as a compulsory course.
0.75
.19
.20
I am content that I
speak/my child speaks English.
0.66
.30
.10
At elementary education English should be taught as a
compulsory course in grades 4 & 5.
.62
.10
.36
I want (my child) to learn English at a very good level. .61 .47 .192
I believe the knowledge of English will bring advantages to
my child in the future.
.53
.46
.251
At secondary level other languages than English should be
compulsory too.
.52
.12
.29
Foreign language instruction should be offered at
university level.
.43
.008
.22
Items on Necessity of English
I feel learning a FL is necessary for me. .14 .86 .10
I feel learning English is necessary for me. .19 .85 .11
I believe everyone needs to learn a FL in our country. .27 .58 .38
I believe everyone needs to learn English in our country. .29 .53 .47
Items on Spread of English & its Status
The spread of English in our country has a positive effect
on our culture
.16
.15
.81
The spread of English in our country has a positive effect
on Turkish.
.17
-.013
.77
Knowing English is a mark of prestige in society. .24 .26 .57
Complexly Determined İtem
I think English is a nice language .44 .24 .48
256
Table 2. Rotated Sums of Squared Loadings
Component total % of variance
1. FL & English learning and
teaching
3.598
22.485
2 Necessity of English 2.846 17.787
3. Spread of English and its status 2.557 15.984
Total 56.256
257
APPENDIX M
Table 3. Students’ Perceptions of English-medium Instruction Agree Disagree Undecided
Item no N f % f % f % EMI is necessary at tertiary education level (university).
4
965
573
59.4
247
25.6
145
15
FLMI improves the language competence of students in the target language (i.e. English) as it provides a medium for learners to use the language.
21
962
510
53
269
28
183
19 FLMI enables us to learn about the culture of the target language (e.g. English)
19
966
502
52
285
29.5
179
18.5 Instead of reverting back completely to Turkish in Anatolian high schools, the existing system should be restored.
12
967
486
50.2
270
27.9
211
21.8 All Anatolian high schools should give up EMI completely.*
8
967
470
49.6
383
39.6
114
11.8 To be attending a FMLI institution gains the individual social prestige.
18
969
454
46.9
314
32.4
201
20.7 If teachers that teach science and math subjects have perfect competence in English, students' learning of the subject matter will be facilitated.
14
970
433
44.8
342
35.3
193
19.9 I find Foreign Language Medium Instruction (FLMI) useful.
1
968
401
41.4
467
48.2
100
10.3 I find English-medium instruction (EMI) useful.
2
967
394
40.7
467
48.3
151
15.6 If science and Math subjects are studied in English, the students can learn the language of science and technology.
23
967
376
38.9
392
40.5
199
20.6 FLMI is an effective method to teach a foreign language.
28
967
376
38.9
435
45
156
16.1 Because English has become an international language, EMI does not result in cultural corruption.
25
982
328
34
398
41.2
239
24.8 If the students have a firmer background in English, their success in science and math subjects will increase.
13
967
323
33.3
443
45.7
204
21 EMI is necessary at secondary education level (high school).
3
967
311
32.2
467
57
105
10.9 FLMI hinders creativity.*
24
966
297
30.8
453
46.9
216
22.4
FLMI contributes to students' cognitive development.
17
969
297
30.6
388
30.6
284
29.3 continued
258
In schools where the conditions are favorable, the medium of the study of science and math subjects must remain English.
16
970
201
20.9
639
66.5
121
12.6 FMLI should continue in Anatolian high schools, yet the number of these schools must be decreased.
22
967
199
20.6
573
59.3
195
20.2 Since there are a sufficient number of courses offered in Turkish except for science and math subjects, FLMI does not prevent students from using their mother tongue.
27
970
323
20.4
449
46.3
198
20.4 FLMI will have an adverse effect on student achievement in science and math subjects.*
10
968
151
15.6
713
73.7
104
10.7 FLMI discourages the production of Turkish words in the areas of science and technology.*
26
965
137
14.2
652
67.6
176
18.2 FLMI has a negative effect on the productivity of science and math instruction.*
20
965
136
14.1
726
75.2
103
10.7 In general I find it appropriate that science and math should be studied in a foreign language.
11
969
119
12.3
773
79.8
77
7.9 That science and math subjects are studied in English does not negatively affect students' success in the university entrance exam.
15
968
116
11.9
747
77
107
11 In Anatolian high schools science subjects (Physics, Chemistry, Biology) must be studied in English.
5
970
114
8.8
771
79.5
85
8.8 In Anatolian high schools Mathematics must be studied in English.
6
969
117
7.7
777
80.2
75
7.7 In Anatolian high schools at least one of the social science subjects must be studied in English.
7
970
108
7.6
788
81.2
74
7.6 Effective Foreign Language instruction should replace FLMI.*
9
970
74
7.6
817
84.2
79
8.1 Note: Statements marked with an asterisk (*) have been reversed prior to computation. For accurate interpretation of results, the statements should be reversed meaningwise (e.g. “FLMI hinders creativity” reads “FLMI does not hinder creativity”. Alternatively, to examine the positive responses to this item, one can note the frequencies and percentages in the column Disagree instead of those in the column Agree.
259
Table 4. Students’ Perceptions of English-medium Instruction Item Item no N M SD FLMI improves the language competence of students in the target language (e.g. English) as it provides a medium for learners to use the language.
21
965
3.46
1.350 Instead of reverting back completely to Turkish in Anatolian High Schools, the existing system should be restored.
12
967
3.33
1.362
FLMI enables us to learn about the culture of the target language (e.g. English)
19
962
3.30
1.225
To be attending a FMLI institution gains the individual social prestige.
18
966
3.26
1.240
If teachers that teach science and math subjects have perfect competence in English, students' learning of the subject matter will be facilitated.
14
969
3.13
1.303 All Anatolian High Schools should give up EMI completely.*
8
968
3.13
1.389 If science and Math subjects are studied in English, the students can learn the language of science and technology.
23
967
3.13
1.568 I find Foreign Language Medium Instruction (FLMI) useful.
1
967
2.91
1.312 I find English-medium instruction (EMI) useful.
2
968
2.90
1.462
EMI is necessary at tertiary education level (university).
4
967
2.86
1.416 FLMI is an effective method to teach a foreign language.
28
967
2.86
1.356 FLMI contributes to students' cognitive development.
17
969
2.83
1.253 Because English has become an international language, EMI does not result in cultural corruption.
25
965
2.82
1.307 If the students have a firmer background in English, their success in science and math subjects will increase.
13
970
2.78
1.387 Since there are a sufficient number of courses offered in Turkish except for science and math subjects, FLMI does not prevent students from using their mother tongue.
27
970
2.74
1.284
FLMI hinders creativity.* 24 966 2.73 1.317
260
continued EMI is necessary at secondary education level (high school).
3
967
2.59
1.392 FMLI should continue in Anatolian High Schools, yet the number of these schools must be decreased.
22
967
2.38
1.269 In schools where the conditions are favorable, the medium of the study of science and math subjects must remain English.
16
961
2.22
1.262 FLMI discourages the production of Turkish words in the areas of science and technology.*
26
965
2.16
1.173 FLMI will have an adverse effect on student achievement in science and math subjects.*
10
968
2.02
1.193 FLMI has a negative effect on the efficiency of science and math instruction.*
20
965
2.00
1.178 In general I find it appropriate that science and math should be studied in a foreign language.
11
969
1.90
1.086 That science and math subjects are studied in English does not negatively affect students' success in the university entrance exam.
15
970
1.87
1.128 In Anatolian High Schools science subjects (Physics, Chemistry, Biology) must be studied in English.
5
970
1.86
1.097 In Anatolian High Schools Mathematics must be studied in English.
6
969
1.84
1.139 In Anatolian High schools at least one of the social science subjects must be studied in English.
7
970
1.77
1.099 Effective Foreign Language instruction should replace FLMI.*
9
970
1.69
1.019 Note: Statements marked with an asterisk (*) have been reversed prior to computation.
261
APPENDIX N Table 5. Teachers’ Perceptions of English-medium Instruction Agree Disagree Undecided Item no N f % f % f % FLMI improves the language competence of students in the target language (i.e. English) as it provides a medium for learners to use the language.
21
359
219
61
95
26.5
45
12.5 FLMI enables us to learn about the culture of the target language (e.g. English)
19
360
219
60.9
93
25.8
48
13.3
If teachers that teach science and math subjects have perfect competence in English, students' learning of the subject matter will be facilitated.
14
360
218
60.5
122
33.9
20
5.6 If science and Math subjects are studied in English, the students can learn the language of science and technology.
23
361
176
59.9
164
34.3
21
5.8 Since there are a sufficient number of courses offered in Turkish except for science and math subjects, FLMI does not prevent students from using their mother tongue.
27
361
184
56.5
122
33.8
35
9.7 EMI is necessary at tertiary education level (university).
4
353
199
56.4
129
36.5
25
7.1 To be attending a FMLI institution gains the individual social prestige.
18
361
193
53.5
125
33.5
43
13 Instead of reverting back completely to Turkish in Anatolian high schools, the existing system should be restored.
12
361
186
51.5
150
41.6
25
6.9 FLMI is an effective method to teach a foreign language.
28
362
186
51.4
142
39.2
34
9.4 Because English has become an international language, EMI does not result in cultural corruption.
25
358
177
49.4
127
35.5
54
15.1 If the students have a firmer background in English, their success in science and math subjects will increase.
13
360
173
48
153
42.5
34
9.4 All Anatolian high schools should give up EMI completely.*
8
360
171
47.5
171
47.5
18
5
FLMI contributes to students' cognitive development.
17
361
161
44.6
144
40.7
53
14.7 In schools where the conditions are favorable, the medium of the study of science and math subjects must remain English.
16
361
158
43.8
170
47.1
33
9.1
FLMI hinders creativity.*
24
356
151
42.4
169
47.5
36
10.1
262
Continued I find English-medium instruction (EMI) useful.
2
363
151
41.6
189
52.2
23
6
FMLI should continue in Anatolian high schools, yet the number of these schools must be decreased.
22
360
144
40
179
49.7
37
10.3 I find Foreign Language Medium Instruction (FLMI) useful.
1
363
142
39.2
201
55.4
20
5.5 EMI is necessary at secondary education level (high school).
3
362
128
35.4
209
57.9
24
6.6 In general I find it appropriate that science and math should be studied in a foreign language.
11
362
126
34.8
222
60.8
16
4.4 In Anatolian high schools science subjects (Physics, Chemistry, Biology) must be studied in English.
5
362
124
34.2
227
62.7
11
3
In Anatolian high schools Mathematics must be studied in English.
6
360
116
32.2
225
62.5
19
5.3 FLMI has a negative effect on the effectiveness of science and math instruction.*
20
358
115
32.1
223
62.3
20
5.6 FLMI discourages the production of Turkish words in the areas of science and technology.*
26
360
111
30.9
194
53.9
55
15.3 FLMI will have an adverse effect on student achievement in science and math subjects.*
10
358
109
30.4
232
64.8
17
4.7 That science and math subjects are studied in English does not negatively affect students' success in the university entrance exam.
15
360
101
28
231
64.2
28
7.8 Effective Foreign Language instruction should replace FLMI.*
9
362
58
16
292
80.7
12
3.3 In Anatolian high schools at least one of the social science subjects must be studied in English.
7
360
55
15..3
267
74.2
14
10.6
Note: Statements marked with an asterisk (*) have been reversed prior to computation. For accurate interpretation of results, the statements should be reversed meaningwise (e.g. “FLMI hinders creativity” reads “FLMI does not hinder creativity”. Alternatively, to examine the positive responses to this item, one can note the frequencies and percentages in the column Disagree instead of those in the column Agree.
