Considerations on the new curriculum of English Language Teaching Programmes

Year 2020, , 1189 - 1202, 01.10.2020

Fatma Özlem Saka

https://doi.org/10.17263/jlls.803633

Abstract

The curricula of all departments in the faculty of education have been designed by Higher Education Council unlike the curricula of other faculties in Turkish higher education. After the regulation in 2006, all faculties of education throughout Turkey carried out the curricula until the new changes in 2018. It is the same for English Language Teaching departments. In 2018 Higher Education Council changed the curricula and new programmes were sent to be applied in the 2018-2019 academic year. The most striking change is that there are optional course pools under the titles of special field education, pedagogical knowledge and general knowledge. Compared to the programme in 2006, total class hours are decreased but the numbers of courses are increased. School Practice course based on mostly observation in real atmosphere is replaced with a new 6- hour practicum course called Teaching Practice I. It is certain that the efficiency of the programme will be shown when it has been carried out completely. However, it is possible to evaluate the new programme, by examining and comparing it with the former one. This study compares the new programme and the former one in terms of the numbers, class hours, the ratio in the programme, ECTS credits and contents of the courses that belong to the field education, pedagogical knowledge and general knowledge. As a result, it has been proposed that the new programme will not meet the needs of qualified teacher training especially in terms of special field knowledge and field education.

Keywords

Foreign language teaching, curriculum design, teacher training; foreign language teacher

References

• Alptekin, C. (1994). Türkiye’de yabancı dil öğretmenliği. Boğaziçi Üniversitesi Dergisi. 15, 161-164.
• Asma, B. (2018). Examining the relationship between English admission test (YDS- 5) and four language skills of undergraduate students. (Unpublished Master’s Thesis). Akdeniz Universitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Antalya.
• Coşkun, A, Daloğlu, A. (2010). Evaluating an English language teacher education program through Peacock’s model. Australian Journal of Teacher Education. 35 (6), 24-42. Retrieved December, 2019, from http://dx.doi.org/10.14221/ajte.2010v35n6.2
• Council of Europe (2001). Common European framework of reference for languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Harmer, J. (2007). How to teach English. Essex: Pearson Education Limited.
• Karakaş, A. (2012). Evaluation of the English language teacher education program in Turkey. ELT Weekly. 4 (15), 1-16.
• Kaş, A. (1989). Yabancı dil öğretiminde programlar. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi. 4, 323-330.
• Kumaravadivelu, B. (1999) Theorising practice, practising theory: the role of critical classroom observation. In H. Trappes- Lomax & I. McGrath (Eds), Theory in language teacher education (pp. 33-45). Birmingham: Pearson Education Limited.
• Orhan, E.E. (2017). What do teacher candidates in Turkey think about their teacher education? A qualitative study. Education and Science. 42 (189), 197-216.
• MEB (2017). Öğretmen strateji belgesi 2017-2023. Öğretmen Yetiştirme ve Geliştirme Genel Müdürlüğü: Ankara Retrieved November, 2019, from http://oygm.meb.gov.tr/meb_iys_dosyalar/2017_07/26174415_Strateji_Belgesi_RG-Ylan _26.07.2017.pdf
• Pettis, J. (2002). Developing our professional competence: some reflections. In J.C. Richards & W.A. Renaldya (Eds), Methodology in language teaching (pp. 393- 396). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Randall, M., Thornton, B. (2001). Advising and supporting teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Richards, J.C. (2000). Beyond training. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Richards, J.C., Farrell, T.S. (2005). Professional development for language teachers. New York: Cambridge University Press.
• Seferoğlu, G. (2006). Teacher candidates’ reflections on some components of a pre-service English teacher education programme in Turkey. Journal of Education for Teaching. 32 (4), 369-378.
• Uzun, L. (2016). Evaluation of the latest English language teacher training programme in Turkey: Teacher trainees’ perspective. Cogent Education. 3: 1147115 Retrieved November, 2019, from http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2016.1147115
• Yaman, İ. (2018). 2006 ve 2018 İngilizce öğretmenliği lisans programları üzerine karşılaştırmalı bir değerlendirme. EKEV Akademi Dergisi. 22 (76), 149-164.
• Yavuz, A., Topkaya, E. Z. (2013). Teacher educators’ evaluation of the English language teaching program: A Turkish case. Novitas- ROYAL. 7 (1), 64-83.
• Yıldırım, A., Şimşek, H. (2013). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri. (9th Edition). Ankara: Seçkin.
• YÖK (2007) Öğretmen Yetiştirme ve Eğitim Fakülteleri (1982- 2007). Ankara: Meteksan.
• YÖK (2018) İngilizce Öğretmenliği Lisans Programı. Retrieved August, 2018, from http://www.yok.gov.tr/documents/10279/418005112/Ingilizce_Ogretmenligi_Lisans_Programi.pdf.
• YÖK (2018). Öğretmen Yetiştirme Lisans Programları. Retrieved November, 2019, from http://www.yok.gov.tr/Documents/Kurumsal/egitim_ogretim_dairesi/Yeni-Ogretmen-Yetistirme-Lisans-Programları/AA_Sunus_%20Onsoz_Uygulama_Yonergesi.pdf
• YÖK. Yüksek Öğretimde Yeniden Yapılanma. Retrieved November, 2019, from https://uluslararasi.yok.gov.tr/Documents/yay%C4%B1nlar/yuksekogretimde_yeniden_yapilanma_66_soruda_bologna_2010.pdf