Volume 9, Issue 1 (Jan-Mar 2020)
JCHR 2020, 9(1): 46-53 |
Back to browse issues page
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Barzegar K, Nemat Tabrizi A R, Jafarigohar M, Vahdany F. The Effect of Linguistic Homogenization on English Proficiency of Students, Case Study: Junior Students of Shahid Sadoughi University of Medical Sciences, 2018. JCHR 2020; 9 (1) :46-53
URL: http://jhr.ssu.ac.ir/article-1-515-en.html
URL: http://jhr.ssu.ac.ir/article-1-515-en.html
1- Department of Linguistics and Foreign Languages, Payame Noor Postgraduate Center, Tehran, Iran.
2- Department of Linguistics and Foreign Languages, Payame Noor Postgraduate Center, Tehran, Iran. ,arnemati@pnu.ac.ir
3- Department of Linguistics and Foreign Languages, Payame Noor Postgraduate Center, Rasht, Iran.
2- Department of Linguistics and Foreign Languages, Payame Noor Postgraduate Center, Tehran, Iran. ,
3- Department of Linguistics and Foreign Languages, Payame Noor Postgraduate Center, Rasht, Iran.
Abstract: (3462 Views)
Introduction: Iranian students of health need to bone up on their academic English to be able to read the English sources of health as a factor contributing to community health promotion. In the Iranian academia, students are placed in Basic and General English courses not on the basis of proficiency levels, but on the basis of their academic majors with the same protocol, teaching materials, and methodology used for these heterogeneous classrooms leading to failure and dissatisfaction in the use of academic English as a vehicle for increasing their knowledge of community health. This study investigated the effect of English proficiency homogenization on linguistic proficiency of Iranian students of health as a means of health enhancement via reading English sources.
Methods: In this quasi-experimental study conducted in 2018, the Cambridge Placement Test was given to 71 students of three health majors at Shahid Sadoughi University of Medical Sciences selected with convenient sampling method. The students were divided into three language ability groups using placement test percentiles and taught with two different protocols which were used till the midterm exam. The midterm exam was given and the data were collected and analyzed with SPSS20 using descriptive statistics, i.e., frequency, percentiles, mean, and standard deviation and also inferential statistics, i.e., one-way ANOVA, Levene statistic, Tukey HSD, and independent T-test.
Results: A significant difference was found between the three groups on the placement test (p=0.015); there was no significant difference among the three different academic majors with regard to Criterion-referenced Test (CRT) scores (p=0.05); there was no significant difference among the three Norm-referenced Test (NRT) forms (Forms A, B, & C) (p=0.05); also, there was a significant difference among the two CRT forms (Forms A, B) (p=0.05). Regarding the placement test, the significance indices demonstrated a significant difference between group A, on the one hand, and groups B and C, on the other with no significant difference between groups B and C (p=0.05). The findings of the second part of the post hoc test showed a significant difference for the midterm exam between Group A, on the one hand, and Group B and Group C (p=0.05), on the other, with no significant difference between groups B and C (p=0.05), indicating the success of the present study.
Conclusion: The students of health should be grouped in Basic English and EGP courses, not based on their academic majors, but based on their English proficiency levels for a successful English pedagogy leading to successful use of English texts of health as a means of promoting health community.
Methods: In this quasi-experimental study conducted in 2018, the Cambridge Placement Test was given to 71 students of three health majors at Shahid Sadoughi University of Medical Sciences selected with convenient sampling method. The students were divided into three language ability groups using placement test percentiles and taught with two different protocols which were used till the midterm exam. The midterm exam was given and the data were collected and analyzed with SPSS20 using descriptive statistics, i.e., frequency, percentiles, mean, and standard deviation and also inferential statistics, i.e., one-way ANOVA, Levene statistic, Tukey HSD, and independent T-test.
Results: A significant difference was found between the three groups on the placement test (p=0.015); there was no significant difference among the three different academic majors with regard to Criterion-referenced Test (CRT) scores (p=0.05); there was no significant difference among the three Norm-referenced Test (NRT) forms (Forms A, B, & C) (p=0.05); also, there was a significant difference among the two CRT forms (Forms A, B) (p=0.05). Regarding the placement test, the significance indices demonstrated a significant difference between group A, on the one hand, and groups B and C, on the other with no significant difference between groups B and C (p=0.05). The findings of the second part of the post hoc test showed a significant difference for the midterm exam between Group A, on the one hand, and Group B and Group C (p=0.05), on the other, with no significant difference between groups B and C (p=0.05), indicating the success of the present study.