263
Table 6. Teachers’ Perception of English-medium Instruction Item Item no N M SD FLMI improves the language competence of students in the target language (e.g. English) as it provides a medium for learners to use the language.
21
359
3.42
1.212 FLMI enables us to learn about the culture of the target language (e.g. English)
19
360
3.42
1.151 If teachers that teach science and math subjects have perfect competence in English, students' learning of the subject matter will be facilitated.
14
360
3.42
1.472 If science and Math subjects are studied in English, the students can learn the language of science and technology.
23
361
3.40
1.403 Since there are a sufficient number of courses offered in Turkish except for science and math subjects, FLMI does not prevent students from using their mother tongue.
27
361
3.27
1.312 EMI is necessary at tertiary education level (university).
4
353
3.25
1.393 To be attending a FMLI institution gains the individual social prestige.
18
361
3.25
1.297 Instead of reverting back completely to Turkish in Anatolian High Schools, the existing system should be restored.
12
361
3.20
1.450 Because English has become an international language, EMI does not result in cultural corruption.
25
358
3.17
1.299 FLMI is an effective method to teach a foreign language.
28
362
3.15
1.366 If the students have a firmer background in English, their success in science and math subjects will increase.
13
360
3.11
1.440 FLMI contributes to students' cognitive development.
17
361
3.04
1.340 In schools where the conditions are favorable, the medium of the study of science and math subjects must remain English.
16
361
2.98
1.487 All Anatolian High Schools should give up EMI completely.*
8
360
2.96
1.513 FMLI should continue in Anatolian High Schools, yet the number of these schools must be decreased.
22
360
2.91
1.418
264
Continued FLMI hinders creativity.*
24
356
2.88
1.370 I find English-medium instruction (EMI) useful.
2
363
2.87
1.452
I find Foreign Language Medium Instruction (FLMI) useful.
1
363
2.79
1.450 EMI is necessary at secondary education level (high school).
3
361
2.67
1.414
FLMI discourages the production of Turkish words in the areas of science and technology.*
26
360
2.64
1.266 In general I find it appropriate that science and math should be studied in a foreign language.
11
362
2.57
1.369 In Anatolian High Schools science subjects (Physics, Chemistry, Biology) must be studied in English.
5
362
2.56
1.460 In Anatolian High Schools Mathematics must be studied in English.
6
360
2.54
1.450 FLMI has a negative effect on the efficiency of science and math instruction.*
20
358
2.48
1.342 That science and math subjects are studied in English does not negatively affect students' success in the university entrance exam.
15
360
2.47
1.368 FLMI will have an adverse effect on student achievement in science and math subjects.*
10
358
2.35
1.382 In Anatolian High schools at least one of the social science subjects must be studied in English.
7
360
2.04
1.150 Effective Foreign Language instruction should replace FLMI.*
9
362
1.86
1.170 Note: Statements marked with an asterisk (*) have been reversed prior to computation.
265
APPENDIX O Table 7. Parents’ Perceptions of English-medium Instruction Agree Disagree Undecided
Item no N f % f % f % FLMI improves the language competence of students in the target language (i.e. English) as it provides a medium for learners to use the language.
21
950
626
65.9
186
19.6
48
5.1 EMI is necessary at tertiary education level (university).
4
961
612
63.7
246
25.6
97
10.1 Instead of reverting back completely to Turkish in Anatolian high schools, the existing system should be restored.
12
962
602
62.6
229
23.8
131
13.6 FLMI enables us to learn about the culture of the target language (e.g. English)
19
960
598
62.3
211
22
151
15.7 I find Foreign Language Medium Instruction (FLMI) useful.
1
970
545
56.2
375
38.7
50
5.2 I find English-medium instruction (EMI) useful.
2
964
544
56.2
362
37.4
62
6.4 All Anatolian high schools should give up EMI completely.*
8
966
535
55.4
340
35.1
91
9.4 FLMI is an effective method to teach a foreign language.
28
988
518
53.8
333
32.1
111
11.5 To be attending a FMLI institution gains the individual social prestige.
18
968
518
53.5
318
32.9
132
13.6 If teachers that teach science and math subjects have perfect competence in English, students' learning of the subject matter will be facilitated.
14
968
517
53.4
294
30.3
157
16.2 Because English has become an international language, EMI does not result in cultural corruption.
25
960
498
51.9
314
32.7
148
15.4 If science and Math subjects are studied in English, the students can learn the language of science and technology.
23
959
490
51.1
315
32.8
154
16.1 Since there are a sufficient number of courses offered in Turkish except for science and math subjects, FLMI does not prevent students from using their mother tongue.
27
962
483
50.2
319
33.2
160
16.6 EMI is necessary at secondary education level (high school).
3
965
458
47.5
428
44.3
79
8.2 FLMI contributes to students' cognitive development.
17
965
415
43
333
34.5
217
22.5
266
Continued If the students have a firmer background in English, their success in science and math subjects will increase.
13
966
397
41.1
406
42.1
163
16.9 FLMI hinders creativity.*
24
951
386
40.5
374
39.3
191
20.1
In schools where the conditions are favorable, the medium of the study of science and math subjects must remain English.
16
966
355
36.8
481
49.8
130
13.5 In general I find it appropriate that science and math should be studied in a foreign language.
11
965
281
9.1
602
62.9
77
8
FMLI should continue in Anatolian high schools, yet the number of these schools must be decreased.
22
960
279
29.1
533
55.5
148
15.4 In Anatolian high schools science subjects (Physics, Chemistry, Biology) must be studied in English.
5
967
273
28.3
621
64.2
73
7.5 In Anatolian high schools Mathematics must be studied in English.
6
964
263
27.3
628
65.1
73
7.6 FLMI discourages the production of Turkish words in the areas of science and technology.*
26
961
246
25.6
561
58.3
154
16 That science and math subjects are studied in English does not negatively affect students' success in the university entrance exam.
15
968
244
25.2
612
63.2
112
11.6 In Anatolian high schools at least one of the social science subjects must be studied in English.
7
966
242
25
639
66.2
85
8.8 FLMI will have an adverse effect on student achievement in science and math subjects.*
10
961
237
24.7
602
62.7
122
12.7 FLMI has a negative effect on the effectiveness of science and math instruction.*
20
960
189
19.7
657
68.4
114
11.9 Effective Foreign Language instruction should replace FLMI.*
9
962
112
11.7
777
80.8
73
7.6 Note: Statements marked with an asterisk (*) have been reversed prior to computation. For accurate interpretation of results, the statements should be reversed meaningwise (e.g. “FLMI hinders creativity” reads “FLMI does not hinder creativity”. Alternatively, to examine the positive responses to this item, one can note the frequencies and percentages in the column Disagree instead of those in the column Agree.
267
Table 8. Parents’ Perceptions of English-medium Instruction Item Item no N M SD FLMI improves the language competence of students in the target language (e.g. English) as it provides a medium for learners to use the language.
21
950
3.63
1.127 Instead of reverting back completely to Turkish in Anatolian High Schools, the existing system should be restored.
12
962
3.61
1.302 EMI is necessary at tertiary education level (university).
4
961
3.56
1.314 FLMI enables us to learn about the culture of the target language (e.g. English)
19
960
3.55
1.175 If teachers that teach science and math subjects have perfect competence in English, students' learning of the subject matter will be facilitated.
14
968
3.36
1.388 All Anatolian High Schools should give up EMI completely.*
8
66
3.32
1.515 I find English-medium instruction (EMI) useful.
2
968
3.29
1.457
I find Foreign Language Medium Instruction (FLMI) useful.
1
970
3.29
1.480 FLMI is an effective method to teach a foreign language.
28
962
3.28
1.356 Because English has become an international language, EMI does not result in cultural corruption.
25
960
3.26
1.326 To be attending a FMLI institution gains the individual social prestige.
18
968
3.25
1.351 If science and Math subjects are studied in English, the students can learn the language of science and technology.
23
959
3.24
1.327 Since there are a sufficient number of courses offered in Turkish except for science and math subjects, FLMI does not prevent students from using their mother tongue.
27
962
3.24
1.315 FLMI contributes to students' cognitive development.
17
965
3.09
1.279 EMI is necessary at secondary education level (high school).
3
965
3.05
1.440 If the students have a firmer background in English, their success in science and math subjects will increase.
13
966
3.00
1.361
268
continued FLMI hinders creativity.*
24
951
2.98
1.301 In schools where the conditions are favorable, the medium of the study of science and math subjects must remain English.
16
966
2.76
1.398 FMLI should continue in Anatolian High Schools, yet the number of these schools must be decreased.
22
960
2.65
1.298 In general I find it appropriate that science and math should be studied in a foreign language.
11
965
2.48
1.363 FLMI discourages the production of Turkish words in the areas of science and technology.*
26
961
2.47
1.250 In Anatolian High Schools science subjects (Physics, Chemistry, Biology) must be studied in English.
5
967
2.44
1.361 In Anatolian High Schools Mathematics must be studied in English.
6
964
2.40
1.369 That science and math subjects are studied in English does not negatively affect students' success in the university entrance exam.
15
968
2.38
1.330 In Anatolian High schools at least one of the social science subjects must be studied in English.
7
966
2.33
1.340
FLMI will have an adverse effect on student achievement in science and math subjects.*
10
961
2.32
1.272 FLMI has a negative effect on the efficiency of science and math instruction.*
20
960
2.24
1.174 Effective Foreign Language instruction should replace FLMI.*
9
962
1.79
1.123 Note: Statements marked with an asterisk (*) have been reversed prior to computation
269
APPENDIX P
Table 9. Students’ Perceptions of English as a Foreign Language (EFL) Item Item no N M SD I feel learning a FL is necessary for me.
3 967 4.65 .760
I believe the knowledge of English will bring advantages to me in the future.
10
962
4.61
.733
I feel learning English is necessary for me.
4
971
4.60
.851
I want to learn English very well.
7
969
4.47
.918
I believe everyone needs to learn a FL in our country.
1
972
4.23
1.069 At elementary education English should be taught as a compulsory course in grades 6-8.
13
967
4.18
1.098 I am content that I speak/my child speaks English.
5
965
4.03
1.202 English should be taught as a foreign language in high schools as a compulsory course.
14
971
3.99
1.258 I believe everyone needs to learn English in our country.
2
971
3.93
1.196 I think English is a nice language.
8
967
3.88
1.149
Foreign language instruction should be offered at university level.
15
961
3.60
1.261 At elementary education English should be taught as a compulsory course in grades 4 & 5.
12
967
3.59
1.396 Knowing English is a mark of prestige in society.
6
966
3.42
1.342 At secondary level other languages than English should be compulsory too.
11
969
3.08
1.440 The spread of English in our country has a positive effect on our culture.
9
963
2.88
1.403 The spread of English in our country has a positive effect on Turkish.
16
971
2.06
1.151
270
Table 10. Students’ Perceptions of English as a Foreign Language (EFL)
Agree Disagree Undecided Item no N f % f % f % I feel learning a FL is necessary for me.
3
967
908
94.1
34
3.6
23
2.4 I believe the knowledge of English will bring advantages to me in the future.
10
962
901
93.7
28
2.9
33
3.4 I feel learning English is necessary for me.
4
971
901
92.8
48
5
22
2.3 I want to learn English very well.
7
969
870
89.8
55
5.7
44
4.5
I believe everyone needs to learn a FL in our country.
