A Qualitative Evaluation of the Franco-Pass Textbook Series within the Framework of the Action-Based Approach

Öz

This study evaluates the A1, A2, and B1 levels of the Franco-Pass (2024) textbook series through the lens of the action-based approach, focusing on communicative tasks, project-based learning, and intercultural communicative competence. Utilizing document analysis and an intrinsic case study design, the research was developed with a self-reflective stance by the series’ authors. As the first locally produced French textbook series tailored for the tourism sector in Türkiye, Franco-Pass demonstrates a progression across levels. A1 tasks are mainly confined to classroom communication, A2 introduces more complex, multi-skill tasks, while B1 emphasizes production and reflective thinking in social contexts. Project-based learning evolves from basic activities at A1 to structured, outcome-focused projects at A2 and B1. Intercultural content shifts from informational to critical and empathetic engagement by B1. While the series effectively addresses local needs, it could benefit from more systematic development in interculturality, authenticity, and process-oriented assessment.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Action-based approach
• Communicative task
• Foreign language teaching
• Intercultural communication
• Project-based learning

Franco-Pass Ders Kitabı Serisinin Eylem Odaklı Yaklaşım Temelinde Nitel Değerlendirmesi

Öz

Bu çalışma, Franco-Pass (2024) ders kitabı serisinin A1, A2 ve B1 düzeylerini; eylem odaklı yaklaşımın üç temel bileşeni olan bildirişimsel görevler, proje tabanlı öğrenme ve kültürlerarası iletişim yetisi açısından değerlendirmektedir. Doküman analizi yöntemiyle ve içsel durum çalışması deseniyle yürütülen araştırma, serinin yazarları tarafından öz-eleştirel bir perspektifle yapılandırılmıştır. Franco-Pass, Türkiye’de turizm alanına özel geliştirilen ilk yerli Fransızca öğretim serisidir. Bulgular, A1 düzeyinde görevlerin daha çok sınıf içi iletişimle sınırlı kaldığını; A2 düzeyinde çoklu becerilere dayalı daha zengin yapılara geçildiğini; B1 düzeyinde ise sosyal bağlamla bütünleşmiş, üretime ve yansıtıcı düşünmeye dayalı görevlerin öne çıktığını göstermektedir. Proje tabanlı öğrenme bileşeni A1’de temel uygulamalarla temsil edilirken, A2 ve B1 düzeylerinde daha yapılandırılmış ve çıktıya dayalı projelere dönüşmektedir. Kültürlerarası iletişim açısından ise seride sunulan içerikler, A1 ve A2 düzeylerinde bilgi aktarımı odaklı iken, B1 düzeyinde eleştirel farkındalık ve kültürel empatiyi destekleyen etkinliklerle gelişim göstermektedir. Seri, özgün yapısıyla yerel ihtiyaçlara yanıt vermekte; ancak kültürlerarasılık, otantiklik ve süreç değerlendirme boyutlarında daha sistematik yapılandırmalarla geliştirilmeye açıktır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Bildirişimsel görev
• Eylem odaklı yaklaşım
• Kültürlerarası iletişim
• Proje tabanlı öğrenme
• Yabancı dil öğretimi

Kaynakça

1. Aslim-Yetis, V. (2010). Le document authentique: un exemple d’exploitation en classe de FLE. Synergies Canada, (2), 1-13. [https://doi.org/10.21083/synergies.v0i2.1173](https://doi.org/10.21083/synergies.v0i2.1173)
2. Aslım Yetiş, V. & Dündar, A. E. (2016). La compétence interculturelle dans Salut 10, 11 et 12. Çukurova Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 45(2), 181-208.
3. Audras, I. & Chanier, T. (2007). Acquisition de compétences interculturelles. Interactions orales et écrites en tridem en ligne. Lidil. Revue de linguistique et de didactique des langues, (36), 23-42. [https://doi.org/10.4000/lidil.2383](https://doi.org/10.4000/lidil.2383)
4. Bagnoli, P., Dotti, E., Praderi, R. & Ruel, V. (2010). La perspective actionnelle: Didactique et pédagogie par l’action en Interlangue. 3er. Foro de Lenguas de ANEP, 8-10.
5. Bartel-Radic, A. (2009). La compétence interculturelle: état de l’art et perspectives. Management international, 13(4), 11-26. [https://doi.org/10.7202/038582ar](https://doi.org/10.7202/038582ar)
6. Batmaz, O. (2022). Sınıf öğretmenlerinin gözünden hayat bilgisi ders kitapları. Türk Eğitim Bilimleri Dergisi, 20(2), 342-367. [https://doi.org/10.37217/tebd.1047431](https://doi.org/10.37217/tebd.1047431)
7. Beacco, J. C. (2008). Tâches ou compétences?. Le français dans le monde, (357), p-33. (hal-00554740)
8. Bento, M. (2012). Pour une définition de l’action dans la perspective actionnelle en France. Synergies Canada, (5), 1-9. [https://doi.org/10.21083/synergies.v0i5.1591](https://doi.org/10.21083/synergies.v0i5.1591)