Conclusion: The students of health should be grouped in Basic English and EGP courses, not based on their academic majors, but based on their English proficiency levels for a successful English pedagogy leading to successful use of English texts of health as a means of promoting health community.
Keywords: Health promotion, homogeneity, proficiency level, Criterion-Referenced Test, Norm-Referenced Test, English for General Purposes, placement test
Review: Review |
Subject:
Health education
Received: 2019/03/18 | Accepted: 2020/04/5 | Published: 2020/03/29
Received: 2019/03/18 | Accepted: 2020/04/5 | Published: 2020/03/29
References
1. Krashen SD. Bilingual education and second language acquisition theory. Schooling and language minority students: A theoretical framework. 1981:51-79.
2. Brown, H. D. Principles of language learning and teaching . New York: Longman. 2000.
3. Ellis, R. Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford University Press. 2003.
4. Dudley-Evans T, St John MJ, Saint John MJ. Developments in English for specific purposes. A multi-disciplinary approach. Cambridge university press .2005.
5. Hutchinson T, Waters A. English for specific purposes. Cambridge university press. 1987. [DOI:10.1017/CBO9780511733031]
6. Wen, Qiufang, and Robert Keith Johnson. L2 Learner Variables and English Achievement: A Study of Tertiary-level English Majors in China. Oxford Journal of Applied Linguistics. 1997; 18(1):27-48. [DOI:10.1093/applin/18.1.27]
7. Smemoe, Baker, Wendy & Naomi Haslam. The Effect of Language Learning Aptitude, Strategy Use and Learning Context on L2 Pronunciation Learning. Oxford Journal of Applied Linguistics. 2013; 34(4):435-456. [DOI:10.1093/applin/ams066]
8. Galaczi, Evelina D. Interactional Competence across Proficiency Levels: How do Learners Manage Interaction in Paired Speaking Tests? Oxford Journal of Applied Linguistics: Applied Linguistics. 2014; 35(5):553-574. [DOI:10.1093/applin/amt017]
9. Iwashita, Brown A, McNamara T, et al. Assessed Levels of Second Language Speaking Proficiency: How Distinct? Oxford Journal of Applied Linguistics. 2008; 29(1):24-49. [DOI:10.1093/applin/amm017]
10. Tomiyama M. Age and Proficiency in L2 Attrition: Data from Two Siblings. Oxford Journal of Applied Linguistics. 2009; 30(2):253-275. [DOI:10.1093/applin/amn038]
11. Ortega L. Syntactic Complexity Measures and their Relationship to L2 Proficiency: A Research Synthesis of College‐level L2 Writing. Oxford Journal of Applied Linguistics. 2003; 24(4):492-518. [DOI:10.1093/applin/24.4.492]
12. Al-Gahtani S, Roever C. Proficiency and Sequential Organization of L2 Requests. Oxford Journal of Applied Linguistics. 2012; 33(1):42-65. [DOI:10.1093/applin/amr031]
13. Abbasian Boroojeni F, Tavakoli M., Vahid Dastjerdi H. Washback effect of general English test of Ph.D. entrance exam on science and humanities students: Perceptions and practices. Journal of Research in Applied Linguistics. 2017; 8(1):109-132.
14. Bond, Linda A. Norm- and criterion-referenced testing. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation. 2014; 5(2). Available from: http://ericae.net/pare/40~getvn.html
15. Rahimi A, Bigdeli RA. Challenges of Action Research: insights from Language Institutes. RALs, Fall. 2016: 7(2).
16. Mozayan MR, Barzegar K. Basic English for Medical and Paramedical Students. Tebgostar Publications, Yazd, Iran. 2011.
17. Brown JD. Testing in language programs: A Comprehensive Guide to English Language Assessment. McGraw-Hill College 2005.
18. Richards JC, Schmidt RW. Longman dictionary of language teaching & applied linguistics. Routledge: 2002.
19. Chen PH, Chen TC, Kim SK. Comparison of Three Different Linking Procedures between Norm-Referenced Test and Criterion-Referenced Test. International Journal of Intelligent Technologies & Applied Statistics, 2015: 8(1).
Send email to the article author
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. |