1
972
930
85.4
112
11.5
30
3.1 At elementary education English should be taught as a compulsory course in grades 6-8.
13
967
802
82.9
95
9.8
70
7.2 I am content that I speak/my child speaks English.
5
965
741
76.8
119
12.4
105
10.9 I believe everyone needs to learn English in our country.
2
971
745
76.7
72
12.3
54
5.6 English should be taught as a foreign language in high schools as a compulsory course.
14
971
743
76.5
145
14.7
83
8.8 I think English is a nice language.
8
967
708
73.2
127
13.1
132
13.7
At elementary education English should be taught as a compulsory course in grades 4 & 5.
12
967
598
61.8
236
24.4
133
13.8 Foreign language instruction should be offered at university level.
15
961
571
59.4
197
20.5
193
20.1 Knowing English is a mark of prestige in society.
6
966
536
55.5
269
27.8
16.1
16.7 At secondary level other languages than English should be compulsory too.
11
969
540
45.4
373
38.5
156
16.1 The spread of English in our country has a positive effect on our culture.
9
963
350
35.4
431
44.8
182
18.9 The spread of English in our country has a positive effect on Turkish.
16
971
105
10.9
669
68.9
197
20.3
271
APPENDIX Q Table 11. Teachers’ Perceptions of English as a Foreign Language (EFL) Item Item no N M SD I feel learning a FL is necessary for me.
3
364
4.64
.608
I feel learning English is necessary for me.
4
368
4.57
.693
I want my child to learn English very well.
7
367
4.50
.803
I am content that I speak English.
5
357
4.29
.925
At elementary education English should be taught as a compulsory course in grades 6-8.
13
364
4.25
.982 I believe the knowledge of English will bring advantages to me in the future.
10
363
4.22
.952 English should be taught as a foreign language in high schools as a compulsory course.
14
362
4.17
1.055 I think English is a nice language.
8
358
4.08
1.033
I believe everyone needs to learn a FL in our country.
1
369
4.02
1.268 At elementary education English should be taught as a compulsory course in grades 4 & 5.
12
365
3.85
1.246 I believe everyone needs to learn English in our country.
2
366
3.69
1.268 Knowing English is a mark of prestige in society.
6
360
3.64
1.300 Foreign language instruction should be offered at university level.
15
360
3.51
1.374 At secondary level other languages than English should be compulsory too.
11
365
3.46
1.339 The spread of English in our country has a positive effect on our culture.
9
362
3.29
1.344 The spread of English in our country has a positive effect on Turkish.
16
363
2.78
1.327
272
Table 12. Teachers’ Perceptions of English as a Foreign Language (EFL)
Agree Disagree Undecided Item no N f % f % f % I feel learning a FL is necessary for me.
3
364
356
97.8
7
1.9
1
.3 I feel learning English is necessary for me.
4
368
353
95.9
11
2.9
4
1.1 I want to learn English very well.
7
367
343
93.5
20
4.9
6
1.6
At elementary education English should be taught as a compulsory course in grades 6-8.
13
364
323
88.7
32
8.8
9
2.5 I am content that I speak English.
5
357
315
88.2
25
7
17
4.8
I believe the knowledge of English will bring advantages to me in the future.
10
363
319
87.9
31
8.6
13
3.6 English should be taught as a foreign language in high schools as a compulsory course.
14
362
310
85.6
42
11.6
10
2.8 I think English is a nice language.
8
358
288
80.4
36
10.1
34
9.5
I believe everyone needs to learn a FL in our country.
1
369
292
79.1
75
20.4
2
.5 At elementary education English should be taught as a compulsory course in grades 4 & 5.
12
365
269
73.7
119
28.9
27
7.4 I believe everyone needs to learn English in our country.
2
366
255
69.7
99
27.1
12
3.3 Knowing English is a mark of prestige in society.
6
360
239
66.4
85
23.6
36
10 Foreign language instruction should be offered at university level.
15
360
222
61.7
104
28.9
34
9.4 At secondary level other languages than English should be compulsory too.
11
365
221
60.5
107
29.4
37
10.1 The spread of English in our country has a positive effect on our culture.
9
362
192
53.6
124
34.3
46
12.7 The spread of English in our country has a positive effect on Turkish.
16
363
136
34.4
170
46.8
68
18.7
APPENDIX R
273
Table 13. Parents’ Perceptions of English as a Foreign Language (EFL) Item Item no N M SD
I am content that my child speaks English.
5
977
4.68
.695
I want my child to learn English very well.
7
977
4.67
.720
I believe the knowledge of English will bring advantages to my child in the future.
10
978
4.59
.784 At elementary education English should be taught as a compulsory course in grades 6-8.
13
975
4.23
1.081 I feel learning a FL is necessary for me.
3
967
4.17
1.088
I believe everyone needs to learn a FL in our country.
1
979
4.12
1.148 I feel learning English is necessary for me.
2
974
4.10
1.128
I believe everyone needs to learn English in our country.
4
978
3.89
1.216 I think English is a nice language.
8
974
3.88
1.161
Foreign language instruction should be offered at university level.
15
975
3.79
1.230 At elementary education English should be taught as a compulsory course in grades 4 & 5.
12
977
3.78
1.359 At secondary level other languages than English should be compulsory too.
11
975
3.42
1.409 The spread of English in our country has a positive effect on our culture.
9
978
3.13
1.430 The spread of English in our country has a positive effect on Turkish.
16
974
2.64
1.390
274
Table 14. Parents’ Perceptions of English as a Foreign Language (EFL) Agree Disagree Undecided Item no N f % f % f % I am content that my child speaks English.
5
977
937
95.9
25
2.5
15
1.5 I want my child to learn English very well.
7
977
923
94.5
29
2.9
25
2.6 I believe the knowledge of English will bring advantages to me in the future.
10
978
919
94
36
3.6
23
2.4 At elementary education English should be taught as a compulsory course in grades 6-8.
13
975
845
86.7
94
9.6
36
3.7 English should be taught as a foreign language in high schools as a compulsory course.
14
976
834
85.5
102
10.4
40
4.1 I believe everyone needs to learn a FL in our country.
1
979
807
82.4
139
14.2
33
3.4 I feel learning a FL is necessary for me.
3
967
794
82.1
119
12.3
31
3.2 I feel learning English is necessary for me.
4
974
787
80.8
135
13.9
52
5.3 I believe everyone needs to learn English in our country.
2
978
749
76.6
194
19.8
35
3.6 At elementary education English should be taught as a compulsory course in grades 4 & 5.
12
977
691
70.7
219
22.4
67
6.9 I think English is a nice language.
8
974
687
70.5
132
13.5
155
15.9
Foreign language instruction should be offered at university level.
15
975
665
68.2
186
19.1
124
12.7 Knowing English is a mark of prestige in society.
6
974
646
66.3
244
25
84
8.6 At secondary level other languages than English should be compulsory too.
11
975
572
58.7
307
31.4
96
9.8 The spread of English in our country has a positive effect on our culture.
9
978
462
47.2
384
39.3
132
13.5 The spread of English in our country has a positive effect on Turkish.
16
974
297
30.5
514
52.8
163
16.7
275
APPENDIX S
Table 15. Current Intensity of Exposure of Students to English-medium Instruction
only English mostly Turkish
partly English
only Turkish
Teaching
N % N % N % N % Physics N=957
21 2,2 122 12,7 382 39,9 432 45,1
Chemistry N=956
40 4,2 161 16,8 353 36,9 402 42,1
Biology N=958
25 2,6 112 11,7 316 33,0 505 52,7
Maths N=960
29 3,0 146 15,2 409 42,6 376 39,2
Testing
Physics N=960
86 9,0 116 12,1 287 29,9 471 49,1
Chemistry N=957
129 13,5 129 13,5 253 26,4 446 46,6
Biology N=962
87 9,0 93 9,7 242 25,2 540 56,1
Maths N=962
94 9,8 116 12,1 305 31,7 447 46,5
276
APPENDIX T
TÜRKÇE ÖZET
GİRİŞ
Türkiye’de 1950’lerden sonra belirgin bir şekilde yaygınlaşan İngilizce
günümüzde de en etkin yabancı dil konumundadır (Bear, 1987; Demircan, 1988).
Küreselleşme olgusu ile birlikte dünyada Ingilizce’nin yaygınlaşması uluslararası
siyaset, bilim ve teknoloji, ticaret ve telekomünikasyonun yanısıra eğitimde de
kendini göstermektedir. İngilizce,anadili İngilizce olmayan pek çok ülkede, yabancı
dil dersi olarak okullarda öğretilmektedir. Ayrıca, geçmişte koloni statüsünde olup
resmi dil ya da yarı-resmi dili İngilizce olan Hindistan, Pakistan, Malezya, Hong
Kong, Filipinler, Nijerya, Kenya, gibi çok dilli Asya ve Afrika ülkelerinde öğretim
dili olarak benimsenmiştir (Fishman, 1996). Ancak ilk, orta, ve yükseköğretimde,
eğitimin hala ağırlıklı olarak İngilizce yürütülmesi, bu ülkelerde, özellikle 20.
yüzyılın ikinci yarısında kazanılan siyasal bağımsızlıktan sonra, tartışma konusu
olmuştur ve hükümetler yeni resmi dil ve eğitim politikasının bir parçası olarak
anadil/lerde öğretime dönmek istedikleri halde, okullarda İngilizcenin eğitim dili
olarak kullanılmasına devam edilmektedir (Akinasso; 1991; Flowerdew, Li ve
Miller, 1998; Rahman, 1997, 2001; Ramanathan, 1999; Tan; 1997; Tickoo, 1996;
Tung, Lam ve Tsang, 1997). İngilizce, aynı zamanda, Çin, Danimarka, Polonya,
Türkiye, Çek Cumhuriyeti’nin arasında bulunduğu, İngilizcenin genelde yabancı dil
olarak öğretildiği ülkelerde de, kimi kurumlarda öğretim dili olarak kullanılmaktadır
(Crystal, 1987; 1997) ve Avrupa’da, özellikle Hollanda ve eski doğu bloku
ülkelerinde daha çok yüksek öğretimde uygulanmaktadır (Chojnacka ve Macukow,
1995; Dronkers, 1998; Hlavicka & Pekarek, 1995; Jensen ve Johannesson, 1995;
Vinke, Snipppe ve Joshems, 1998 ).
Türkiye’de yabanci dille eğitim veren özel okullar ve üniversitelerin yanısıra
devlet okulları olan Anadolu liseleri ve devlet üniversiteleri mevcuttur. 2003’de
sayıları 424’ ü bulan fen ve matematik derslerini yabancı dille yapan genel Anadolu
277
liseleri, toplam genel liselerin % 16.5 ‘ini oluşturmaktadır. Burada kayıtlı öğrenciler
toplam lise öğrenci nüfusunun % 11.3’üdür (Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı, 2003).
Türkiye’deki yabancı dille eğitimin resmi eğitim sisteminin bir parçası olması
nispeten az rastlanan bir durumdur, çünkü Türkiye ağırlıklı olarak tek dilli bir ülkedir
ve resmi dili Türkçe’dir. Ayrıca, Türkiye’nin siyasal geçmişi ve dolayısıyla
İngilizce’nin Türkiye’deki statüsü, söz edilen Asya ve Afrika ülkelerininkinden
farklıdır. Türkiye’de İngilizce yabancı dil konumundadır (EFL: English as a Foreign
Language). Bugün gerek orta öğretimde gerek yüksek öğretimde yabancı dille
öğretim, kamu oyunda oldukça sık tartışılan bir konu durumuna gelmiştir ve medya
siyasetçiler ve eğitimcilerin bu uygulama hakkında görüşlerine yer vermektedir. Bu
görüşlerin çoğunluğu yabancı dille öğretimi onaylamamakta, fakat yabancı dil
öğretimini desteklemektedir (Görgülü, 1998; Kilimci, 1998; Sinanoğlu, 2000).
