The Place of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals in Turkish as a Foreign Language Teaching Sets

Öz

This study aimed to determine the potential of Turkish as a foreign language teaching sets to convey a culture of sustainable living. To this end, the presence and visibility of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in the teaching sets with which learners interact throughout the language learning process were examined. Within the scope of the study, the Sustainable Development Goals included in the B1, B2, and C1 levels of the Gazi TÖMER Sets for Teaching Turkish as a Foreign Language were analyzed in terms of frequency and percentage across the basic language skills. In addition, examples of statements related to sustainable development in the teaching sets were presented according to proficiency level, and the distribution of these statements across the economic, social, and environmental dimensions of sustainable development was determined. Document analysis, a qualitative research method, was employed in the study. The Gazi TÖMER teaching sets were examined through content analysis, supported by descriptive statistics. Statements referring to the Sustainable Development Goals were coded into the dataset and categorized according to sustainability themes. The findings revealed that the Sustainable Development Goals were evenly distributed across proficiency levels and units and were most frequently represented in activities targeting reading skills. Although to a lesser extent, the goals were also represented in activities targeting writing, speaking, and listening skills. Furthermore, the goals were more extensively represented within the environmental dimension of sustainable development.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• United Nations Sustainable Development Goals
• Sustainability
• Teaching Turkish as a Foreign Language
• Gazi TÖMER Sets for Teaching Turkish as a Foreign Language

Birleşmiş Milletler Sürdürülebilir Kalkınma Hedeflerinin Yabancı Dil Olarak Türkçe Öğretimi Setlerindeki Yeri

Öz

Bu araştırmada, yabancı dil olarak Türkçe öğretimi setlerinin sürdürülebilir yaşam kültürünü taşıma potansiyeli belirlenmeye çalışılmıştır. Bu doğrultuda, Birleşmiş Milletler Sürdürülebilir Kalkınma Hedeflerinin, öğrencilerin dil öğrenme sürecinde etkileşim hâlinde oldukları öğretim setlerindeki yeri ve görünürlüğü incelenmiştir. Araştırma kapsamında, Gazi TÖMER Yabancılar için Türkçe Öğretimi Setlerinin B1, B2 ve C1 düzeylerinde yer alan sürdürülebilir kalkınma hedefleri, temel dil becerilerine göre yüzde ve frekans değerleriyle analiz edilmiştir. Ayrıca setlerde yer alan sürdürülebilir kalkınma ifadelerine yönelik örnekler, düzeylere göre sunulmuş ve bu ifadelerin sürdürülebilir kalkınmanın ekonomik, sosyal ve çevresel boyutlarına göre dağılımı belirlenmiştir. Çalışmada nitel araştırma yöntemlerinden doküman incelemesi kullanılmıştır. Gazi TÖMER öğretim setleri içerik analizi yöntemiyle ve betimsel istatistikler yardımıyla çözümlenmiştir. Sürdürülebilir kalkınma hedeflerinin geçtiği ifadeler veri setine kodlanmış ve sürdürülebilirlik temalarına göre kategorize edilmiştir. Araştırmanın sonucunda, sürdürülebilir kalkınma hedeflerinin düzeyler ve üniteler arasında dengeli biçimde dağıldığı; hedeflerin en çok okuma becerisine yönelik etkinliklerde yer aldığı; sınırlı da olsa yazma, konuşma ve dinleme becerilerine yönelik etkinliklerde de bulunduğu belirlenmiştir. Ayrıca, hedeflerin özellikle çevresel boyut kapsamında daha yoğun biçimde temsil edildiği görülmüştür.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Birleşmiş Milletler sürdürülebilir kalkınma hedefleri
• Sürdürülebilirlik
• Yabancı Dil Olarak Türkçe Öğretimi
• Gazi TÖMER yabancılar için Türkçe Öğretim Setleri

