International Association of Educators   |  ISSN: 1309-0682

Orjinal Araştırma Makalesi | Akdeniz Eğitim Araştırmaları Dergisi 2022, Cil. 16(42) 18-31

Analysis of English Language Teaching Programmes Course Syllabus at ELT Departments in Turkey

Kürşat Cesur & Zeynep Özekinci

ss. 18 - 31   |  DOI: https://doi.org/10.29329/mjer.2022.541.2   |  Makale No: MANU-2212-15-0001

Yayın tarihi: Aralık 31, 2022  |   Okunma Sayısı: 109  |  İndirilme Sayısı: 212


Özet

In Turkey, foreign language teaching has been one of the most popular education subjects. Of its importance and given credits, English is Turkey's main compulsory foreign language. Therefore, the domains and characteristics of English Language Teaching Programmes (ELTPs) have a vital role in education programmes. This study aims to find the most preferred topics in English Language Teaching programmes course syllabi in English language teaching departments of 58 state universities. The study follows a qualitative research method and adopts a document analysis. In this regard, 58 state universities’ education programmes were analysed, and 91 topics were listed. These 91 topics were reduced to 35 because of having the same content with different titles. Then these 35 topics were listed, and their frequency tables were constructed. The findings of the study show that the most preferred topics are the teacher competencies, historical development and learning outcomes of ELTPs. Meanwhile, the least preferred ones are foreign language teaching in today’s school curriculum, system thinking and instructional design, and learner strategy training.

Anahtar Kelimeler: English Language Teaching Programmes, Curriculum, Syllabus.


Bu makaleye nasıl atıf yapılır?

APA 6th edition
Cesur, K. & Ozekinci, Z. (2022). Analysis of English Language Teaching Programmes Course Syllabus at ELT Departments in Turkey . Akdeniz Eğitim Araştırmaları Dergisi, 16(42), 18-31. doi: 10.29329/mjer.2022.541.2

Harvard
Cesur, K. and Ozekinci, Z. (2022). Analysis of English Language Teaching Programmes Course Syllabus at ELT Departments in Turkey . Akdeniz Eğitim Araştırmaları Dergisi, 16(42), pp. 18-31.

Chicago 16th edition
Cesur, Kursat and Zeynep Ozekinci (2022). "Analysis of English Language Teaching Programmes Course Syllabus at ELT Departments in Turkey ". Akdeniz Eğitim Araştırmaları Dergisi 16 (42):18-31. doi:10.29329/mjer.2022.541.2.