Ancak, orta öğretimdeki yabancı dille öğretim hakkında öğrenci, öğretmen ve veli
eğilimlerini ve görüşlerini kapsayan ve bunları nedenleri ile betimleyen akademik
çalışmalar yok denecek kadar azdır (Mirici, Arslan, Hoşgörür ve Aydın, 2000); ya
da daha çok öğretime ilişkin sorunlara odaklıdır (Aksu, 1990; Aksu ve Akarsu, 1985;
Erdem, 1990). Öğrenciler, öğretmenler ve veliler yabancı dille öğretim olgusunu
birebir yaşayan kesim olduklarından, onların bakış açısını ortaya koymak yabancı
dille öğretimin boyutlarını anlamak bakımından önemlidir. Ayrıca, çalışmaların
güncellenmesi ve derinleştirilmesi gerekmektedir. Bu çerçevede, önerilen bu
araştırmanın amacı, yabancı dille (İngilizce) öğretim yapan ortaöğretim
kurumlarında yabancı dille öğretim hakkında öğrencilerin, öğretmenlerin ve
velilerin, görüşlerini ve yönelimlerini ortaya koymak, ayrıca bu görüşlerin
nedenlerini betimlemektir. Bu araştırmayla Türkiye’de ve diğer ülkelerdeki yabancı
dille öğretim tartışmalarına bilimsel bulgularla katkıda bulunmak hedeflenmiştir.
Araştırmanın temel ve alt soruları şunlardır:
1. Ortaöğretimde yabancı dille (İngilizce) öğretim hakkında öğrenci, öğretmen,
ve velilerin görüşleri nelerdir?
a. Öğrenci, öğretmen ve velilerin ortaöğretim kurumlarında yabancı
dille öğretim hakkında genel eğilimleri nedir?
b. Öğrenci, öğretmen ve velilerin ortaöğretim kurumlarında yabancı
dille öğretimi destekleme nedenleri nelerdir?
278
c. Öğrenci, öğretmen ve velilerin ortaöğretim kurumlarında yabancı
dille öğretimi desteklememe nedenleri nelerdir?
d. Öğrenci, öğretmen ve velilerin yabancı dille öğretime ilişkin
görüşleri farklılık göstermekte midir?
2. Öğrenci, öğretmen ve velilerin yabancı dille öğretime ilişkin görüşleri ile
yabancı dil olarak İngilizce hakkında görüşleri arasında bir ilişki var mıdır?
3. Ortaöğretimde yabancı dil olarak İngilizce hakkında öğrenci, öğretmen, veli,
görüşleri nelerdir?
a. Öğrenci, öğretmen ve veliler “yabancı dil” ile hangi dil veya dilleri
ilişkilendirmektedirler?
b. Öğrenci, öğretmen ve veliler yabancı dil olarak İngilizce’yi nasıl
algılamaktadırlar ve yabancı dil(lerin) öğretimine yönelik görüşleri
nelerdir?
c. Öğrenci, öğretmen ve velilerin yabancı dil olarak İngilizce hakkındaki
görüşleri farklılık göstermekte midir?
4. Öğrenci ve öğretmenlere göre yabancı dille öğretim öğretim sürecini
nedeniyle etkilenmekte midir?
a. Yabancı dille öğretim öğrencilerin ders içeriğini öğrenmesini
etkilemekte midir?
b. Yabancı dille öğretim öğrencilerin dil becerilerini etkilemekte midir?
c. Yabancı dille öğretim öğretmenlerin öğretmenlik performansını
etkilemekte midir?
LİTERATÜR ÖZETİ
Yabancı dille öğretimin hem toplum dil bilimsel hem de eğitimsel temelleri
bulunmaktadır. Toplumdilbilim açısından, dil, etnik ve ulusal kimliğin ayrılmaz bir
parçasıdır (Hoffman, 1991, s.199). Dile yönelen bir tehdit, o dili konuşan ulusa ya da
etnik gruba yönelmiş sayılmaktadır. Bu nedenle öğretim dili seçimi esas itibarıyle
politik bir konudur ve ulusların dil politikasının bir parçasıdır (Eastman, 1983).
İkidillilik ve çokdillilik dünya uluslarında yaygın olduğundan anadilde
öğretim her zaman her birey için mümkün olmamaktadır. Egemen bir dilden ayrı bir
dil konuşan etnik azınlıkların eğitimde hem kendi dilinde, hem egemen dilde eğitim
279
görmesine ABD’ de iki dilli eğitim (bilingual education) denilmektedir. İkidilli
eğitim farklı biçimlerde 5000 yıllık geçmişi olan bir uygulamadır (Mackey 1968,
aktaran Grosjean, 1982) ve yalnız Kuzey Amerika’ da değil bazı Avrupa ülkelerinde
ede eğitim sisteminin bir parçasıdır. (Grosjean, 1982)
Geçmişi Kanada’da 1960’lara dayanan daldırma yöntemi (immersion
approach) bir tür iki dilli öğretimdir. Bu yöntem anadili İngilizce olan Kanada’lı
ilkokul öğrencilerinin hem eğitimlerini sürdürmek, hem de ülkenin diğer yaygın dili
olan Fransızca’yı öğrenmelerini sağlamak amacıyla başlatılan bir deney
niteliğindedir. Bu tür programların başarısı ABD’de yankı uyandırmış ve ikidilli
okullar yaygınlaşmıştır. Ancak, Kanada’nın aksine başlangıçta ABD’de iki dilli
eğitim okulları aynı derecede başarılı olamamış ve bu da öğrencilerin düşük sosyo-
ekonomik düzeylerine ve ABD’de sözkonusu dillerin (örn. İspanyolca ve İngilizce),
eşit statüde olmamasına bağlanmıştır. ABD’deki daldırma programları yalnızca dil
azınlıklarına yönelik değildir. Yabancı dil öğrenmek isteyen ve anadili İngilizce olan
gruplar için de bu yaklaşımı temel alan çeşitli daldırma programları geliştirilmiştir
(Snow, 1990).
İkidillilik ve ikidille verilen eğitimin, gerekli koşullar sağlandığında, bu tür
programların nihai hedeflerden biri olan artan ikidilliği (additive bilingualism)
sağlayacağı öne sürülmektedir. İkidillik ile ilgili olarak yapılan araştırmalar iki dilli
çocukların, bilişsel esneklik, yüksek düzeyde uslamlama, soyut düşünme yetisi,
zihinsel yapının çeşitliliği, yaratıcılık gibi istendik bilişsel özellikler ve dolayısıyla
akademik gelişme açısından tek dillilere göre avantajlı olduğunu kanıtlamıştır.
(Ramirez, 1985; Casanova; 1991). Ayrıca, iki dilli eğitim, içeriğin diller arası
aktarımının mümkün olduğu sayıltısına dayanmakta ve temel araştırmalar bu sayıltıyı
doğrulamaktadır (Malakoff ve Hakuta, 1990). Eğitimciler ve dil kuramcıları ayrıca
ortak yetkinlik (common underlying proficiency) kuramını; iki dillilerin bilgiyi tek
bir yerde depoladığını ve bir dildeki gelişimin diğer dilde kazanılan bilgiden ayrı
olmadığı görüşünü, ileri sürmüş ve araştırmalar da bu kuramı doğrulamıştır. Diğer
bir deyişle, matematikte bir dilde iyi olan ikidilli diğer dilde de iyi olacaktır
(Linholm, 1991, p. 6). Cummins tarafından ortaya atılan hipotezlere göre, ikidilliliğin
olumlu yönlerinin açığa çıkması için öğrencilerin ikinci dilde belli bir düzeyin
altında olmamaları (eşik hipotezi [threshold hypothesis]) (1976, aktaran Cummins,
1979) ve ikinci dile yoğun bir şekilde maruz kalmadan önce birinci dilin yeterince
280
gelişmiş olması (gelişimsel bağımlılık hipotezi [developmental interdependence
hypothesis]) (Cummins, 1979) gerekmektedir. Bu hipotezler daha sonra yapılan
araştırmalarla doğrulanmıştır (Cummins, 1991 ve Ricciardelli, 1989, aktaran Devlin,
2003; Kessler ve Quinn, 1990; Marsh, Hau ve Kong, 2000).
Daldırma programları öğrencilerin başlama yaşına göre çeşitlilik
göstermektedir. Anaokulu ya da ilkokulda başlayan erken programlardaki (early
immersion) öğrencilerin akademik başarısı olumlu yönde olduğu halde, geç yaşta
başlayanlarınki (late immersion) olumsuz yöndedir (Marsch ve arkadaşları, 2000).
Ancak bu, dil öğrenimi bakımından, “en erken en iyisidir” anlamına gelmemektedir.
(Swain ve Lapkin, 1982). Ayrıca, fen ve sosyal bilimlerdeki başarıyı ölçen
araştırmalar oldukça azdır ( Marsch ve arkadaşları, 2000; Willig, 1985). Yine de,
genelde iki dilli öğretimin içeriği öğrenme ve ikinci dil gelişimi açısından başarılı
olduğu görüşü yaygındır (Hakuta, 1990a) ve artık eğitimciler ikidilli eğitimin yararlı
olup olmadığına değil, her bir koşula göre öğretimin etkinliği artırmanın yollarını
aramaktadırlar (Cummins ve Swain, 1986).
İkidilli eğitim ve yabancı dille ya da ikinci dille öğretimin kuramsal temeli
“içerik temelli dil öğretimi” ne (content-based languge instruction) dayanmaktadır.
Bu kuramın çıkış noktası yabancı dil öğrenmeyi bir anlam çerçevesine oturtabilmek
ve yabancı dil dersinde görülen dil ve dilbilgisi kalıplarının ötesine taşıyabilmektir.
Eğer dil öğrenenler içeriği öğrenmeye odaklanırsa, birey dile ilişkin biçim ve
özellikleri doğal olarak kendiliğinden kazanacaktır. Böylece hem dili, hem içeriği
birarada öğretmek mümkün olacaktır (Brinton, Snow ve Wesche, 1980). İçerik
temelli dil öğretiminin kuramsal geçerliğinin sorgulanmasına, daldırma yönteminde
eğitimin gerçekleştiği sosyal, kültürel ve ve ekonomik koşulların öneminin
vurgulanmasına (Akünal, 1994), ayrıca, Kanada’daki koşullarda ikidillilik hedefinin
tutturulamadığının söylenmesine (Hammerly, 1987; Snow, 1990) rağmen, bu
yaklaşım eğitimcilerin ve dil eğitimcilerinin ilgi odağı olmaya devam etmektedir.
İkidilli eğitim pedagojik anlamda başarılı bulunmakla birlikte başlangıcından
bu yana politik tartışmaların konusu olmuştur (Galindo, 1997; Padillo, 1990; Lucas
ve Katz, 1994). ABD’ de bazı gruplar ikidilli eğitimi desteklemekte, bazıları ise
İngilizceyi öğretmeyi ve dolayısıyla Amerikanlaşmayı engellediğini söyleyerek karşı
çıkmakta ve öğretimin tamamen İngilizce olması gerektiğini savunmaktadırlar.