Kaynakça

1. Afsyah, S. (2019). WhatsApp application in English Language Teaching (ELT) context: Media to describe people. Utamax: Journal of Ultimate Research and Trends in Education, 1(1), 23-28.
2. Alkış, S. (2008). Education for sustainable development in Turkey. Bildung für Nachaltige Entwicklung, 30(2), 597-608.
3. Alqahtani, M. H., & Albidewi, I. A. (2022). Teachers’ English language training programmes in Saudi Arabia for achieving sustainability in education. Sustainability, 14(22), 15323. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142215323
4. Amerian, M., & Tajabadi, A. (2020). The role of culture in foreign language teaching textbooks: an evaluation of New Headway series from an intercultural perspective. Intercultural Education, 31, 623-644.
5. Arslan, S., & Curle, S. (2021). Sustainable development goals in the English language high school curriculum in Turkey. European Journal of Education, 56(4), 681–695. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejed.12473
6. Arslan, S., & Curle, S. (2024). Institutionalising English as a foreign language teachers for global sustainability: Perceptions of education for sustainable development in Turkey. International Journal of Educational Research, 125, 1-12.
7. Astawa, N. L. P. N. S. P., Santosa, M. H., Artini, L. P., & Nitiasih, P. K. (2024). Sustainable Development Goals in EFL Students’ Learning: A Systematic Review. Pegem Journal of Education and Instruction, 14(2), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.47750/pegegog.14.02.01
8. Babaci-Wilhite, Z., Geo-JaJa, M. A., & Vuzo, M. (2014). Nordic aid and the education sector in Africa: The case of Tanzania. In Globalization, International Education Policy and Local Policy Formation: Voices from the Developing World (pp. 81-106). Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands

9. Barbier, E. & Burgess, J. (2017). The Sustainable Development Goals and the systems approach to sustainability. Economics, 11(1), 1-22. https:// doi.org/10.5018/economics-ejournal.ja.2017-28
10. Barnawi, O. Z. (2022). Resisting and creating alternatives to neoliberalism in elt: a case study of three transnational language teachers in Saudi Arabia. Critical Inquiry in Language Studies. 19(4), 377–399.
11. Basiago, A. (1999). Economic, social and environmental sustainability in development theory and urban planning practice. The Environmentalist, 19, 145-161.
12. Bekteshi, E., & Xhaferi, B. (2020). Learning about Sustainable Development Goals through English language teaching. Research in Social Sciences and Technology, 5(3), 78-94. https://doi.org/10.46303/ressat. 05.03.4
13. Belyaeva, T. (2017). Teaching biomonitoring through English. Studia Periegetica, 1(17), 89–98.
14. Cavanagh S. (1997) Content analysis: concepts, methods and applications. Nurse Researcher, 4, 5–16.
15. Chaikovska, H. B., & Levchyk, I. Y. (2022). Interdisciplinary integration of education for sustainable development into higher education institution (Integrated ESP case study). Zhytomyr Ivan Franko State University Journal. Рedagogical Sciences, 2, 195–211.
16. Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2008). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
17. Coyle, D., Hood, P., & Marsh, D. (2010). CLIL: Content and language integrated learning. Cambridge University Press.
18. Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. Sage Publications, London.
19. Earth Charter Initiative Secretariat: The Earth Charter Initiative- Guidebook for teachers. (2005) http://www.earthcharter.org (08.11.2024).
20. Edwards, E., & Burns, A. (2016) Language teacher action research: achieving sustainability. ELT Journal, 70 (1), 6-15, https://dx.doi. org/10.1093/elt/ccv060
21. Elo, S., & Kyngäs, H. (2008). The qualitative content analysis process. Journal of advanced nursing, 62(1), 107–115. https://doi.org/10.1111/ j.1365-2648.2007.04569.x
22. Hajar, A. (2013). Investigating Humanistic Elements in Global Textbooks: The Case of New Headway Intermediate Student’s Book. Materials Development Association.
23. Hajer, M., Nilsson, M., Raworth, K., Bakker, P., Berkhout, F., De Boer, Y., Rockström J., Ludwig, K., and Kok, M. (2015). Beyond cockpit-ism: four ınsights to enhance the transformative potential of the sustainable development goals. Sustainability, 7(2), 1651-1660. https://doi:10.3390/ su7021651, 1651-1660
24. Hammond, M., & Wellington, J. (2021). Research methods: the key concepts. Routledge.
25. Harding-Esch, P., & Coleman, H. (2021). Language and the sustainable development goals: Selected proceedings from the 12th Language and Development Conference. British Council.
26. Hassan, S.R.R. (2019). Evaluating the Content of EFL Textbooks of the Secondary Stage in the Light of Sustainable Development Dimensions; Faculty of Education. Unpublished Thesis. Mansoura University, Egypt.
27. Hutchinson, T., & Torres, E. (1999). The textbook as agent of change. ELT Journal, 48(4), 315-328.
28. Jodoin, J. J. (2020). Promoting language education for sustainable development: A program effects case study in Japanese higher education. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 21(4), 779– 798. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJSHE-09-2019-0258
29. Jodoin, J.J., & Singer, J. (2019). A framework for integrating education for sustainable development in the English as a foreign language classroom in Japan: an appeal to the language teaching community. Osaka JALT Journal, 6, 51–66.
30. Kalsoom, Q., & Khanam, A. (2017). Inquiry into sustainability issues by preservice teachers: A pedagogy to enhance sustainability consciousness. Journal of Cleaner Production, 164, 1301-1311.
31. Kasneci, E., Seßler, K., Küchemann, S., Bannert, M., Dementieva, D., Fischer, F., Gasser, U., Groh, G.L., Günnemann, S., Hüllermeier, E., Krusche, S., Kutyniok, G., Michaeli, T., Nerdel, C., Pfeffer, J., Poquet, O., Sailer, M., Schmidt, A., Seidel, T., Stadler, M., Weller, J., Kuhn, J., & Kasneci, G. (2023). ChatGPT for good? On opportunities and challenges of large language models for education. Learning and Individual Differences, 103, 1-12.
32. Krippendorff, K. (2018). Content analysis: an introduction to its methodology. Sage Publications.
33. Kwee, C. T. T. (2021). I want to teach sustainable development in my English classroom: a case study of incorporating sustainable development goals in English teaching. Sustainability, 13(8), 4195. https://doi. org/10.3390/su13084195
34. Lasekan, O. A., Méndez-Alarcón, C. M., Mathew, B. S., & Campos, E. S. (2023). Exploring the potential of a popular efl textbook to foster both sustainability awareness and competencies among esd learners: a content analysis approach. Sustainability, 15(16), 1-19. https://doi.org/10.3390/ su151612640
35. Leal Filho, W., Salvia, A. L., Pretorius, R. W., Brandli, L. L., Manolas, E., Alves, F., & Do Paco, A. (2019). Universities as living labs for sustainable development: Supporting the implementation of the sustainable development goals. Springer.
36. Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (2013). The constructivist credo. Left Coast Press.
37. Liu, Y., Zhang, L. J., & May, S. (2015). A corpus-based study on cultural representations in CollegeEnglish textbooks. Foreign Language World, 35, 85–93.
