BS- English FYDP Syllabus Vs. BA-english Tydp: An Evaluation at Graduate Level

BS-English FYDP Syllabus vs BA-English TYDP An Evaluation at Graduate Level

Rehana Yasmin Anjum
  • Mrs. Rehana Yasmin Anjum is a PhD Scholar, from University of Management and Technology, Lahore Pakistan
  • Keywords:
  • Language Skills, Observation Method, Training, Linguistic
  • Abstract:
  • This one-year writing process and 12 CH course means serious and focused research work. Composing a research paper of about 20,000 to 25,000 words on a literary topic of choice along with writing an abstract, selected bibliographies or works cited, annotated as well as simple, citing references, and professionally dividing the whole project into chapters, headings and its parts becomes mandatory for the research candidates. These candidates, who have been exposed to literary taste and linguistic styles by writing papers for various courses for more than a year and with their BA/BS 04-year background and overall almost five years of extensive reading now, are expected to be trained into the demanded academic standards. At this final stage of their orientation to quality literature the candidates may be asked to write these research papers for further growth in their career towards publication or PhD and higher degrees of research programs. Details regarding research at MS level may be connected back to the training received by these candidates through the course offered in “Advanced Research and Bibliographic Methods” during the Semester II of MA English (Honors) in Literature.
  1. Ankara University. (2009). School of foreign languages, Retrieved September 10, 2009, from http://www.yabdil.ankara.edu.tr Bell, R.(1960).Curriculum.London:
  2. The”OpenUniversity Educational Studies. Best, J.W. (1959) Research in Education, Engle Wood Cliff N. J. Prentice Hall, 1959. Best, J.W. and Kahn, J.V (1992) Research in Education.
  3. “New Delhi: Prentice Hall of India. Best, J.W. and Kahn, J.V. (2003). Research in education (9th”Ed.). Boston, MA:
  4. Pearson Education Company. Brumfit, C.J. (1981) Problem and”Principles in”English Teaching. Pengumon Press . Great Britian. Byron, D. (1979) Teaching Writing Skills,
  5. England .Longman. Chomsky, N. (1965) Aspects of the Theory of Syntax, Massachusetts: MIT Press”1965. Cowley, Sue. (2002)Getting the Buggers to Write. London:
  6. Continuum, 2002. Cronbach, L.J. (1991). Course improvement through evaluation. Teachers’ College Record, 64, 672d683. Crystal,D.(1995.)
  7. The Cambridge Encyclopaedia of the English Language. Cambridge Univ. Press, Crystal, D. (1997). English as a global language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  8. Ellis, R. (1993) the Structural Syllabus and the Second Language Acquisition. TESOL Quarterly 27d91) French, G.F. (1963) 74 Flowerdew, J., and Peacock, M. (2001). (Eds.).
  9. Research perspectives on English for academic purposes, Cambridge: CUP. Fraenkel, R. and Wallen, N. E.(1990).How to design and evaluate research”in education.
  10. New York: Mc Grawd Hill. Gay, L.R. (1985) Educational Evaluation and Measurement. Columbus: Charlse E. Merril Publishing Company. Gay, L.R. (1987)
  11. Educational Research: Competencies for Analysis and Application (3rd Ed.).London: CharlseE.Merril Publishing Company. Graddol, D. (1997) Future of English .
  12. London:The English Company(UK) Ltd. Retrieved fromHttp://www.english .co.uk/FoE/contents/cont.html. Graddol, D. (2000).The future of English?
  13. A guide to forecasting the popularity of the English language in the 21st Century. London: British Council. Gowda, A. (1982) Research”in Education.New Delhi:
  14. Prentice Hall of India. Güllü, S. A.(2007). An evaluation”of”English”program at Kozan Vocational School of Çukurova University: Students’ point of view.
  15. Unpublished master’s thesis, Çukurova University, Adana. Hussain.S.A.H. (1986) Problems and Principles of English Language Teaching in Pakistan,Hashmi Art Press. Karachi. Haque,A.R.(1993)The”Position”and Status of English in Pakistan.
  16. In Robert Baumgardner (ed) The English Language in Pakistan (pp.13d18) Oxford: Oxford University Press. Hill, J. (1986)”Teaching Literature”in the”Language Classroom.
  17. London and Basingstock: Mcmillan Publishers Ltd. Hopki,D.(1989).Evaluation for”School”Development. Islamabad: Open University Press (Milton”Keynes) Hobbs,J.(1997)Teaching Observed, Grossvenor Press. Portmouth: Great”Britain.
  18. Jawarska,E. and”Porte, G.(2007). Forty”years”of language teaching. London: Cambridge”University”Press Koutoudas, Andreas, (1996)”
  19. WritingTransformationalGrammar: AnIntroduction,NewYork: McgrawHill Book
  20. Company. Nunan, D. (1993). Taskdbased syllabus design: selecting, grading and sequencing tasks. In G. Crookes and S.M. Gass (Eds.).Tasks in a pedagogical context.
  21. Cleveland, UK: Multilingual Matters. Olivia, F. P. (2001). Developing the curriculum.
  22. New York: Longman. Payne, A. (1994). Designing educational project and program evaluations. London: Norwell. Pekiner, G. (2006).
  23. Evaluation of the science and technology curriculum at grade level 4 and 5: Pilot study. Unpublished master’s thesis, Middle East Technical University, Ankara.
  24. Pittman, R.S. (1985). Evaluation in the social studies curriculum: A responsive evaluation model. Unpublished doctorate’s thesis, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.
  25. Stufflebeam, D. L. (1983).The CIPP”model for program evaluation. Boston: Kluwer Nijhoff Stufflebeam, D. L., and Shinkfield, A. J.(1985).Systematic evaluation. Boston:
  26. Kluwe Nijhoff. Stufflebeam, D.L. (2000). The CIPP model for evaluation. In T.
  27. Kellaghan and D.L Stufflebeam (Eds). International handbook of educational evaluation,
  28. Part 1 (pp.31d62). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Tahir,M.S.(1990) Modern Approaches to the Teaching of English as a Second Language.Lahore.
  29. Tanner, D., and Tanner, L. N. (1980) Curriculum development: Theory into practice.
  30. New York: Macmillan. Yanık, A. (2007). A study of English language curriculum implementation” in 6th, 7th and 8th grades of public primary schools through
  31. teachers’ and students’perceptions.Unpublished master’s thesis, Middle East Technical University, Ankara. 75 Special Thanks to Ankara” University’s Thesis Research
  32. Library (Evaluation of Preparatory School” Program Using” CIPP
  33.  
BS- English FYDP Syllabus Vs. BA-english Tydp: An Evaluation at Graduate Level
PDF
Published
  • May 1, 2016
Categories
Copyright
  • Copyright (c) 2016 Rehana Yasmin Anjum
License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.