Çoğunluğun kullandığı dil olmamasına karşın, yukarıda sözü edilen Asya ve Afrika
281
ülkelerinde de İngilizce öğretim (English-medium instruction) politik tartışmalara
yol açmıştır. Bu toplumların dil profili Türkiye’ninkinden tamamen farklıdır. Yine
de bu ülkelerle, Türkiye arasında sosyal, ekonomik ve politik koşutluklar bulunmakta
ve Ingilizce öğretime ilişkin görüşler ve tartışmalar benzerlik göstermektedir. Asya
ve Afrika’da İngilizce sömürgeci ülkelerle ilişkilendirildiğinden, ulusal kimliğe
yönelen bir tehdit olarak algılanmaktadır ve hükümetler anadilin ve yerel dillerin
gelişmesi ve eğitim dili olarak benimsenmesi için çaba göstermektedirler. Ayrıca,
İngilizce öğretimin yaygın olarak kullanılması nedeniyle, eğitim ve öğretime ilişkin
sorunlar sözkonusudur. Örneğin Hindistan’da öğrencilerin istenilen düzeyde
İngilizce bilmemesi, veya öğrenememesi, sözkonusudur (Tickoo, 1996). Tüm
bunlara karşın, Hindistan , Pakistan, Hong Kong gibi ülkelerde veliler ve öğrenciler
İngilizce’nin sağlayacağı maddi ve sosyal avantajlardan yoksun kalmamak için
İngilizce öğretime rağbet etmekte ve İngilizce öğretime olan talep devam etmektedir
(Boyle, 1997; Evans, 2002; Rahman, 1997, 2001; Tan, 1997; Tickoo, 1996) .
İngilizce’ni yabancı dil olarak kullanıldığı bazı Avrupa ülkelerinde, özellikle yüksek
öğretimde uluslararası eğitimin benimsenmesi (internalisation), olarak ifade edilen ve
diğer Avrupa ülkeleriyle bütünleşmek ve yabancı öğrencileri çekmek amacıyla
İngilizce öğretim veren üniversiteler kurulmaktadır. Avrupa’da ortaöğretimde
İngilizce öğretim veren okullar bazı ülkelerde de, örneğin İsveç (Winsta, 1999) ve
Hollanda (Coleman, Loes ve Weltens, 1998; Dronkers, 1998) çoğalmakla birlikte
daha çok uluslararası ticaretle ve iş dünyası ile ilgilenen üst tabakanın tercih ettiği
(örn. Hollanda).
Eskiden koloni olan ülkelerde İngilizce ile öğretimle ilgili akademik
çalışmalar ampirik olmaktan çok kavramsaldır ve tarihsel boyutları ele alan
çalışmalardır. Avrupa’daki İngilizce öğretim ise, daha yeni yaygınlaşan bir olgudur.
Türkiye’deki duruma gelince, yabancı dille öğretim konusundaki araştırmaların
ağırlıklı olarak öğretim sorunlarıyla ilgili olduğu söylenebilir. Yüksek öğretimde ve
orta öğretimde yabancı dille öğretimi ele alan bu çalışmaların çoğunda (Aksu ve
Akarsu, 1985; Erdem, 1990; Zorlu, 1991; Akünal 1993) uygulama ile ilgili ciddi
sorunların olduğu açığa çıkmıştır. Bunların en başında öğrencilerin yabancı bir dilde
öğrenim görecek düzeyde İngilizce bilmemeleri, öğretmenlerin dil açısından
zorlanmaları ve İngilizceyi derste her zaman kullanamamaları yer almaktadır.
Ayrıca, öğrencilerin İngilizce olarak ders içeriğini öğrenmekte zorlandıkları, Türkçe
282
olarak daha iyi kavradıkları, İngilizce’nin sınıf içi etkileşimi ve başarıyı olumsuz
yönde etkilediği (Aksu ve Akarsu, 1985) ve öğrenmenin bilgi ve kavrama
seviyesinden uygulama seviyesine geçemediği bulunmuştur (Erdem, 1990). Akünal
(1994) yükseköğretimde yabancı dille öğretimin etkililiğini araştırmış ve yabancı
dille öğretimin ikinci dili öğrenme veya ders içeriğini öğrenme yönünden Türkiye
bağlamında etkili olmadığı sonucuna varmıştır.
Öğretmen, öğrenci ve veli görüşlerini hedef alan çalışmalar ise, velilerin
yabancı dil öğretim kurumlarının en yaygını olan Anadolu liselerini öğretim dili
nedeniyle değil, eğitimin genel niteliği için tercih ettiklerini ve öğrenci, öğretmen ve
velilerin yabancı dille öğretimi desteklemediklerini ortaya koymuştur (Milli Eğitim
Bakanlığı, 1997; Mirici., Arslan, Hoşgörür ve Aydın, 2000). Yükseköğretimde,
öğrencilerin yabancı dille öğretimi, yabancı dili daha iyi öğrenmek için tercih
ettikleri (Kalfazade, Oran, Sekban ve Tınaz, 1987), öğretmenlerin ise İngilizce’nin
akademik ortamda gerekliliğine inandıkları, derslerin İngilizce yapılması için çok iyi
bir düzey gerektiğini düşündükleri, fakat kimi zaman öğrencilerin iyi İngilizce
bilmemesinden ve dersin yeterince anlaşılmamasından dolayı, ya da Türk dili ve
ulusal kimliğini korumak amacıyla Türkçe’ye başvurdukları anlaşılmıştır (Somer,
2001).
YÖNTEM
Araştırma yurt genelinde uygulanan kapsamlı bir anket ve bireysel
görüşmeler temeline dayanmaktadır. Nicel ve nitel veri toplama yöntemlerini ve
analizleri içeren çalışma, betimsel niteliktedir. Anket çalışmasının örneklemini 2002-
2003 öğretim yılında genel Anadolu lisesinde öğrenim gören, toplam 982 öğrenci,
383 fizik, kimya, biyoloji, fen bilgisi ve matematik öğretmeni, ve 988 veli
oluşturmuştur. Örneklem için toplam 32 ile bağlı 42 Anadolu lisesi tabakalı
örnekleme ve ölçüt örnekleme yöntemiyle saptanmıştır. Tabakalı örnekleme her
coğrafi bölgenin eşit oranda temsil edilmesi amacıyla okul ve öğrenci sayısı göz
önüne alınarak uygulanmıştır. Okullar seçilirken yabancı dille (İngilizce) öğretim
koşulu aranmıştır; halen bazı Anadolu liselerinde tamamen Türkçe öğretime
dönüldüğünden araştırma kapsamına sadece halen fen ve matematik derslerini
İngilizce ya da kısmen İngilizce yapan, ya da yakın zamana kadar yapmış olan
283
okullar dahil edilmiştir. Böylece yabancı dille öğretim tecrübesi olan öğrenciler ve
öğretmenlere ulaşılabilmiştir. Bireysel görüşmeler altı dokuzuncu ve onuncu sınıf
öğrencisi, dört öğretmen ve dört veli ile gerçekleştirilmiştir. Katılımcılar zincir ve
amaçlı örnekleme yöntemiyle belirlenmiştir. Ayrıca cinsiyet, sınıf/branş ve coğrafi
bölge çeşitliliği göz önüne alınmıştır.
Her bir grup için farklı sayıda maddelerden oluşan Anket Formları
hazırlanmıştır. Anket maddeleri bireysel görüşmelerin (toplam 6 görüşme) pilot
çalışmasından elde edilen veriler ve literatürdeki yabancı dille eğitimi destekleyen ve
karşı çıkan nitelikteki argümanlar kullanılarak geliştirilmiştir. Her grubun anket
formunda ortak iki altölçek bulunmaktadır: Yabancı dille öğretime ilişkin altölçek ve
yabancı dil olarak İngilizce’ye yönelik altölçek. Öğrenci ve öğretmenlerin
versiyonları öğretim süreci ile ilgili ek altölçekler içermektedir. Öğrenci anket
formunda fen ve matematikteki öğretim süreci için dört olçek, öğretmen anket
formunda iki altölçek bulunmaktadır. Ayrıca öğretmen formuna öğretmenlik
performansına yönelik ek bir altölçek eklenmiştir. Altölçeklerin tümü “hiç
katılmıyorum” ve “tamamem katılıyorum” değerleriyle ifade edilen ve 5 puan
aralığındaki Likert altölçeklerinden oluşmaktadır. Her bir ölçeğin ardından açık
uçlu sorular gelmektedir. Yine her bir grup için birbirine paralel yarı yapılandırılmış
sorulardan oluşan Görüşme Formları hazırlanmıştır. Bunlarda, anket formunda
olduğu gibi gruba göre değişen ek sorular bulunmaktadır. Önce görüşme formları
olmak üzere iki tür veri toplama aracı pilot edilmiştir. Ayrıca, araçların uzman
görüşü alınarak içerik geçerliği ve istatistiksel yöntemlerlede iç güvenirliği
sınanmıştır.
Anket formları MEB EARGED (Eğitim Araştırma Geliştirme Dairesi)
işbirliğiyle çoğaltılmış, seçilen okullara iletilmiş, ve toplanmıştır. Anket verileri üç
anketörün yardımıyla SPSS yazılım programıyla bilgisayar ortamına aktarılmıştır.
Elde edilen nicel verilerin analizinde, araştırma sorularının niteliğine göre yüzde,
frekans, ikorelasyon, t-test, ve tek yönlü varyans analizi kullanılmıştır.
Hesaplamalardan önce, ölçülen değişkeni desteklemeyen maddelerin değerleri
tersine çevirilerek, yüksek değerlerin olumlu, düşük değerlerin olumsuz anlaşılması
sağlanmıştır. Anketteki nitel verileri oluşturan açık uçlu sorulara verilen cevaplara
içerik analizi uygulanmıştır; genel temalar belirlenmiş, bunlar kümelenmiş ve
araştırma sorularına göre gruplandırılmıştır. Bireysel görüşmeler Ankara, Samsun ve
284
Antalya’da araştırmacı tarafından yapılmıştır. Ses alıcısı ile kaydedilen görüşmelerin
tümü yazılı merin şekline dönüştürülmüş ve toplanan nitel verilerin içerik analizine
tabi tutulmuştur.
BULGULAR Yabancı Dille Öğretime İlişkin Görüşler: Yabancı dille öğretime ilişkin altölçekler
üzerinde yapılan frekans ve yüzde hesaplarına göre öğrenci, öğretmen ve velilerin
orta öğretimde yabancı dille öğretimi desteklemedikleri anlaşılmıştır. Bu araştırma
sorusu için iki grup nicel veri kullanılmıştır: Yabancı dille öğretime ilişkin altölçek
ve katılımcıların Anadolu lisesinde fen ve matematik derslerinde hangi yoğunlukta
İngilizce kullanılmasını istediğine ait maddeler. Altölçekteki en çok desteklenen ve
en az desteklenen ibarelerin frekans ve yüzdelerine bakılarak, katılanların aralığı
öğrencilerde yüzde 7.6 ile 59.4, öğretmenlerde yüzde 15.3 ile 60.9 ve velilerde
yüzde 11.6 ile 65.9 olarak bulunmuştur. Katılmayanların aralığı ise öğrencilerde
yüzde 25.6 ile 84.2 , öğretmenlerde yüzde 25.8 ile 80.7, velilerde yüzde 11.6 ile
65.9’dur. Kararsız olanlar ise yine yanı sırayla, yüzde 7.6 ile 24.8, 3 ile 15.3, ve 5.2
ile 22.5’dur. Ayrıca matematik dersinin ve fen derslerinin hepsi için geçerli olmak
üzere, ortalama olarak öğrencilerin % 80’i, öğretmenlerin % 57.7’si, velilerin %60’ı
Anadolu liselerinde bu derslerin yalnızca Türkçe verilmesini istemektedirler.
Görüşme katılımcılarından yarısı yabancı dille öğretimi desteklemekte, yarısı ise
desteklememektedir. Nitel ve nicel verilerden çıkan sonuç, katılımcıların yabancı dile
“hayır” demediği, üniversitede gerekli gördüğü, fakat mevcut şekliyle orta öğretimde
istemedikleridir.