Kaynakça
  1. Asmali, M. (2020). General Picture of English Language Teaching Programs and Students in Turkey. Yükseköğretim ve Bilim Dergisi, (2), 264-275. [Google Scholar]
  2. Bowen, G. A. (2009). Document analysis as a qualitative research method. Qualitative research journal. 9(2), 27-40. [Google Scholar]
  3. Bowers, R. (1986). English in the world: Aims and achievements in English language teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 20(3), 393–410. [Google Scholar]
  4. Carless, D. R. (1998). A case study of curriculum implementation in Hong Kong. System, 26(3), 353–368.  [Google Scholar]
  5. Cesur, K., & Bulanık, F. (2020) .EFL Teachers' Most Preferred Topics for the Syllabus of the Course "Teaching English to Young Learners". International Journal of Educational Spectrum, 2(1), 25–37.  [Google Scholar]
  6. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2004). Good business: Leadership, flow, and the making of meaning. Penguin, New York. [Google Scholar]
  7. Cuban, L. (2012). Standards vs customisation: Finding the balance. Educational Leadership, 69(5), 10–15.  [Google Scholar]
  8. Cumming, A. (1993). Teachers' curriculum planning and accommodations of innovation: Three case studies of adult ESL instruction. TESL Canada Journal, 11(1), 30–52. [Google Scholar]
  9. Demir, Y. (2015). All or nothing: English as a foreign language (EFL) student teachers’ and teacher trainers’ reflections on a pre-service English teacher education program in Turkey. The Anthropologist, 19(1), 157–165. [Google Scholar]
  10. El-Okda, M. (2005). A proposed model for EFL teacher involvement in on-going curriculum development. Asian EFL Journal, 7(4), 33-49. [Google Scholar]
  11. Erarslan, A. (2019). Factors affecting the implementation of primary school English language teaching programs in Turkey. The Journal of Language Learning and Teaching, 9(2), 7–22. [Google Scholar]
  12. Fullan, M., & Pomfret, A. (1977). Research on curriculum and instruction implementation. Review of Educational Research, 47(2), 335-397. [Google Scholar]
  13. Garm, N., & Karlsen, G. E. (2004). Teacher education reform in Europe: The case of Norway; trends and tensions in a global perspective. Teaching and Teacher Education, 20(7), 731-744. [Google Scholar]
  14. Grose, T., Hinkelman, D., Rian, J., & McGarty, G. (2009). Assessment strategies of a university EFL curriculum in Japan. Journal of the Faculty of Humanities, 70(2), 1–25. [Google Scholar]
  15. Gultom, E. (2016). Assessment and evaluation in EFL teaching and learning. Proceedings of ISELT FBS Universitas Negeri Padang, 4(1), 190–198. [Google Scholar]
  16. Gürsoy, E., & Eken, E. (2018). English teachers’ understanding of the new English language teaching program and their classroom implementations. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 14(2), 18-33.  [Google Scholar]
  17. Gürsoy, E., Korkmaz, S. Ç., & Damar, A. E. (2013). Foreign language teaching within 4+ 4+ 4 education system in Turkey: Language teachers’ voice. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 53, 59-74.  [Google Scholar]
  18. Hargreaves, A. (1994). Changing teachers, changing times: Teachers' work and culture in the postmodern age. Teachers College Press. [Google Scholar]
  19. Haznedar, B. (2004). Türkiye’de yabancı dil öğretimi: İlköğretim yabancı dil programı. Boğaziçi Üniversitesi Eğitim Dergisi, 21(2), 15-29. [Google Scholar]
  20. Heinze, T., & Knill, C. (2008). Analysing the differential impact of the Bologna process: Theoretical considerations on national conditions for international policy convergence. Higher Education, 56, 493–510.  [Google Scholar]
  21. Hongboontri, C. (2020). EFL Curriculum Implementation: An Exploratory Study into Teachers and Students’ Perceptions Chantarath Hongboontri1 and William Egerton Darling2. Horizon, 2(1), 69-86. [Google Scholar]
  22. Huq, M. Shamsul , Riché, . Pierre , Chen, . Theodore Hsi-en , Lauwerys, . Joseph Albert , Graham, . Hugh F. , Mukerji, . S.N. , Chambliss, . J.J. , Arnove, . Robert F. , Vázquez, . Josefina Zoraida , Szyliowicz, . Joseph S. , Naka, . Arata , Nakosteen, . Mehdi K. , Lawson, . Robert Frederic , Thomas, . R. Murray , Marrou, . Henri-Irénée , Moumouni, . Abdou , Anweiler, . Oskar , Swink, . Roland Lee , Shimahara, . Nobuo , Gelpi, . Ettore , Ipfling, . Heinz-Jürgen , Browning, . Robert , Bowen, . James , Scanlon, . David G. and Meyer, . Adolphe Erich (2022, August 23). education. Encyclopedia Britannica. https://www.britannica.com/topic/education. [Google Scholar]
  23. Jakku-Sihvonen, R., Tissari, V., Ots, A., & Uusiautti, S. (2012). Teacher education curricula after the Bologna Process–a comparative analysis of written curricula in Finland and Estonia. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 56(3), 261-275. [Google Scholar]
  24. Karavas‐Doukas, E. (1995). Teacher identified factors affecting the implementation of an EFL innovation in Greek public secondary schools. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 8(1), 53-68. [Google Scholar]
