1. Ali Karakaş
Southampton University, UK
LECTURERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF ENGLISH
ABILITIES AND LANGUAGE USE IN ENGLISH-
MEDIUM UNIVERSITIES
2014
Antalya

2. outline
 Introduction
 Bakcground to the study
 Purpose of the study
 Method
 Research design
 Setting and participants
 Data collection and analysis
 Results & Discussion
 Conclusion
 References

3. Background to the study
 Globalization + Internationalization
English : language of Higher Education
(Brumfit, 2004; Coleman, 2007)
 Increased use of EMI in non-English speaking
contexts (Europe)
(Wachter & Maiworm,
2008)
 Turkey: EMI programs on the rise
Approaches to EMI (partially or fully)
(Alexander, 2008)
EMI trend spearheaded by private
universities

4. Entry requirements for
Students
 Certification of their English skills
 e.g. TOEFL, IELTS, Universities’ own exams
 Remedial language teaching
 Preparatory schools (one year)
 Language support (academic writing centers)
Deficit
approach
Any requirements for academic staff?

5. Previous studies
Students’ perceptions of their
English skills (Kırkgöz, 2005)
 less positive about speaking skills
Students and lecturers’ view of their
English skills (Byun et al, 2010)
 not satisfactory with their English skills
Problems observed in language use
(Klaassen & Graaf, 2001; Ball & Lindsay, 2013;
Jensen et al, 2011)
 oral production (e.g. accent, pronunciation,
fluency)
 diffculty coping with EMI
 Students: more positive

6. Purpose of the study
…to study lecturers’ self-perceptions of their
English abilities and language use.
… to learn about what goals they have with
respect to academic speaking and writing skills
…to explore what they think about their
students’ English skills

7. Method
Research Design:
Descriptive + quantitative
approach
Setting & Participants
 Three EMI universities :
Fatih, Boğaziçi (İstanbul),
Metu (Ankara)
 A total of 33 academic staff
(i.e. Lecturers)
 Faculty of economoics and
administrative sciences
 Faculty of Engineering
Data collection tool
 Online questionnaires
 Closed-ended items
 November-December 2013
Data analysis
 SPSS used for data analysis
 Descriptive & Inferential
statistics

8. The Results & Discussion
Background of participants
Frequency
(f)
Percentage
(%)
Gender Male 24 72,7
Female 9 27,3
University Fatih 5 15,5
Boğaziçi 10 30,3
METU 18 54,5
Faculty Economics and
Administrative Sciences
15 45,5
Engineering 18 54,5
Being abroad Yes 32 97,0
No 1 3,0
Background of
participants

9. Research question 1:
Lecturers’ self-evaluation of their English skills
Writing Listenin
g
Vocabular
y
Speakin
g
Overall
proficiency
f % f % f % f % f %
Poor - - - - 1 3,0 1 3,0 - -
Satisfactor
y
1 3,0 3 9,1 2 6,1 1 3,0 2 6,1
Good 16 48,5 10 30,3 16 48,5 1
7
51,5 15 45,5
Excellent 16 48,5 20 60,6 14 42,4 1
4
42,4 16 48,5

10. The relationship between English Proficiency and other
variables
Gender and proficiency (Mann-Whitney U test)
English
skills
Gender n X SD Σrank Xrank U Z P
1. Writing Male 24 3.41 .58 16.48 395.
5
95.5 -.57 .619
Female 9 3.55 .52 18.39 165.
5
2.
Listening
Male 24 3.41 .71 15.81 379.
5
79.5 -1.33 .254
Female 9 3.77 .44 20.17 181.
5
3.Vocabula
ry
Male 24 3.12 .74 14.69 352.
5
52.5 -2.49
.023
*Female 9 3.77 .44 23.17 208.
5
4. Male 24 3.29 .75 16.67 400.
(U=52.5, p= 0.023)

11. The relationship between English Proficiency and other
variables
University and proficiency (Kruskal-Wallis H test)
Skills Universities N Xrank X2 SD Sig.
Writing
Fatih University 5 9.50
5.20 .56 .074
Bogazici
University
10
16.65
METU 18 19.28
Listening
Fatih University 5 13.20
1.31 .66 .518
Bogazici
University
10
18.35
METU 18 17.31
Vocabulary
Fatih University 5 12.40
2.57 .72 .277
Bogazici
University
10
15.70
METU 18 19.00
Speaking
Fatih University 5 9
6.07 .69 .048
Bogazici
University
10
16.3