Yabancı dille öğretimi destekleme nedenleri arasında en göze çarpanlar
İngilizce’nin yabancı dille öğretim sayesinde ilerlediği ve özellikle öğretmen ve
velilerce ifade edildiği üzere, bunun dil öğrenmenin bir parçası olduğudur. Ayrıca
tüm gruplar yabancı dille öğretimin üniversitede de gerektiğini ve bu yüzden orta
öğretimin geleceğe yatırım olduğu görüşünü ifade etmişlerdir. Olumlu görüş
sahipleri belli koşullar öne sürmüşlerdir. Yabancı dille öğretim eğer hedef dilde
yetkin ve yeterli öğretmen ve öğrenciler ile yürütülecekse, Anadolu liselerinin ve
öğrencilerin sayısı azaltılacaksa yapılmalıdır. Öğretmenlerin dikkatle seçilmesi
gerektiği özellikle veliler tarafından dile getirilmiştir. Gruplara göre, Anadolu
liselerinde koşullar düzeltildiği ve eğitimin kalitesinden ödün verilmediği takdirde
yabancı dille öğretim sürmelidir. Ayrıca ÖSS’de gerekli değişikliklerin yapılması
285
(örn. soruların İngilizce olarak da verilmesi) gerekmektedir. Tüm bunlar yapılırken,
nitel verilerden anlaşıldığı üzere, özellikle veli ve öğrenciler Türk dili ve kültürünü
korumanın gerektiğinin altını çizmişlerdir. Ayrıca, öğretmenler temel bilimlerin
evrensel bir dili olduğunu ve matematik ve fenin İngilizce yapılması gerektiğini
belirtmişlerdir. Öğrenciler ise ÖSS nedeniyle yalnız altıncı, yedinci ve sekizinci
sınıfta ve üniversitede yabancı dille öğretimi desteklemektedirler.
Yabancı dille öğretimi desteklememe nedenlerinin başında yabancı dille
öğretimin yerine yabancı dil eğitiminin etkili bir şekilde yapılması gerektiği
inancıdır. Bunu öğretim süreci ve öğrenme ile ilgili sorunlar izlemektedir. Öğretmen,
öğrenci ve velilere göre, yabancı dille öğretim, dersi anlamak ve kavramayı
engellemekte ya da güçleştirmekte, dersin verimini, başarı oranını düşürmekte, ÖSS
için sakınca oluşturmakta, öğrencileri ezberciliğe yöneltmekte, öğrenilen bilgilerin
akılda kalmasını güçleştirmekte, zaman kaybına yol açmakta, motivasyonu olumsuz
yönde etkilemektedir. Öğrenciler özellikle kavramada güçlüklerden söz etmişler,
öğretmenlerse matematik ve fenin yabancı bir dilde anadilde olduğu kadar kolay
öğrenilemeyeceğini ifade etmişlerdir. Eğitimin anadilde olması gerektiği inancı her
grup tarafından belirtilmiştir. Ayrıca, ÖSS Türkçe olduğundan yabancı dille öğretim
karışıklık yaratmakta, diller karışmakta, ve bu da öğrenciye artı bir yük
getirmektedir. Öğrenci ve öğretmenlerin İngilizceyi yeterince iyi bilmemeleri de öne
sürülen nedenler arasındadır. Gruplar sosyal derslerin İngilizce yapılması konusunda
yoğun bir olumsuz görüş belirtmişler, ve yabancı dille öğretimin dil ve kültür
yozlaşmasına yol açtığını ifade etmişlerdir.
Grupların yabancı dille öğretimi algılarında farklılık olduğu yapılan tek yönlü
varyans analizinden anlaşılmıştır (F[2, 2317]= 38.527, p< 0.001). Öğrencilerin
yabancı dille öğretimi, hem öğretmenlere, hem velilere göre daha olumsuz gördükleri
anlaşılmıştır (M= 2.57, SD= 0.75 [öğrenci], M= 2.81, SD=1.02 [öğretmen], M=2.89 ,
SD=0.86 [veli]). Öğretmenler ve velilerin algılarının arasında anlamlı bir fark
bulunanmamıştır.
Yabancı Dille (İngilizce) Öğretim Hakkındaki Görüşler ile Yabancı Dil Olarak
İngilizce Hakkındaki Görüşler Arasındaki İlişki: İki değişken arasında yapılan
korelasyon hesabı sonucunda öğrenci, öğretmen ve velilerin yabancı dille öğretime
ilişkin algıları ile yabancı dil olarak İngilizce hakkındaki algıları arasında anlamlı bir
286
ilişki bulunmuştur; r değeri, öğrenciler için 0.45, öğretmenler için, 0.48 ve veliler
için 0.57 ‘ dir (p<0.001).
Yabancı Dil Olarak İngilizce Hakkında Görüşler: Nicel verilere göre
öğrencilerin % 96.1’ i (n=369), öğretmenlerin %98.1’i (n=970) ve velilerin 98.1’inin
“yabancı dil” kavramı ile özdeşleştirdikleri ilk dil İngilizce’dir. Yabancı dil olarak
İngilizce ile ilgili altölçekteki en çok desteklenen ve en az desteklenen ibarelerin
frekans ve yüzdelerine bakılarak, katılanların aralığı öğrencilerde yüzde 10.9 ile
94.1, öğretmenlerde yüzde 35.4 ile 97.8 ve velilerde yüzde 30.5 ile 95.9 olarak
bulunmuştur. Katılmayanların aralığı öğrencilerde yüzde 2.9 ile 68.9 , öğretmenlerde
yüzde 1.9 ile 46.8, velilerde ise yüzde 2.6 ile 52.8’dir. Kararsız olanlar ise yine aynı
sırayla, yüzde 2.3 ile 20.3, ve yüzde 0.3 ile 18.7’dir. Bu sonuçlardan İngilizce’nin
olumlu olarak algılandığı anlaşılmaktadır. Katılımcıların en yüksek puanı verdiği
ibareler Ingilizce’nin gerekliliğine ve sağlayacağı avantajlarla ilgili olanlardır. En
düşük puanlar ise Ingilizce’nin yaygınlaşmasının Türk dili ve kültürü üzerindeki
olumlu etkilerine ilişkin olanlara verilmiştir. Ayrıca, yine aynı altölçekteki diğer
maddelerin değerlerine bakıldığında öğretimin her kademesinde İngilizce’nin
zorunlu yabancı dil dersi olarak desteklendiği anlaşılmıştır. Ayrıca, açık uçlu
sorulara verilen yanıtlardan elde edilen bugulara göre, tüm katılımcıların resmi
okullarda yabancı dil öğretimini büyük oranda destekledikleri (ortalama % 84.9) ve
okullarda okutulacak birinci yabancı dil olarak İngilizceyi tercih ettikleri (ortalama
96.8 %) ortaya çıkmıştır. Katılımcılar olumlu bakış açılarının nedenleri olarak en çok
İngilizce’nin yararlı, avantajlı, ve özellikle iş ve akademik hayat için gerekli
olduğunu belirtmişlerdir. Ayrıca, İngilizce bilmek yalnızca bireylere gerektiği için
gerekli değil ulusun çağdaşlaşma ve gelişme sürecinin bir parçası sayıldığından
olumlu olarak algılanmaktadır. İngilizce evrensel, yaygın ve geçerli olması nedeniyle
diğer ülkeler ve kültürlerle iletişim kurmak, dünyaya ve Avrupa’ya açılmak için
gerekli görülmektedir. Aynı zamanda bilim ve teknoloji dili ve yabancı kaynaklara
erişimin ve sanal ortamın birincil aracı olarak düşünülmektedir. Öğrenciler ve veliler
İngilizce’nin iş hayatında gerekliliği üzerinde dururken, öğretmenler bireye
akademik ve bilimsel alanda sağladığı avantajları öncelikli olarak ifade etmişlerdir.
Genelde tüm gruplar İngilizce ya da başka bir dil bilmeye öğrenmeye ilişkin
görüşlerini “bir lisan bir insan” sözüyle özetlemişlerdir. Tüm bu olumlu görüşlerin
287
yanısıra katılımcılardan bir kısmı yabancı dil öğretimini desteklediklerini, fakat
İngilizce’nin müfredatta Türkçe’nin önüne geçmemesi gerektiğini, Türk dili ve
kültürünün yozlaşmasının engellenmesini istediklerini, günlük kullanımda Türkçe’ye
yabancı sözcüklerin girmesi ya da karışmasından rahatsız olduklarını dile
getirmişlerdir. Ayrıca öğretmen ve veliler yabancı dil derslerinin devamlılığı ve
kalitesinin sağlanmasını, yöntemlerin güncelleştirilmesi ve öğretiminin erken yaşta
başlamasını talep etmişlerdir.
Yapılan tek yönlü varyans analizi sonucunda öğrenci, öğretmen ve velilerin
yabancı dil olarak İngilizce’ye ilişkin algılarının farklı olduğu bulunmuştur (F [2,
2317] = 6.650 , p≤ 0.001). Fark velilerden kaynaklanmaktadır. Sonuçlar yabancı dil
olarak İngilizce hakkında öğrenci ve öğretmen görüşlerinin olumlu olduğunu ve
birbirinden fark göstermediğini, velilerin ise öğretmen ve öğrencilerden daha olumlu
düşündüklerini göstermiştir (M= 3.80, SD= 0.74 [öğrenci], M= 3.83, SD= 0.76
[öğretmen], M=3.9, SD=0.72 [veli]).
Yabancı Dille Öğretimin Öğretim Sürecine Etkisi: Öğretmen ve öğrencilerin
bakış açısına göre yabancı dille öğretim öğrencilerin fen ve matematik derslerindeki
ders içeriğini öğrenme sürecini olumsuz yönde etkilemektedir. Fen ve matematik
derslerinde öğrenmeye ilişkin maddelerin yer aldığı iki altölçek bulunmaktadır. Fen
dersleri ile ilgili maddelere verilen ortalama puanlar 2.95 ve 1.44 arasında,
matematik için ise 2.94 ve 1.66 arasında değişmektedir ve maddelerin çoğu 2.4’ün
altındadır. Uygulanan t-test sonucunda (t=1.76) iki derse ait ortalamalar arasında
anlamlı bir fark bulunmamıştır. Bu bulgu öğrencilerin yabancı dille öğretimin dersi
öğrenmeye etkisi açısından fen ve matematik derslerini birbirinden farklı bulmadığı
anlamına gelmektedir. Öğretmenler öğrencilere kıyasla yabancı dille öğretimin
derslere etkisi konusunda daha olumlu düşünmektedirler, fakat İngilizce kaynaklara
ıharicinde özdeş altölçek maddelerine verdikleri puanlar 2.96 ile 1.56 arasında
ulaşma haricinde yabancı dille öğretimin verdikleri derse olan etkisini olumsuz
algıladıkları anlaşılmaktadır. Özellikle açık uçlu sorulardan elde edilen veriler bu
bulguları doğrulamış, ve bir kaç olumlu yön dışında, öğretmen ve öğrenciler yabancı
dille öğretimin olumsuz etkilerini sıralamışlardır. İki gruba da göre yabancı dille
öğretim, bilim dilinde etkileşimi olanaklı kılmakta, yabancı dildeki kaynakları ve
bazı fen kavram ve formüllerini anlamayı kolaylaştırmakta, bilim terminolojisini
288
kazandırmaktadır. Öğretmenlerin görüşünce, yabancı dille öğretim öğrencilerin dersi
daha dikkatli dinlemelerini ve kendilerine güvenmelerini sağlayarak öğrenmeye katkı
sağlamaktadır. Diğer yandan, öğretmen ve öğrenciler birtakım sakıncalardan söz
etmişlerdir. Şöyle ki, dersi tam ve açık olarak anlama, kavrama, ve öğrenme
gerçekleşememektedir. Konuların bazıları tam anlaşılmadan geçilmekte, ders
yavaşlamakta ve daha az konu işlenebilmektedir. Öğrencinin ilgisi ve motivasyonu
düşmekte, zaten öğrenmesi güç olan dersler daha da zorlaşmakta, ve bazılarının
katıldığı üzere, derslerdeki başarı düşmektedir. Öğrenciler konuyu kendi
cümleleriyle ifade etme ve özetlemede zorlanmakta, ezberlemeye yönelmektedir.