  25. Kirkgöz, Y. (2008). A case study of teachers’ implementation of curriculum innovation in English language teaching in Turkish primary education. Teaching and teacher education, 24(7), 1859-1875. [Google Scholar]
  26. Mano, A. D. M. P., & de Souza Rizzo, D. T. (2021). An educação social e a formação de professores em pesquisas: definições, indefinições e perspectivas. Revista Ibero-Americana de Estudos em Educação,16 (1), 999-1013.  [Google Scholar]
  27. Meyer, D. Z., & Avery, L. M. (2009). Excel as a qualitative data analysis tool. Field Methods, 21(1), 91–112. [Google Scholar]
  28. Hudson, B., Leask, M., & Younie, S. (Eds.). (2020). Education System Design: Foundations, Policy Options and Consequences. Routledge. [Google Scholar]
  29. Norton, B., & Wu, Y. A. (2001). TESOL in China: Current challenges: English language teaching in China: Trends and Challenges. TESOL Quarterly, 35(1), 191–194. [Google Scholar]
  30. OECD (2021), Beyond Academic Learning: First Results from the Survey of Social and Emotional Skills, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/92a11084-en. [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  31. O’Leary, Z. (2014). The essential guide to doing your research project (2nd ed.). Sage Publications, Inc. [Google Scholar]
  32. Ornstein, A. C. (1987). The field of curriculum: What approach? What definition? The High School Journal, 70(4), 208-216. [Google Scholar]
  33. O'Sullivan, M. C. (2002). Reform implementation and the realities within which teachers work: A Namibian case study. Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education, 32(2). 219-237. [Google Scholar]
  34. Prapaisit de Segovia, L., & Hardison, D. M. (2009). Implementing education reform: EFL teachers’ perspectives. ELT journal, 63(2), 154-162. [Google Scholar]
  35. Richards, J. C. (1998). Beyond training: perspectives on language teacher education (1st ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar]
  36. Rinehart, K. (2021). Curriculum purposes and design. Teachers and Curriculum, 21(1), 1–5. https:doi.org/10.15663/tandc.v21i1.378 [Google Scholar]
  37. Roehrig, G. H., & Kruse, R. A. (2005). The role of teachers' beliefs and knowledge in the adoption of a Reform‐Based curriculum. School Science and Mathematics, 105(8), 412-422.  [Google Scholar]
  38. Sanlı, Ş. (2009). Comparison of the English language teaching (ELT) departments’ course curricula in turkey's education faculties. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 1(1), 838–843. [Google Scholar]
  39. Saylor, J. G., Alexander, W. M., & Lewis, A. J. (1981). Curriculum planning for better teaching and learning. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. [Google Scholar]
  40. Shawer, S. F. (2010). Classroom-level curriculum development: EFL teachers as curriculum-developers, curriculum-makers, and curriculum-transmitters. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26(2), 173–184. [Google Scholar]
  41. Tomlinson, C. A. (2000). Reconcilable differences: Standards-based teaching and differentiation. Educational Leadership, 58(1), 6–13.  [Google Scholar]
  42. Topkaya-Zehir, E., & Küçük, Ö. (2010). An evaluation of 4th and 5th grade English language teaching program. Ilkogretim Online, 9(1). 52-65. [Google Scholar]
  43. Trilling, B., & Fadel, C. (2009). 21st century skills: Learning for life in our times. John Wiley & Sons. [Google Scholar]
  44. Uztozun, M. S., & Troudi, S. (2015). Lecturers' views of curriculum change at English Language Teaching departments in Turkey. Novitas-ROYAL (Research on Youth and Language), 9(1), 15-29. [Google Scholar]
  45. Wang, H., & Cheng, L. (2009). Factors Affecting Teachers' Curriculum Implementation. Linguistics Journal, 4(2). 135-166. [Google Scholar]
  46. Wang, H., & Han, H. (2002). The development of college English curriculum in China. Carleton Papers in Applied Language Studies, 16(17), 75-97.  [Google Scholar]
  47. Wyatt-Smith, C. M., & Cumming, J. J. (2003). Curriculum literacies: Expanding domains of assessment. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 10(1), 47–59. [Google Scholar]
  48. Yavuz, A., & Topkaya-Zehir, E. (2013). Teacher Educators' Evaluation of The English Language Teaching Program: A Turkish Case. Novitas-Royal (research on youth and language), 7(1). 64-83. [Google Scholar]
  49. Yıldırım, A., & Şimşek, H. (2013). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri. Seçkin yayıncılık. [Google Scholar]
  50. Young, R. & Lee, S. (1984). EFL curriculum innovation and teacher attitudes. In P. Larson, E. Judd and D. Messerschmitt (eds.). On TESOL ’84 (pp.184-194). TESOL. [Google Scholar]
  51. Yücel, E., Dimici, K., Yıldız, B., & Bümen, N. (2017). Son 15 yılda yayımlanan ilk ve ortaöğretim İngilizce dersi öğretim programları üzerine bir analiz. Ege Eğitim Dergisi, 18(2), 702-737. [Google Scholar]