Analysis of the Basic English Proficiency of Prospective University Students Based on Diagnostic Test Results

Authors

  • Sulistyoadi Jokosaharjo Universitas Triatma Mulya
  • Ni Luh Komang Julyanti Paramita Sari Universitas Triatma Mulya
  • Ni Nyoman Nidya Trianingrum Universitas Triatma Mulya

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.37630/jpb.v16i2.4391

Keywords:

Basic English Proficiency, Prospective University Students, Diagnostic English Test, Elementary English Course

Abstract

This study aims to analyze the basic English proficiency of prospective university students through a multiple-choice test administered during the first batch of the admission process at Triatma Mulya University involving a total of 160 prospective students. The instrument used in this study was a multiple-choice diagnostic English test focusing on basic grammar, vocabulary comprehension, and communication expressions. Therefore, the test was not intended to measure complete English proficiency, but to identify students’ initial basic English competence for course design purpose. The study employed a descriptive mixed-method design by categorizing the test items into 10 language components. The findings show that students perform well in communication expressions and relatively well in simple present and past tense, but having difficulties in conditional sentences, subject-verb agreement, verb forms, and complex sentence construction. These findings indicate that an elementary English course should not only repeat general grammar explanations, but also provide communicative drills and contextualized practice.

References

Brown, H. Douglas. (2014). Principles of language learning and teaching: a course in second language acquisition. Pearson Education.

Corder, S. P., Glasgow, L., York, N., Delhi, T., Calcutta, B., Karachi, M., Singapore, K. L., & Kong Tokyo, H. (1981). Error Analysis and Interlanguage.

Crawford, W. J. (2020). Teaching Grammar, Revised. TESOL Press.

Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2018). Research design: qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (Fifth). Sage.

Harmer, J. (2007). The Practice of English Language Teaching.

Jokosaharjo, S., Sari, N. L. K. J. P., & Trianingrum, N. N. N. (2020). Analisis Kesalahan Penggunaan Preposisi Tempat In, On, dan At oleh Siswa Pplp Mapindo Jurusan Akomodasi Perhotelan. Jurnal Manajemen Pelayanan Hotel, 4(1), 19-26. http://dx.doi.org/10.37484/jmph.040103

Jokosaharjo, S., & Sari, N. L. K. J. P. (2023). The Management Business Hospitality Students’ Competence in Using Past Tense. Jurnal Manajemen Pelayanan Hotel, 7(1), 322. https://doi.org/10.37484/jmph.070116

Jokosaharjo, S., Subadra, I. N., & Hendra, I. K. Y. (2020). Common Mistakes Done by the Students of 6Th Semester in Using English in the Practice of Restaurant’S Sequence of Service Order. Jurnal Manajemen Pelayanan Hotel, 3(2), 95. https://doi.org/10.37484/manajemen_pelayanan_hotel.v3i2.56

Richards, J. C., & Rodgers, T. S. (2014). Approaches And Methods in Language Teaching Third Edition.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Development of Higher Psychological Processes (M. Cole, V. Jolm-Steiner, S. Scribner, & E. Souberman, Eds.). Harvard University Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvjf9vz4

Downloads

Published

2026-06-15