Sınıf içi etkileşim azalmakta ya da Türkçe olarak yapılmaktadır. Ayrıca, ÖSS’nin
Türkçe olması nedeniyle öğrencilerin motivasyonu düşmektedir, çünkü öğrenciler
derslerin İngilizce yapılmasının ÖSS başarısının düşüreceği kaygısını
taşımaktadırlar. Dersanelerdeki Türkçe ile okuldaki İngilizce birbirine karışmakta,
öğrenciler çeviri yaparak ve Türkçe kaynaklardan çalışarak ders dışında daha fazla
zaman harcamaktadırlar. Nitel veriler, ölçek bulgularından farklı olarak, öğretmen ve
öğrencilerin, öğrenme güçlüklerinin dersin niteliğine göre değiştiğini, biyoloji gibi
sözel ağırlıklı derslerde İngilizce öğretimin daha fazla güçlüğe yol açtığını
düşündüğünü ortaya koymuştur. İki grup da, öğretmen ve öğrencilerin yeterli
düzeyde İngilizce bilmediklerini ve bu nedenle öğrenmenin olumsuz etkilendiğini
sıklıkla ifade etmişlerdir.
Nicel verilere göre, dil becerileri açısından, öğrenci ve öğretmenler, İngilizce
yapılan fen ve matematik derslerinin Türkçe’deki genel dil yeterliği üzerinde olumlu
ya da olumsuz bir etkisi olmadığını düşünmektedirler. Anketteki dil becerileri ile
ilgili altölçek, hem Türkçe yeterliği hakkında bir ibare, hem İngilizce dil becerileri
hakkında ibareleri kapsamaktadır. Bulgulardan öğrencilerin en yüksek puanı
Türkçe’ye vermiş oldukları anlaşılmıştır (fen dersleri için M=3.05, SD=1.473,
matematik için M=3.12, SD=1.33). Bu da öğrencilerin Türkçe yeterliğinin, yabancı
dille öğretimden pek etkilenmediğini düşündükleri anlamına gelmektedir. Öğretmen
ve öğrenciler yabancı dille eğitimin İngilizce dil becerileri üzerindeki etkilerini ne
olumlu, ne de çok olumsuz bulmaktadırlar. Görüşmelerde ve açık uçlu sorularda,
katılımcılar İngilizce bakımından en çok okuma becerisinin geliştiğini ve sözcük
dağarcığının genişlediğini belirtmişlerdir. Bunları dinleme becerisi izlemektedir.
Sayısal verilerden, öğrencileri için bu sıralamanın fen dersleri ve matematik için aynı
289
olduğu anlaşılmıştır. Fakat dil becerileri açısından fen derslerinde yabancı dille
öğretimin etkisi matematikten daha olumlu bulunmuştur. (t=6.17, p<0.01). Nitel
verilerAyrıca, cümle kurma becerisi artmakta, günlük konuşmadan farklı olarak
bilim dili öğrenilmekte, fen ve teknoloji alanlarında İngilizce’nin kullanımı ve
sözcük dağarcığı genişlemektedir.
Nicel verilere göre, öğretmenler öğretmenlik performanslarının yabancı dille
öğretimden etkilenmediği görüşündedirler. Öğretmenlik performansı ile ilgili
altölçekteki ortalama değerler 4.29 ve 2.67 arasında değişmektedir. Buna göre
öğretmenler en çok kendi alanlarındaki bilgilerini olumlu görmektedir. En düşük
değeri alan madde ise öğretmenin yabancı dille ders vermekten hoşnutluk duymasına
ilişkin olandır. Görüşmelerde, bir öğretmen dışında, tüm öğretmenler yabancı dille
öğretimin öğretmenlik performanslarını hiç etkilemediğini ya da olumlu etkilediğini
belirtmişlerdir. Açık uçlu sorulara ise çoğunlukla olumsuz yanıtlar gelmiştir. Olumlu
olarak, yabancı dille ders vermenin öğretmeni geliştirdiği, ya da eğer öğretmenin
kendisi yabancı dille öğrenim görmüşse, İngilizce ders anlatmanın daha kolay olduğu
belirtilmiştir. Olumsuz olarak ise, yabancı bir dilde anadilin rahatlığının olmaması,
İngilizce yüzünden açık ve tam olarak dersi anlatamama, özet bilgi verme, az sayıda
örnek kullanabilme, dilin konunun önüne geçmesi, derse hazırlanmanın ve sınav
hazırlamanın çok zaman alması ve liseye uygun İngilizce kaynak sıkıntısı, günlük
konuşmaları İngilizce yapamama ve hata yapma korkusu gibi sorulanlar ifade
edilmiştir. Öğretmenler İngilizce yeterliğini geliştirecek olanakların bulunmadığını
ve öğretmenler için yeterli dil eğitimi sağlanması gerektiğini vurgulamışlardır.
SONUÇLAR VE TARTIŞMA
Nicel verilere göre yabancı dille öğretime ilişkin olarak öğrenci, öğretmen ve
velilerin büyük çoğunluğu yabancı dille öğretimi orta öğretim düzeyinde
desteklememektedir. Bu bulgu geçmişte yapılan anket çalışmalarındaki sonuçları
doğrular niteliktedir. Görüşmelerden elde edilen verilere göre ise, katılımcıların
yarısı yabancı dille öğretimi desteklemekte, diğer yarısı desteklememektedir.
Görüşmelerin toplam 14 kişiyle yapılmasına karşın, anket çalışmasına 2353 kişi
katılmıştır. Ayrıca görüşmeler ve anketlerde yabancı dille öğretimi destekleyenler bir
çoğunlukla uygulama sorunlarına ilişkin sorunların halledilmesini koşuluyla
290
desteklediklerini belirtmişlerdir. Görüşmelerde orta öğretimde yabancı dille öğretimi
desteklemeyen katılımcıların çoğunun yüksek öğretimde bu tür öğretimi
destekledikleri görülmüştürr. Nicel veriler, yüksek öğretimde yabancı dille
öğretimin orta öğrenimden farklı olarak daha olumlu algılandığını ortaya koymuştur.
Bu bulgu görüşme sonuçlarını doğrulamaktadır. Yaklaşımlardaki bu farkın nedeni
orta öğretimin sonunda yer alan ÖSS sınavının Türkçe olarak yapılması olabilir,
çünkü tüm gruplar aynı zamanda yabancı dille öğretimi desteklememe nedenlerinden
biri olarak ÖSS’yi belirtmişlerdir.
Öğrenciler yabancı dille öğretime öğretmenler ve velilerden daha olumsuz
bakmaktadırlar. Bu öğrenme ortamı ile hergün içiçe olmaları ve öğretim sürecinde
yukarıda sıralanan sorunları birebir yaşamalarından ve ÖSS kaygısından
kaynaklanıyor olabilir. Ayrıca, ikidilli öğretimin yaygın olduğu ABD’de (Galindo,
1997; Grosjean, 1982; Romaine, 1995) ve İngilizce öğretim (English-medium
instruction) yapan eski koloni ülkelerindeki (Flowerdew, Li ve Miller, 1998; Tan,
1997; Tickoo, 1996; Tung ve arkadaşları, 1997) araştırmacıların gözlem ve
bulgularını çağrıştırmaktadır. Sözkonusu ülkelerde veliler çocuklarının itibarlı dili
öğrenmeleri için İngilizce eğitime sıcak bakmakta, hatta bazılarında, örneğin Hong
Kong’da, velilerin baskısı nedeniyle okullar İngilizce öğretime geçmek zorunda
kalmaktadır.
Bu araştırmada katılımcılar yabancı dille öğretimi destekleme nedenlerinin
başında üniversitede ve üniversite için yabancı dille öğretimin gerekli olduğunu
belirtmişlerdir. Nitel verilerden bu eğilimin nedenlerinin Anadolu liselerindeki
öğrencilerin eğitimi kaliteli buldukları için tercih ettikleri, İngilizce öğretim veren
yüksek öğretim kurumlarına gitmek istedikleri ve orta öğretimdeki yabancı dildeki
öğretiminin de kendileri için temel ve hazırlık oluşturacağına inandıkları ortaya
çıkmıştır. Yabancı dille öğretime olumlu ve olumsuz bakan katılımcılar görüşlerinin
nedenlerini belirtmiş ve birbirine taban tabana zıt görüşler ortaya çıkmıştır. Örneğin,
yabancı dille öğretimi destekleyenler hedef dili ilerlettiği ve öğrenilmesini
tamamladığı ve kullanılmasına ortam yarattığı inancında oldukları için yabancı dille
öğretime sıcak bakmaktadırlar. Yabancı dille öğretimi desteklemeyen katılımcılar
ise, bunun tam tersine inanmakta, ve etkin bir yabancı dil öğretimini, yabancı dille
öğretime yeğlemektedirler. Destekleyen katılımcıların öğrencilere dil bilinci
aşılandığı takdirde yabancı dille öğretimin Türk dili ve kültürünü olumsuz
291
etkileyeceğini ifade etmelerine karşın, desteklemeyenler yabancı dille öğretimin dili
ve kültürün yozlaştıracağını söylemektedir. Nitekim yabancı dille öğretimin Türk dili
ve kültürü üzerinde etkisine ilişkin nicel veriler, grupların bu konuda olumlu ve
olumsuz olarak hemen hemen eşit dağıldığını göstermektedir.
Genel olarak, karşıt görüşlerden ziyade ortak görüşler bulunmaktadır. Öyle
ki, desteklemeyen grubun gösterdiği nedenler, örneğin öğrenci ve öğretmenlerin
düşük İngilizce düzeyi, üniversite giriş sınavının Türkçe olması yabancı dille
öğretimi, aynı zamanda destekleyen grubun olmazsa olmaz koşulları ve
düzeltilmesini istediği hususlardır. İki grup da uygulamaya ilişkin konuların
üzerinde durmuştur. Desteklemeyenler ayrıca yabancı dille öğretimde fen ve
matematik derslerinin öğrenilmesinin zorlaşması ve başarının düşmesi ve ÖSS’deki
olası dezavantaj gibi kaygıları da dile getirmişlerdir.
Bu araştırmada geçmişte yapılan çalışmalardan farklı olarak ÖSS’ nin ve
öğrencilerin İngilizce öğrenmesinin geç sınıflara (lise) kalmasının olumsuz sonuçları
öne çıkmaktadır. ÖSS’ nin yabancı dille öğretime olan yaklaşımı büyük ölçüde
etkilediği anlaşılmıştır. Aynı zamanda sekiz yıllık eğitim sonucunda orta kısmı
kaldırılan Anadolu liselerinin konumunun değiştiği, bunun da yabancı dille öğretime
ilişkin yaklaşımları etkilediği söylenebilir. Çünkü katılımcılar lisede öğrencilerin
ÖSS’ye odaklandığını, dolayısıyla Türkçe öğretimi yeğlediklerini ifade etmişlerdir.
“Yabancı dile evet, yabancı dille öğretime hayır” sloganı ile ifade edilen
görüşü araştırmak amacıyla yabancı dil olarak ingilizce ve yabancı dille öğretim
değişkenleri arasındaki korelasyona bakılmış ve sonuçlar yabancı dil olarak
Ingilizce’ye olumlu bakanların yabancı dille öğretime de olumlu baktığını
göstermiştir. Açık uçlu sorulardan ve görüşmelerden elde edilen nitel veriler ise,
yabancı dille öğretimi desteklemeyen pek çok katılımcının Ingilizce’ye olumlu
baktığını, yabancı dil ve İngilizce öğretimini desteklediklerini ortaya koymuştur. İki
farklı veri toplama türünden farklı bulgular elde edilmesi açık uçlu soruların ancak
bazı katılımcılarca cevaplanması, ya da altölçeklerin birden fazla boyutu olması ile
açıklanabilir.
İngilizce öğretimin yaygın olduğu Asya’daki eski koloni ülkelerinin
İnglizce’ye ilişkin algı ve tutumları hem olumlu, hem de olumsuz olarak
tanımlanmıştır (Tickoo, 1996). Olumsuz algılar, bu ülkelerin batı ülkeleriyle tarihsel
ve sosyal bağlarıyla ilgidir. Olumlu algılar ve tutumlar ise ekonomik kökenlidir. Bu
292
çalışmada öğrenci, öğretmen ve velilerin yabancı dil konumundaki İngilizce’ye
ilişkin algıları oldukça olumlu bulunmuştur. Ancak İngilizce’nin yaygınlaşmasının
Türk dili ve kültürü üzerindeki etkilerine katılımcıların pek olumlu bakmadığı, hatta
kaygılar taşıdığı söylenebilir. Bulgulardan anlaşılacağı gibi, olumlu görüşlerin
temelinde İngilizce’nin uluslararası bir dil, bir “lingua franca” olarak görülmesi ve
bu dili öğrenerek özellikle iyi bir işe ve eğitime, ve bilim ve teknolojiye ulaşmak
isteği yatmaktadır. Bu isteklerin, İngilizce’nin pek de sevilmediği Asya ve Afrika
ülkelerinde de aynı olduğu gözlemlenmiştir. Örneğin Hindistan (Ramanathan, 1999)
ve Pakistan’da (Rahman, 1997, 2001), özellikle yoksul kesim için İngilizce’nin iyi
bir iş bulmak ve sınıf atlamanın birinci koşulu olduğu belirtilmektedir. Bu çalışmada
ortaya çıkan olumsuz algılar ise güç kavramı ile bağdaşlaştırılan (Crystal, 1997) ve
kültür emperyalizme bağlanan (Phillipson, 1992) İngilizcenin yayılmasına (spread
of English) toplumun sosyo-kültürel tepkisi olarak açıklanabilir. Toplumdilbilim
açısından bakıldığında, İngilizce’ye ilişkin hem olumlu hem olumsuz tutumların
birarada bulunması bireyin birden çok kimliği olması ile alakalı görülebilmektedir.
Kişinin bireysel kimliği İngilizce’yi onaylar ve desteklerken, ulusal kimliğinin tersini
söylemesi mümkündür (Stalker, 2000). Yabancı dil olarak İngilizce hakkındaki diğer
olumsuz ifadeler Anadolu liseleri dahil okullardaki yabancı dil öğretiminin altyapı
yetersizliği, derslerin niteliği ve kullanılan yöntemler ile ilgilidir
Yabancı dille öğretimin, öğretim sürecini olumsuz etkilediği sonucu
Türkiye’de yapılan çalışmalarının bulgularını desteklemektedir (Aksu Akarsu, 1985;
Akünal, 1994; Erdem, 1990; Somer 2001). Sayısı artan Anadolu liseleri sebebiyle,
özellikle 80’li ve 90’ lı yıllarda orta öğretimi baz alan çalışmalara kıyasla,
uygulamaya ilişkin sorunların daha da yoğunlaştığı anlaşılmaktadır. Bu çalışmada
katılımcılar, yalnız İngilizce’de yetkin ve yetişmiş öğretmen değil, yabancı dil
temelini çok iyi almış öğrencilerin de çok az olduğu belirtmişlerdir.
Bu bulgu literatüde sözü edilen “eşik hipotezi”ni akla getirmektedir. Nitekim,
İngilizce’de yeterlik sorunu yalnızca Türk öğrencilerinin değil, İngilizce öğretim
yapan pek çok ülkenin sorunudur. Örneğin Hong Kong’da İngilizce ikinci dil (ESL)
olmasına rağmen, lise düzeyinde özellikle fen ve sosyal dersler gibi İngilizce’de
sözel, zihinsel ve akademik beceri gerektiren dersler için gereken dil yeterliğini
kazanamayan öğrencilerin akademik başarısı düşük bulunmuştur (Marsch ve
arkadaşları, 2000).
293
Konuyu (içeriği) öğrenme ve dil becerileri açısından bakıldığında bulgular
Akünal’ın (1994) yüksek öğretim ortamında yaptığı çalışmaları destekler
niteliktedir. Özellikle konuyu kavrama, net ve tam olarak anlama bakımından ciddi
sorunların olduğu belirtilmiştir. Ezbere yönelme, çeviri ihtiyacı, sınıftaki etkileşimin
azalması, başarının düştüğü inancı, yukarıda sıralanan çalışmaların bazılarınca da
ortaya konulmuştur.
Katılımcılar sosyal derslerin yabancı dille okutulması seçeneğine kesinlikle
karşı çıkmaktadırlar. Bu, Fen ve matematik dersleri içerik olarak daha nötr
görülmesinden ve sosyal derslerin esas itibariyle kültürel öğeleri içermesinden
kaynaklanıyor olabilir. Yalnızca fen ve matematiğin İngilizce yapıldığı Anadolu
liselerinde “sadece Türkçe öğretim” istenmektedir. Buna rağmen, koşulları elveren
liselerde yabancı dille öğretimin sürmesi hakkında veliler olumlu, öğrenciler
olumsuz, görüştedirler. Öğretmenler ise bu konuda kararsızdırlar.
ÖNERİLER
Eğer orta öğretimde yabancı dille öğretimin sürdürülmesi ya da
sürdürülmemesi hakkında bir karar verilecekse öğrenci, öğretmen ve velilerin
görüşleri dikkate alınmalıdır. Bu çalışma öğrenci, öğretmen ve velilerin yabancı dille
öğretimi desteklememe nedenlerinin politik ve ideolojik temelli olmaktan çok
eğitime ve uygulamaya ilişkin sorunlar olduğunu ortaya koymuştur. Uygulamaya
ilişkin sorunların ve ÖSS faktörünün öğretim süreci ve dolayısıyla yabancı dille
öğretimle ilgili görüş ve tutumlar üzerinde oldukça belirgin etkisi olduğu
gözlemlenmektedir. Öğretmenlerin yabancı dilde yetkinliği, öğrencilerin İngilizce
temelinin iyi olması ve ÖSS sorununa çözüm gibi katılımcıların öne sürdüğü
önkoşullar dikkate alınmalı ve bunlara ilişkin sorunlar, bir çeşit öğretim ve/veya dil
öğrenme modeli olan yabancı dille öğretimin pedagojik temeli ile karıştırılmamalıdır.
Yabancı dille öğretimin özünde bir konuyu hedef dilde öğreterek hem
yabancı dili öğretmek, hem de de içeriği öğretmek amacı yatmaktadır. Katılımcılara
göre, İngilizce yapılan derste öğrenciler konuyu anlamak, kavramak ve öğrenmede
güçlük çekmektedirler. İngilizceleri de büyük oranda gelişmemiştir. Yine de,
pedagojik açıdan yabancı dille öğretimin sakıncalı mı yoksa yararlı mı olduğu
konusunda bir yargıya varmaya yetecek boyutta bilimsel kanıt bulunmamaktadır.
294
Araştırmaların çoğu yabancı kaynaklıdır ve sosyo-ekonomik, ve dilsel koşulları
farklı eğitim ortamlarında gerçekleştirilmiştir. Türkiye’deki çalışmalar sayıca
kısıtlıdır, farklı öğretim kademelerindeki ve yaşlardaki öğrencilerle yapılmıştır, ve
metodolojik açıdan çeşitlilik içermemektedir. Bu çalışmada elde edilen bazı bulgular
ileride yapılacak çalışmalara ışık tutacaktır, ancak, bulguların özellikle deneysel ve
korelasyon desenli çalışmalarla desteklenmesi gerekmektedir. Örneğin, katılımcıların
yakındığı, yabancı dille öğretim nedeniyle başarı oranının düşmesi, konuyu
öğrenmede güçlük çekilmesi gibi öğretim süreci ile ilgili konulardaki bulgular
araştırılmalıdır. Bu değişkenlerin öğrenci ve öğretmenin yabancı dildeki yeterliği,
öğrencilerin sosyo-ekonomik düzeyi, dersin sözel/sayısal olması gibi değişkenlerle
nasıl etkileştiği de bilinmemektedir. Ayrıca yabancı dille öğretimin hedef dilde
kazanımlarını nasıl etkilendiği, ve öğrencilerin Türkçe’si üzerindeki etkileri kapsamlı
olarak araştırılmalıdır. Aynı zamanda bu çalışma sonunda, İngilizce’nin ve yabancı
dille öğretimin Türk dili ve kültürü üzerindeki etkileri dilbilimciler ve
toplumdilbilimciler tarafından incelenmesi gereken bir konu olarak ortaya çıkmıştır.
Sağlam bir İngilizce temeli, yabancı dille öğretimin içerik öğretimi (örn. fen
ve matematik konularını öğrenme) ve hedef dilin öğretimi hedeflerini
yakalayabilmek için önkoşul olarak görülmektedir. Bu nedenle yabancı dil/İngilizce
öğretimi (ELT) müfredatı ile yabancı dille öğretimi (English-medium instrution)
içiçe düşünmek gerekmektedir. Bu çalışma, yabancı dil müfredatının ve uygulamanın
gözden geçirilmesi gerektiğini ortaya koymuştur. Aynı zamanda, eğer yabancı dille
öğretim Anadolu liselerinden kaldırılacak olursa ve etkin yabancı dille öğretim diğer
seçenek olarak görülüyorsa, etkin yabancı dil öğretiminin ne olduğu iyi
tanımlanmalı, hedef dilin kullanım alanları (örn. günlük İngilizce ya da akademik
İngilizce) gözönüne alınarak alternatif dil öğretim model/leri geliştirilmeli ve
denenmelidir. Tüm bunlar için bir dizi araştıma ve dikkatli bir yabancı dil eğitimi
planlaması gerekmektedir.
Bulgulardan yabancı dille öğretime olan talebin yüksek öğretime kaymış
olabileceği anlaşılmaktadır. Orta öğretimde olduğu gibi yabancı dille öğretime ilişkin
konuların yüksek öğretimde de daha çok araştırılması kaçınılmaz görünmektedir.
Eğitim ve toplumdilbilimsel boyutları olan yabancı dille öğretime talebin bitmemiş
olduğu görülmektedir. Bu talebin sosyolojik ve sosyo-ekonomik temellerinin de
araştırılması gerekmektedir.
295
VITA
Şahika Tarhan was born in 1964 in Samsun. She received her B.A in English Language and Literature from Hacettepe University in 1986 and embarked on a teaching career as a teacher of English in the School of Foreign Languages of the same university soon after graduation. She earned a Cambridge University, Society of Arts Diploma for Overseas Teachers of English (RSA DOTE) in 1990. Later, she completed the Master of Arts in teaching English as a Foreign Language (MATEFL) program at Bilkent University in 1992. Having worked for nine years as a teacher, academic coordinator and material developer for the preparatory program of Hacettepe University, she was transferred to Middle East Technical University, Department of Modern Languages where she has been teaching English for Academic Purposes, and has been actively involved in material development and course design since 1995. She presented at several international ELT events home and abroad. Recently, she has worked as a co-researcher of an EARGED-sponsored study on the evaluation of the 4th and 5th grade English program in public schools.