9. Bento, M. (2013). La perspective actionnelle dans les manuels de langue au collège. Recherches en didactiques, 15(1), 61-89. [https://doi.org/10.3917/rdid.015.0061](https://doi.org/10.3917/rdid.015.0061)
10. Berat, G. & Candan, A. S. (2022). Sosyal Bilgiler Öğretmenlerinin Ortaokul Sosyal Bilgiler Ders Kitaplarina İlişkin Görüşleri (Karabük Örneği). Anadolu ve Balkan Araştırmaları Dergisi, 5(10), 513-531. [https://doi.org/10.32953/abad.1161696](https://doi.org/10.32953/abad.1161696)
11. Bernacki, M. L., Greene, M. J. & Lobczowski, N. G. (2021). A systematic review of research on personalized learning: Personalized by whom, to what, how, and for what purpose (s)?. Educational Psychology Review, 33(4), 1675-1715. [https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-021-09615-8](https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-021-09615-8)
12. Blin, F. (2005). CALL and the development of learner autonomy: an activity theoretical study (Doctoral dissertation, Open University, Institute of Educational Technology).
13. Bourguignon, C. (2006). De l’approche communicative à l’approche communic’actionnelle: une rupture épistémologique en didactique des langues-cultures. Synergie Europe, 1(1), 58-73.
14. Byram, M., Gribkova, B. & Starkey, H. (2002). Développer la dimension interculturelle de l’enseignement des langues: Une introduction pratique à l’usage des enseignants, Conseil de l’Europe: Strasbourg.
15. Carras, C., Tolas, J., Kohler, P., & Szilagyi, E. (2007). Le Français sur Objectif Spécifique et la classe de langue. CLE international.
16. Charaudeau, P. (2000). De la compétence sociale de communication aux compétences de discours. Didactique des langues romanes: le développement des compétences chez l’apprenant, 41-54.
17. Chaves, R.-M., Favier, L. & Pélissier, S. (2012). L’interculturel en classe. Grenoble: PUG
18. Chiu, W. Y., Liu, G. Z., Barrett, N. E., Liaw, M. L., Hwang, G. J., & Lin, C. C. (2023). Needs analysis-based design principles for constructing a context-aware English learning system. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 36(1-2), 176-204. [https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2021.1905666](https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2021.1905666)
19. Council of Europe (2001) Council for Cultural Co-operation. Education Committee. Modern Languages Division. Common European framework of reference for languages: Learning, teaching, assessment. Cambridge University Press.
20. Creswell, J. W. (2021). Nitel araştırma yöntemleri (SB Demir & M. Bütün, çev.). Siyasal Kitabevi.
21. Deardorff, D. K. (2013). Exploring İntercultural Competence İn The Language Classroom: Foundations For Successful Practice. The European Journal of Applied Linguistics and TEFL, 2(2), 181-193.
22. Denyer, M. (2006). La perspective actionnelle définie par le CECR et ses répercussions dans l’enseignement des langues. La perspective actionnelle: Tâches et projets, 9-16.
23. Dufour, S., & Parpette, C. (2018). Le français sur objectif spécifique: la notion d’authentique revisitée. ILCEA. Revue de l’Institut des langues et cultures d’Europe, Amérique, Afrique, Asie et Australie, (32). [https://doi.org/10.4000/ilcea.4814](https://doi.org/10.4000/ilcea.4814)
24. Dündar, A. E. & Yetiş, V. A. (2021). Analyse comparative de deux manuels de français langue étrangère selon les axes de la perspective actionnelle. HUMANITAS-Uluslararası Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 9(17), 208-230. [https://doi.org/10.20304/humanitas.775920](https://doi.org/10.20304/humanitas.775920)
25. Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford University Press.
26. Fraenkel, J. R., Wallen, N. E., ve Hyun, H. H. (2012). How to design and evaluate research in education. McGrawHill.