12. Speakin
g
Universitie
s
n X SD Σrank Xrank U Z P
Fatih Uni 5 2.60 .89 6.20 31.0
0
16.0
0
-
2.45
.030METU 18 3.55 .51 13.6
1
245.
0
Mann-Whitney U test

13. Use of Skills in Practice
Statements (N=33) SA A D SD
f % f % f % f %
1. I have adequate vocabulary to write in
English.
21 64 10 30 1 3 1 3
2. I make basic grammatical errors in
speaking.
4 12 12 36 17 52 - -
3. My English sounds like native English. 3 9 10 30 18 55 2 6
4. I experience some difficulties in writing
for publication.
- - 6 18 15 46 12 36
5. I can communicate successfully in
English.
22 67 11 33 - - - -
6. I lack fluency in English. 1 3 - - 15 46 17 52
7. I have good English pronunciation. 11 33 19 58 3 9 - -
8. I have a foreign (i.e. Turkish) accent. 3 9 20 60 5 15 5 15
9. My English is difficult to understand. - - 1 3 11 33 21 64

14. Research question 2:
Goals in academic writing
30%
37%
12%
21%
to be a competent writer, that
is, it's OK to make some
grammatical mistakes as
long as my writing is
understood.
to write like American
speakers.
to write like British speakers.

15. Research question 2:
Goals in academic speaking
64%
15%
3%
9%
9%
To be a competent speaker; it
is ok to have a Turkish accent
and make mistakes
To speak like American
speakers
To speak like other native
speakers (Canadians,
Australians)
To speak like British speakers
Other

16. Groups n Xrank Σrank z P
Goal in
speaking 33 10.23 20.50
-2.679 0,007
Goal in writing
33 8.83 132.50
Research question 2:
Difference between Lecturers’ Orientations to Speaking
and Writing

17. Research question 3:
Lecturers’ views on students’ English skills
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Excellent Good Satisfactory Poor
0%
12%
55%
33%
0%
40%
55%
7%
Turkish Students' English Non-Turkish Students' English

18. Groups
n
Xrank Σrank z P
Turkish
students’
English
33 .00 .00
-3.819
0,000Non-Turkish
students’
English
33 8.50 136.00
Difference between lecturers’ rating of Turkish & Non-Turkish Students’
English

19. Conclusion
 English skills to be of a high level
 No problems reported concerning the micro skills
 Gender & the university they work at affect their
ratings
 Male & female lecturers differed in vocabulary
knowledge
 Goals
 Spoken English: 64% aspire for competency
 Written English: 49% aspire for native-like
proficiency
 Students’ English
 Turkish students’ English v.s. Non-Turkish

20. References
Airey, J. & Linder, C. (2006) Language and the experience of learning university physics in Sweden.
European Journal of Physics 27, 553–560.
Ball, B. & Lindsay, D. (2013). Language demands and support for English medium instruction in tertiary
education. Learning from a specific context. In A. Doiz, D. Lasagabaster, & J. M. Sierra. English-medium
instruction at universities: Global Challenges. (pp. 44-61). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Brumfit, C. J. (2004). Language and higher education: Two current challenges. Arts and Humanities in Higher
Education, 3(2), 163–173.
Byun, K., Chu, H., Kim, M., Park, I., Kim, S., & Jung, J. (2010). English-medium teaching in Korean higher
education: policy debates and reality. Higher Education, 62, 431–449. doi:10.1007/s10734-010-9397-4
Coleman, J. A. (2006). English-medium teaching in European higher education. Language Teaching, 39(1),
1–14. doi:10.1017/S026144480600320X
Klaassen, R. G. (2001). The international university curriculum: Challenges in English-medium engineering
education. Doctoral thesis, Department of Communication and Education, Delft University of Technology,
Delft, The Netherlands.
Klaassen, R., & Graaff, E. De. (2001). Facing innovation: Preparing lecturers for English-medium instruction
in a non-native context. European journal of engineering Education, 26(3), 281–289. Retrieved from
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/03043790110054409
Vinke, A.A., Snippe, J. and Jochems, W. (1998) English-medium content courses in non-English higher
education: A study of lecturer experiences and teaching behaviours. Teaching in Higher Education, 3, 383–
394.