Bridging the Gap: Highlights of the 1st Symposium of the Schools of Foreign Languages in the Aegean Region

Abstract

Sharing scientific knowledge with all the stakeholders of foreign language teaching is as important as producing it in a systematic way. Besides, sharing effective practices in English language teaching is also as essential as publishing the theoretical findings of the relevant research in the field. Therefore, scientific events such as symposiums in the present context play a crucial role in unearthing the strengths and weaknesses in educational practices in any participating institution. Among the rare attempts and the first one in the Aegean Region of Turkey, the present symposium brought together a dozen universities sharing a number of standard features but implementing different practices for the same or considerably similar learning outcomes. The concurrent sessions held during the symposium cast light on the good practices in various schools of foreign languages offering English language preparatory programs. Topics such as quality assurance and accreditation, assessment and evaluation, curriculum development, leadership and management, professional development, and administrative issues were among the topics visited during the concurrent sessions. In brief, it was concluded that each institution had instances of best English language teaching practices while all had much to learn from others and put into practice for further development.

Keywords

• School of Foreign Languages
• Accreditation
• Curriculum Development
• Aegean Region

References

1. British Council. (2015). The state of English in higher education in Türkiye: A baseline study November 2015. Türkiye Ekonomi Politikaları Araştırma Vakfı & British Council. Retrieved from https://www.britishcouncil.org.tr/sites/default/files/he_baseline_study_book_web_-_son.pdf.
2. Caner, M. (2010). Students Views on Using Portfolio Assessment in EFL Writing Courses. Anadolu University Journal of Social Sciences, 10(1), 223-236.
3. Cansoy, R. (2018). Uluslararası Çerçevelere Göre 21.Yüzyıl Becerileri ve Eğitim Sisteminde Kazandırılması. İnsan ve Toplum Bilimleri Araştırmaları Dergisi, 7 (4), 3112-3134. Retrieved from http://www.itobiad.com/issue/39481/494286.
4. Cenkseven, F. & Dost, M.T. (2007). Devlet ve vakıf üniversitelerinde çalışan öğretim elemanlarının mesleki sorunları. Ç.Ü. Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 16(2), 203-218.
5. Chapelle, C. A. (2003). English language learning and technology: Lectures on applied linguistics in the age of information and communication technology. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing.
6. Coşkun, A. (2013). An investigation of the effectiveness of the modular General English Language Teaching Preparatory Program at a Turkish university. South African Journal of Education, 33(3), 1–18.
7. Duru, E. (2021). A CEFR Based Evaluation of B1+ Level Preparatory Program at a Turkish State University: The Application of the Foreign Language Skills Scale. Psycho-Educational Research Reviews, 10(3), 426-438. Doi: https://doi.org/10.52963/PERR_Biruni_V10.N3.27
8. Ercan Demirel, E. & Cephe, P. T. (2015). Looking into burnout levels among English language instructors. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 11(1), 1-14.

9. Erakman, N. & Mede, E. (2018). Student Burnout at English Preparatory Programs: A Case Study. International Journal of Educational Researchers, 9(3), 17-31.
10. Erarslan, A. (2019). Progressive vs modular system in preparatory school English language teaching program: A case of system change at a state university in Türkiye. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 15(1), 83-97.
11. Ghavifekr, S. (2020). Collaborative Learning: A Key to Enhance Students’ Social Interaction Skills. Malaysian Online Journal of Educational Sciences. 8(4), 9-21. Hall, G., & Longman, J. (Eds.). (2008). The postgraduate’s companion. Sage. 265 – 280.
12. Harvey, L. (2006). ‘Impact of quality assurance: overview of a discussion between representatives of external quality assurance agencies’, Quality in Higher Education, 12(3), pp. 287–90.
13. Heritage, M. (2010). Formative Assessment: Making It Happen in the Classroom. Corwin, SAGE Ltd.
14. İpek, H., & Kanatlar,M. (2018). Factors affecting EFL teacher motivation. Eğitimde Nitel Araştırmalar Dergisi –Journal of Qualitative Research in Education, 6(2), 25 - 41. Doi:10.14689/issn.2148 - 2624.1.6c2s2m
15. Johnson, J. A. (2001). ‘Principles of effective change: Curriculum revision that works’, The Journal of Research for Educational Leaders, 1(1). Retrieved from https://www2.education.uiowa.edu/archives/jrel/fall01/Johnson_0101.PDF
16. Kinser, K., (2014). ‘Questioning quality assurance’, New Directions for Higher Education, 168, pp. 55–67.
17. Kuzu, E., Tural, P., & Çetinkaya, Y. B. (2022). Transition to Modular System during the Pandemic: A Study from a Distant EFL Program. Participatory Educational Research Peer Review Academic Journal, 9(5), 43-58. Doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.17275/per.22.103.9.5
18. Malone, M.E. (2013). The essentials of assessment literacy: Contrasts between testers and users. Language Testing, 30(3), 329–344. Doi: 10.1177/0265532213480129
19. Mede, E. & Atay, D. (2017). English Language Teachers’ Assessment Literacy: The Turkish Context. Dil Dergisi, 168(1), 43-60.
20. Mercer, N. (1995). The guided construction of knowledge: Talk amongst teachers and learners. Cleveden: Multilingual Matters Ltd.
21. Ölmezer-Öztürk, E., & Aydın, B. (2019). Investigating language assessment knowledge of EFL teachers. Hacettepe University Journal of Education, 34(3), 602-620. Doi: 10.16986/HUJE.2018043465
22. Polat, M. (2020). Washback Effects of YDS and YOKDIL on Foreign Language Teaching. Kastamonu Education Journal, 28(5), 2188-2202. Doi: 10.24106/kefdergi.709027
23. Sejpal, K. (2013). Modular method of teaching. International Journal for Research in Education, 2(2), 169-171. Retrieved from https://raijmronlineresearch.files.wordpress.com/2017/07/29_169-171-dr-kandarp-sejpal.pdf
24. Tercan, G. (2018). Evaluating the Modular System of Preparatory Class Program. International Association of Research in Foreign Language Education and Applied Linguistics ELT Research Journal, 7(1), 2-23.
25. Tonbul Y., & Ata Çiğdem F., (2022). Bilimsel kongrelerin verimliliği ve akademisyenlerin anlam dünyasındaki yeri. Yükseköğretim ve Bilim Dergisi/Journal of Higher Education and Science, 12(2), 358-368. https://doi.org/10.5961/higheredusci.1067910
26. Uzun, L., & Ertok, Ş. (2020). Student Opinions on Task-Based Approach as Formative Evaluation versus Exam-Based Approach as Summative Evaluation in Education. Sakarya University Journal of Education, 10(2), 226-250. Doi: 0.19126/suje.598048
27. Yastıbaş, A. E. & Takkaç, M. (2018). Understanding the development of language assessment literacy. Bingöl Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 8(15), 89-106. Doi: 10.29029/busbed.364195
28. YDYO-TR Yöneticiler Platformu. (n.d.). Sonuç Bildirgeleri. https://ydyotr.wordpress.com/raporlar-ve-dokumanlar/