27. Gahmia, A. (2009). Méthodologie d’élaboration d’un cours de français sur objectifs spécifiques (FOS) dans des établissements de la formation professionnelle. Synergies Algérie N, 8, 45-52.
28. Haug, B. S. & Mork, S. M. (2021). Taking 21st century skills from vision to classroom: What teachers highlight as supportive professional development in the light of new demands from educational reforms. Teaching and teacher education, 100, 103286. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2021.103286](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2021.103286)
29. Hougardy, A., Hubert, S. & Petit, C. (2001). Pédagogie du projet. Apprentissage et utilisation d’Internet.
30. Lange, K. (2011). Perspective on intercultural competence. A textbook analysis and an empirical study of teachers’ and students’ attitudes. Master Thesis : University of Berlin.
31. Licheri, L. M. (2015). L’apprentissage par projet méthode pour le développement des compétences du XXième siècle et la diffusion des valeurs européennes. In : Erasmus 2015-17, un programme de l’Union Européenne.
32. Mangiante, J. M. (2007). Quelle démarche interculturelle dans l’élaboration et la conduite d’un cours de français sur objectifs spécifiques?. Variation et interculturel dans l’enseignement du FLE: objectifs spécifiques et contextes d’apprentissage, 17.
33. Marin, A. (2016). La formation des compétences linguistiques en Français sur Objectifs Spécifiques (fos) entre l’approche communicative et la perspective actionnelle. Artă şi Educaţie Artistică, 28(2), 60-70.
34. Medioni, M. A. (2009). L’enseignement-apprentissage des langues: un agir ensemble qui s’ affirme. Association des professeurs de langues vivantes.
35. Nguyen, T. T. M., Marlina, R. & Cao, T. H. P. (2021). How well do ELT textbooks prepare students to use English in global contexts? An evaluation of the Vietnamese English textbooks from an English as an international language (EIL) perspective. Asian Englishes, 23(2), 184-200. [https://doi.org/10.1080/13488678.2020.1717794](https://doi.org/10.1080/13488678.2020.1717794)
36. Nunan, D. (1989). Designing tasks for the communicative classroom. Cambridge University Press.
37. Puren, C. (2002). Perspectives actionnelles et perspectives culturelles en didactique des langues-cultures: vers une perspective co-actionnelle-co-culturelle. Langues modernes, 96(3), 55-72.
38. Puren, C. (2006). De l’approche communicative à la perspective actionnelle. Le Français dans le monde, 347, 37-40.
39. Qotb, H. (2009). Vers une didactique du français sur objectifs spécifiques médié par Internet. Editions Publibook.
40. Reverdy, C. (2013). Des projets pour mieux apprendre?. Dossier de veille de l’IFÉ, (82). (hal-01657236)
41. Soubrié, T. (2008). Un nouveau cadre pour la conception d’activités TICE: la perspective actionnelle du CECR. Ensinar e Aprender Linguas e Culturas Estrangeiras hoje: Que Perspectivas?. (hal-01162278)
42. Stake, R. (1995). Case study research. Cham: Springer.
43. Tarrayo, V. N. & Anudin, A. G. (2023). Materials development in flexible learning amid the pandemic: perspectives from English language teachers in a Philippine state university. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 17(1), 102-113. [https://doi.org/10.1080/17501229.2021.1939703](https://doi.org/10.1080/17501229.2021.1939703)
44. Windmüller, F. (2011). Français langue étrangère (FLE): l’approche culturelle et interculturelle. Belin.
45. Zolana, A. N. (2013). Concevoir un programme de français sur objectifs spécifiques. Difficultés théoriques et pratiques: le cas de la faculté d’économie de l’Université Agostinho Neto Luanda-Angola (Doctoral dissertation, Université Nice Sophia Antipolis).