Title: ( You may modify it)
The utilization of CEFR scales for evaluating the role of Preparatory year program in equipping the medical health care students with demanded productive skills of writing & speaking: A case study using need- Gap Analysis Approach
General Abstract:
Proficiency in productive English language skills is crucial for students in medical and healthcare colleges of most Saudi universities as it is the main medium of instruction (EMI). Consequently, Preparatory Year Programmes (PYP) in Saudi Arabia are established with the aim of improving the academic literacy of matriculating students in order to enable them to meet collegial language demands. The Preparatory Year Programme (PYP) at Imam Andulrahman Bin Faisal university offers a one-year intensive English course to matriculating tertiary-level students, with the aim of meeting the high language proficiency levels required at tertiary institutions, including medical and healthcare colleges (MHCCs) where English is the main medium of instruction (EMI). However, there is a perceived misalignment between students’ achievements towards the end of the PYP against the actual required performance in the first year of college, and students continue to struggle to meet the high requirements in MHCCs, particularly with respect to the productive English language skills; writing and speaking. Therefore, this study aims to explore the adequacy of the PYP in meeting the writing and speaking needs of first-year Saudi students in university medical colleges. This longitudinal exploratory study will explore 100 students writing & speaking proficiency at the end of the PYP (Phase I) and the requirements of first-year MHCC students (Phase II), and to identify misalignments between these two levels of proficiency, and to explore the gaps identified (if any) (Phase III). A mixed-methods gap analysis approach to needs analysis is employed. Students and tutors will use ten CEFR scales to evaluate the students’ perceived attained levels at the end of PYP. In the quantitative component, ten CEFR scales are to be used to identify PYP students CEFR levels at the end of the PYP, and these will probably reveal writing proficiency levels between A2 to B1 in writing and B1 to B2 in speaking. One year ahead, these same students and their academic staff were requested to utilise the same scales will be utilized to to identify the CEFR levels required to cope with the academic demands of their speaking & writing skills, and I assume level B1 will be identified as the minimum level required in the field of writing and B2 in speaking for first-year students enrolled in the MHCCs. Concurrently, qualitative data will be collected to better understand and explore students writing and speaking proficiency and how participants perceive writing and speaking in terms of what students can do or are required to do with language. Different analyses are to be conducted (ANOVA, Correlation, Kappa and t-test) to compare the students’ self-assessment against the tutors’ in each PYP level to identify achieved CEFR levels and the actual CEFR levels needed. The qualitative analyses will provide insights into the different causes of gaps that contribute to issues with learners writing and speaking proficiency. I hypothesis that after comparing the two phases, significant misalignments will be found, particularly in relation to the Vocabulary range and control. Other issues might include the lack of specificity in the PYP writing & speaking courses, and limited practice and exposure to medical terminology and relevant speaking & writing genres. These findings can assist PYP stakeholders to address the gaps between the two curricula and better prepare students for their first year of study at the MHCCs. The study also will demonstrate the usability and reliability of the CEFR scales for needs analysis studies. Furthermore, it will confirm that the CEFR can be used with minimal training to identify students proficiency, provided that it was done via a controlled utilization of the CEFR descriptors.
