A different approach to teaching French as a foreign language at preparatory school: From curriculum development to practice

Yıl 2018, Cilt: 19 Sayı: 3, 231 - 239, 30.12.2018

Ayşe İşık Akdağ

https://doi.org/10.17679/inuefd.331092

Öz

This study aims to
evaluate the effects resulted from the implementation of a new curriculum for
the teaching of French as a foreign language (FLE) at undergraduate level.
Since majority of students found foreign language coursebooks (FLCs) not
motivating, a curriculum that aims to develop language competences by excluding
FLCs was designed. The theoretical framework of this curriculum is based on
CEFR, on the Bologna Process and on the National Qualifications Framework for
Higher Education. The research was designed as an action research in education.
The sample consisted of 30 prep class students at a state university. The data
collected from the students through a questionnaire were analysed by SPSS
Statistics 21. The results of the study indicate that students found this new
curriculum very successful. Except one course, satisfaction levels of 100%, 92%
, 82.6 , %65,4 and 54,2 were achieved for Book Reading, Verbal Communication,
Grammar, Dictation and Written Communication. The designed curriculum may be
used in different institutions if altered in line with learners’ needs.

Anahtar Kelimeler

language learning curriculum development, teaching of French as a foreign language, CEFR, higher education

Kaynakça

• Aksoy, N. (2003). Eylem Araştırması: eğitimsel uygulamaları iyileştirme ve değiştirmede kullanılacak bir yöntem [Action research: a method to be used for the improvement and change in educational applications]. Educational Administration: Theory and Practice 9, no.4: 474-489. Retrieved from http://www.kuey.net/index.php/kuey/index.
• Auerbach, E.R. (1986). Competency-based ESL: one step forward or two steps back?. TESOL Quarterly 20, no.3: 411-429.
• Ajayi, L. (2005). Teachers’ needs and predesigned instructional practices: An analysis of a reading/language arts coursebook for a second grade class. Reading Improvement 42, no.4: 200-211.
• Apple, M. W., & Jungck, S. (1990). “You Don’t Have to Be a Teacher to Teach This Unit:” Teaching, Technology, and Gender in the Classroom. American Educational Research Journal, 27(2), 227-251.
• Austin, J.L. (1975). How to do things with words. Second Edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Barrow, R. (1984). Giving Teaching Back to the Teachers. A Critical Introduction to Curriculum Theory. Brighton: Wheatsheaf Books.
• Beyhan, A. (2013). Eğitim örgütlerinde eylem araştırması [Action research in educational organizations]. Journal of Computer and Education Research 2:65-89. Retrieved from http://www.joucer.com.
• Billières, M. (2015). Actes de language et enseignement du FLE [Speech acts and teaching French as a foreign language] [Web log post]. Retrieved from http://www.verbotonale-phonetique.com/actes-de-langage-enseignement-fle
• CE-Council of Europe. (2001). Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, teaching, assessment. Strasbourg: Press Syndicate of the University of Cambridge.
• Courtillon, J. (2006). Les conditions d’application de l’Approche communicative [Application conditions of Communicative Approach]. Revue japonaise de didactique du français 1, no.1: 12-32. Retrieved from http://www.sjdf.org
• Crawford, J. (2002). The Role of materials in the language classroom: Finding the balance. In Methodology in language teaching: An anthology of current practice, ed. J. C. Richards and W. A. Renandya, 80-93. USA: Cambridge University Press.
• Edge, J., & Wharton, S. (1998). 13. Autonomy and development: living in the materials world. Materials development in language teaching.Elliot, J. (1991). Action research for Educational Change. Philadelphia: Open University Press.
• Erdoğan, A. (Eds). (2010). Yükseköğretimde yeniden yapılanma: 66 soruda Bologna süreci uygulamaları [Restructuring in higher education: Bologna process in 66 questions]. Ankara: YÖK.
• Ferrance, E. (2000). Action research: themes in education. USA: Northeast and Islands Regional Educational Laboratory at Brown University.
• Gray, J. (2000). The ELT coursebook as cultural artefact: How teachers censor and adapt.ELT Journal 54(3), 274-283.
• Hughes, N., & Rolls, A. (2012). Blended learning and disciplinarity: negotiating connections in French Studies in regional universities. The Language Learning Journal, 40(3), 293-305.
• Hutchinson, T., & Torres, E. (1994). The textbook as agent of change. ELT J (1994) 48 (4): 315-328.
• Jenkins, D., Shipman, M. D., Sockett, H., Macdonald, B., Walker, R., & Hamilton, D. (1977). Curriculum: an introduction. London: Open Books.
• Johnson, M. (1967). Definitions and models in curriculum theory. Educational Theory 17:127-40.
• Kerr, J. F., & Berman, L. M. (1969). Changing the curriculum. British Journal of Educational Studies 17 (2):223-224.
• Koshy, V. (2005). Action research for improving educational practice: A step-by-step guide. London: Sage.
• Lawes, S. (2012). Trends in modern foreign language initial teacher education — the role of higher education. The Language Learning Journal 25, no.1:40-45.
• Littlejohn, A.L. (1992). Why are ELT materials the way they are? (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Lancaster University, United Kingdom.
• Mendenhall, R. (2012). What is competency based education?. Huffington Post. Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-robert-mendenhall/competency-based-learning-b_1855374.html.
• Neagley, R. L., & Evans, N. D. (1967). Handbook for effective curriculum development. Prentice Hall.
• Nunan, D. (1998). The learner-centred curriculum: a study in second language teaching. Cambridge/ New York/ Melbourne: Cambridge University Press.
• O’Leary, Z. (2004). The essential guide to doing research. London: Sage.
• O'Sullivan, A. V. (1990). The foreign language coursebook: a study of its role in learner motivation (Doctoral dissertation, Institute of Education, University of London).
• Pegem. (2008). Öğretmen adayları için Kpss eğitim bilimleri eğitim bilimine giriş, program geliştirme sınıf yönetimi [Introduction to educational sciences, curriculum development, class management for teacher trainees in the framework of public personnel selection examination]. Ankara: Pegem Yayınevi.
• Pratt, D. (1980). Curriculum design and development. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
• Richards, J.C. (2001). Curriculum development In language teaching. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
• Richards, J. C. (2005). Communicative language teaching today. SEAMEO Regional Language Centre.
• Richards, J.C. (2013). Curriculum approaches in language teaching: Forward, Central, and Backward Design. RELC Journal 44, no.1:5-33.
• Richards, J. C., & Renandya, W. A. (Eds.). (2002). Methodology in language teaching: An anthology of current practice. Cambridge university press.
• Richards, J. C., & Rodgers, T. S. (2014). Approaches and methods in language teaching. Cambridge university press.
• Sheldon, L. E. (1988). Evaluating ELT textbooks and materials. ELT Journal 42, no.4: 237-246.
• Stenhouse, L. (1975). Defining the curriculum problem. Cambridge Journal of Education 5, no.2:104-108.
• Vellenga, H. (2004). Learning pragmatics from ESL & EFL textbooks: How likely?. TESL-EJ 8, no.2: 25-38.
• Yıldırım, A. & H.Şimşek. (2008). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri [Qualitative research methods in social sciences]. (7th Edition). Ankara: Seçkin Yayıncılık.