38. Macnamara, J. (2018). Content analysis. In Mediated Communication; Handbooks of Communication Science. De Gruyter.
39. McKeown, R., Charles H., Regina R., & Chrystalbride, M. (2002). Education for sustainable development toolkit. http://www.esdtoolkit.org/ esd_ (08.10.2024).
40. Melliti, M. (2013). Global content in global coursebooks: the way issues of inappropriacy, inclusivity, and connectedness are treated in headway intermediate. Sage Open, 3(4). https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244013507265
41. Mohammadnia, Z., & Moghadam, F. D. (2019). Textbooks as resources for education for sustainable development: A con-tent analysis. Journal of Teacher Education for Sustainability, 21(1), 103–114. https://doi. org/10.2478/jtes-2019- 0008
42. Nijhawan, S., Elsner, D., & Engartner, T. (2021). The construction of cosmopolitan glocalities in secondary classrooms through Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) in the social sciences. Global Education Review, 8(2–3), 92–115.
43. Nozaki, Y., Openshaw, R., & Luke, A. (2005). Struggles over difference: curriculum, texts, and pedagogy in the Asia-Pacific. State University of New York Press.
44. O’Flaherty, J., & Liddy, M. (2017). The impact of development education and education for sustainable development interventions: a synthesis of the research. Environmental Education Research, 24(7), 1031–1049. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2017.1392484
45. Paul, B. (2008). A history of the concept of sustainable development: literature review, the annals of The University of Oradea. Economic Sciences Series, 17(2), 576-580.
46. Putri, I. (2018). Critical environmental education in tertiary English language teaching (ELT): A collaborative digital storytelling project. Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 8, 336-344. https://dx.doi. org/10.17509/ijal.v8i2.13280
47. Redclif, M. (2005). Sustainable development (1987–2005): An oxymoron comes of age. Sustainable Development, 13, 212–227.
48. Risager, K. (2020). Language textbooks: windows to the world. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 34, 119-132.
49. Rizvi, F., & Lingard, B. (2010). Globalizing education policy. Routledge.
50. Sakamoto, H. (2011). Incorporating ESD into EFL classes. Bulletin of Toyo Gakuen University, 23, 137–153. https://doi.org/10.24547/00000172
51. Sandelowski M. (1995). Qualitative analysis: what it is and how to begin? Research in Nursing & Health, 18, 371–375.
52. Sterling, S. (2010). Living in the earth: Towards an education for our tim. Journal of Education for Sustainable Development, 4(2), 213-218. https:// doi.org/10.1177/097340821000400208
53. Sund, P., & Gericke, N. (2020). Teaching contributions from secondary school subject areas to education for sustainable development – A comparative study of science, social science and language teachers. Environmental Education Research, 26(6), 772–794. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2020.1754341
54. Symonenko, S. (2020). Complementing content of English courses for enhancing communication of IT-professionals for sustainable development. E3S Web Conferences.
55. Tuyan, S. (2018). On the way to achieve sustainability: An evaluative look at a three-year action research program in an ELT context. In G. Barkhuizen, A. Burns, K. Dikilitaş, & M. Wyatt (Eds.), Empowering Teacher- Researchers, Empowering Learners (pp. 19–27). Faversham, Kent: IATEFL.
56. UNDP- United Nations Development Programme. (2015). Sürdürülebilir kalkınma hedefleri. http://www. tr.undp.org (15.10.2024).
57. UNDP-United Nations Development Programme. (2019). Human Development Report 2019. New York: UNDP. http://hdr.undp.org/ en/2019-report (15.10.2024).
58. United Nations. (2017). Education for sustainable development goals: Learning objectives. Paris, France: UNESCO.
59. Uvalic-Trumbic, S., & Daniel, J. (2016). Sustainable development begins with education. Journal of Learning for Development, 3(3), 3-8.
60. Venezky, R. L. (1992). Textbooks in school and society. In Handbook of Research on Curriculum, ed. P. W. Jackson (pp. 436–461). London: Macmillan,
61. Vieira, F. (2017) Task-based instruction for autonomy: connections with contexts of practice, conceptions of teaching, and professional development strategies. TESOL Quarterly, 51 (3), 693–715.
62. WCED- World Commission on Environment and Development (1987). Our common future. Oxford University Press.
63. White, P. R. R. (1998). Telling Media Tales: The News story as Rhetoric. Unpublished PhD Dissertation. University of Sydney, Australia.
64. Wilson, A.K. (2021). Lengeling, M.M. Language Learning in the Time of COVID-19: ELT Students’ Narrated Experiences in Guided Reflective Journals. Íkala, Revista de Lenguaje y Cultura, 26 (3), 571–585.
65. Yıldırım, A. ve Şimşek, H. (2013). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri. Seçkin Yayıncılık.
66. Yu, B., Guo, W. Y., & Fu, H. (2024). Sustainability in English language teaching: Strategies for empowering students to achieve the sustainable development goals. Sustainability, 16(8), 3325. https://doi.org/10.3390/ su16083325
67. Yuen, K. M. (2011). The representation of foreign cultures in English textbooks. ELT Journal, 65(4), 458–466. https:// doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccq089