A Study Of Anatolian High Schools’ 9th Grade English Language Curriculum In Relation To The CEFR

Year 2016, , 13 - 24, 19.04.2016

Mehmet Zorba , Arda Arıkan

https://doi.org/10.29065/usakead.232436

Cited By: 2

Abstract

The aim of this study is to understand the main principles of the CEFR and to what extent Anatolian High Schools’ 9th grade EFL curriculum meet the principles advocated in that document. Hence, document analysis was used as a method to seek answers to the research questions set by a comparative analysis of the CEFR and Anatolian High Schools’ 9^thgrade EFL curriculum. As a result of this process, the most prominent principles of the CEFR were determined. During the analysis, these principles were compared with the curriculum. Then, the gains of the curriculum for the five language skills were analyzed through a checklist whose items came from the A2 level descriptors. The results showed that the curriculum embraces 7 out of 9 principles of the CEFR although some remain in the background. Besides, the analysis of the gains for the five language skills showed that there is an unequal distribution in the gains for the five skills.

Keywords

-, CEFR, EFL Curriculum, Anatolian High School

References

• Alderson, J. C., Figueras, N., Kuijper, H., Nold, G., Takala, S., & Tardieu S. (2004). The development of specifications for item development and classification within the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, teaching, assessment. Strasbourg; Council of Europe.
• Alderson, J. C., Figueras, N., Kuijper, H., Nold, G., Takala, S., & Tardieu, C. (2006). Analyzing tests of reading and listening in relation to the Common European Framework of Reference: The experience of the Dutch CEFR construct project. Language Assessment Quarterly, 3(1), 3-30.
• Arikan, A. (2015). The CEFR and reading: A document analysis. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 199, 501-504.
• Boldizsar G. (2010). An Introduction to the current European context in language teaching. Strasbourg: Council of Europe. Retrieved on February 5, 2016 from: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?rep=rep1&type=pdf&doi=10.1.1.118.6734
• Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2007). Sosyal bilimler için veri analizi (8. Baskı). Ankara: Pegem Yayıncılık.
• Byram, M. (2009). Multicultural societies: Pluricultural people and the project of intercultural education. Strasbourg: Council of Europe.
• Byram, M., Gribkova, B., & Starkey, H. (2002). Developing intercultural dimension in language teaching: A practical introduction for teachers. Strasbourg: Council of Europe.
• Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison K. (2007). Research methods in education. USA: Routledge.
• Council of Europe. (2001). Common European framework of reference for languages: Learning teaching, assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Council of Europe. (2002a). Common European framework of reference for languages: Learning, teaching, assessment: Case studies. Strasbourg: Council of Europe.
• Council of Europe. (2002b). Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning Teaching, Assessment: A Guide for Users. Strasbourg: Council of Europe.
• Dağ, A. (2008). Assessing Turkish students’ performance in English as a foreign language at secondary level within the Common European Framework. (Unpublished MA Thesis). 18 Mart University, Çanakkale.
• Doğan, Z. Y. (2007). Avrupa Birliği Ortak Dil Çerçevesi Programının Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı ilköğretim okullarında yabancı dil (İngilizce) dersi öğretiminde uygulanabilirliği. (Unpublished MA Thesis). Yıldız Teknik University, İstanbul.
• Eisner, D. (2011). Developing multiliteracies, plurilingual awareness and critical thinking in the primary language classroom with multilingual virtual talkingbooks. Encuentro, 20, 27-38.
• Fulcher, G. (2004). Deluded by artifices? The Common European Framework and harmonization. Language Assessment Quarterly, 1(4), 253-266.
• Gay, L. R., Milles, G. E., & Airasian, P. (2009). Educational research: Competencies for analysis and applications. USA: Pearson.
• Goullier, F. (2007). Council of Europe tools for language learning: Common European framework and European language portfolio. Paris: Didier.
• Hasselgreen, A. (2003). Bergen ‘can-do’ project. Strasbourg: Council of Europe.
• Heyworth, F. (2006). The Common European Framework. ELT Journal, 60(2), 181-183.
• Jones, N., & Saville, N. (2009). European language policy: Assessment, learning and the CEFR. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 29, 51-63.
• Jupp, V. (2006). The Sage dictionary of social research methods. UK: Sage Publications.
• Karababa, C., & Saraç-Süzer, S. (2010). Practitioners’ evaluation on the procedural aspects of an English language portfolio. Journal of College Teaching and Learning, 7(3), 13-18.
• Karaçalı, A. (2004). Talim ve Terbiye Kurulu Başkanı Prof. Dr. Ziya Selçuk’la Söyleşi. Bilim ve Aklın Aydınlığında Eğitim Dergisi, 55, 23-27.
• Kesen, A. (2010). Turkish EFL learners’ metaphors with respect to English language coursebooks. Novitas-ROYAL (Research on Youth and Language), 2010, 4(1), 108-118.
• Kohonen, V. (2003). Developing the European language portfolio as a pedagogical instrument for advancing student autonomy. Strasbourg: Council of Europe.
• Kozhemyakov, A. (2008). The European charter for regional or minority languages: Ten years of protecting and promoting linguistic and cultural diversity. Museum Journal, 60(3), 26-36.
• Lenz, P., & Schneider, G. (2004). Introduction to the bank of descriptors for self-assessment in European language portfolios. Fribourg: Council of Europe.
• Little, D. (2002). The European Language Portfolio: Structure, origins, implementation and challenges. Language Teaching, 35, 182–189.
• Little, D. (2006). The Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Content, purpose, origin, reception and impact. Language Teaching, 39, 167-190.
• Little, D. (2011). The Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: A research agenda. Language Teaching, 44(3), 381-393.
• Mirici, İ. H. (2015). Yabancı dil öğretmeni yetiştirmede Avrupa politikaları ve uygulamalar. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 30(4), 42-51.
• Moreno, J. (2003). Brief information: The Common European Framework of Trainers, Strasbourg: Council of Europe.
• Morrow, K. (2004). Insights from the Common European framework. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Nunan, D. (2004). Task-based language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Richards, J. C., & Rodgers, T. S. (2006). Approaches and methods in language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Ryan, G. W. & Bernard, H. R. (2003). Techniques to identify themes. Field Methods, 15(1), 85-109.
• Sarıca, Ö. K. (2009). An analysis of the language levels of the 8th graders in state primary Schools in Turkey according to the Common European Framework Criteria and Content. (Unpublished MA Thesis). Pamukkale University, Denizli.
• Savignon, S. J. (2002). Interpreting communicative language teaching: Contexts and concerns in teacher education. USA: Yale University Press.
• Schneider, G. & Lenz, P. (2001). European language portfolio: Guide for developers, Strasbourg: Council of Europe.
• Sezgin, G. (2007). An exploratory study of curricular change in an EFL context. (Unpublished MA Thesis). Bilkent University, Ankara.
• The Ministry of National Education. (2011). Orta öğretim kurumları İngilizce dersi programı. Ankara: MEB.
• Tosun, B. (2007). Avrupa Birliği Ortak Dil Çerçevesi Programının Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı Anadolu Liselerinde yabancı dil olarak İngilizce dersi öğretiminde uygulanabilirliği. (Unpublished MA Thesis). Yıldız Teknik University, İstanbul.
• Van Ek, J. A., & Trim, J. L. M. (1990). Threshold 1990. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Weir, C. J. (2005). Limitations of the Common European Framework for developing comparable examinations and tests. Language Testing, 22(3), 281-300.
• Yel, A. (2009). Evaluation of the effectiveness of English courses in Sivas Anatolian High School. (Unpublished MA Thesis). Middle East Technical University, Ankara.
• Yiğit, C. (2010). Avrupa Diller için Ortak Başvuru Çerçevesi ile ilköğretim 6. sınıf İngilizce programının karşılaştırılmalı analizi. (Unpublished MA Thesis). Gaziantep University, Gaziantep.