A qualitative inquiry into the application of 9th grade EFL program in terms of the CEFR

Abstract

Please fill up the following information accurately. (Please use Times New Roman, 12 pt.
A qualitative inquiry into the application of 9th grade EFL program in terms of the CEFR
Current study investigated applicability of the 9th Grade EFL Program with regard to proficiency descriptors and educational principles of the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR). Qualitative inquiry was followed by adopting a phenomenological approach to conduct the study. The data were collected through document analyses, face-to-face interviews, and teacher and students observations regarding classroom instructions.  Descriptive analysis was administered to analyze the data obtained from the document analyses, interviews, and observations. The results showed that the EFL program corresponds to students’ language levels and needs, while teachers come across problems due to course materials and insufficient class hours during implementations.  Besides the participant teachers reported problems in terms of seminars and in-service training activities.
Information about Author(s)*
Author 1
Author (Last name, First name)	Yüce, Erkan
Affiliated institution (University)
Country
Email address	[e-mail]
Department & Rank
Corresponding author (Yes/No) Write only one corresponding author.
Author 2
Author (Last name, First name)	Mirici, İsmail Hakkı
Affiliated institution (University)
Country
Email address	[e-mail]
Department & Rank
Corresponding author (Yes/No)
Author 3
Author (Last name, First name)
Affiliated institution (University)
Country
Email address
Department & Rank
Corresponding author (Yes/No)
Author 4
Author (Last name, First name)
Affiliated institution (University)
Country
Email address
Department & Rank
Corresponding author (Yes/No)

Keywords

• CEFR; EFL program; 9th grade; program evaluation

Kaynakça

1. Akşit, H. N. (1998). A case study on teacher perception of quality of work life within the context of human resource management in an educational institution. In Yıldırım, A., & Şimşek, H. (2013). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri (9th ed). Ankara: Seçkin Yayıncılık.
2. Alderson, J. C. (2007). The CEFR and the need for more research. The Modern Language Journal, 91, 659-663.
3. Arslan, A. (2011). The application of the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages in the Turkish higher education in terms of curriculum development process. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Abant İzzet Baysal University, Bolu.
4. Baltacı, A. (2017). Nitel veri analizinde Miles-Huberman Modeli. Ahi Evran Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi (AEÜSBED), 3(1), 1-15.
5. Bayraktar, B. (2014). Evaluation of the English curriculum for second classes in primary schools according to teachers' opinions. (Unpublished master’s thesis), Uludağ University, Bursa.
6. Bergil, A. S, & Sarıçoban, A. (2017). The use of EPOSTL to determine the self-efficacy of prospective EFL teachers: Raising awareness in English language teacher education . Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 13(1), 399-411.
7. Byram, M., & Parmenter, L. (2012). The Common European Framework of Reference: The globalisation of language education policy. UK: Multilingual Matters.
8. Council of Europe (CoE). (2001). Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, teaching, assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

9. Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (2nd ed).Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage.
10. Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage.
11. Creswell, J. W., & Miller, D. L. (2000). Determining validity in qualitative inquiry. Theory into Practice, 39(3), 124-130.
12. Çakır, A., & Balcikanli, C. (2012). The use of the EPOSTL to foster teacher autonomy: ELT student teachers’ and teacher trainers’ views. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 37(3), 1-16.
13. Çelik, S. (2013). Plurilingualism, pluriculturalism, and the CEFR: Are Turkey’s foreign language objectives reflected in classroom instruction? Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 70, 1872-1879.
14. Dağ, A. (2008). Assessment of Turkish students’ performance in English as a foreign language at secondary level within Common European Framework. (Unpublished master’s thesis), Çanakkale Onsekiz Mart University, Çanakkale, Turkey.
15. Demirlier, H. (2010). Students’ and teachers’ attitudes towards the newly developed curriculum of primary schools. (Unpublished master’s thesis), Muğla University, Muğla.
16. Denies, K., & Janssen, R. (2016). Country and gender differences in the functioning of CEFR-based can-do statements as a tool for self-assessing English proficiency. Language Assessment Quarterly, 13(3), 251-276.
17. Doğan, Z. Y. (2007). Avrupa Birliği ortak dil çerçevesi programının Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı ilköğretim okullarında yabancı dil (İngilizce) dersi öğretiminde uygulanabilirliği. (Yayımlanmamış yüksek lisans tezi), Yıldız Teknik Üniversitesi, İstanbul.
18. Dönmez, Ö. (2010). Implementation of the new eighth grade English language curriculum from the perspectives of teachers and students. (Unpublished master’s thesis), Middle East Technical University, Ankara.
19. EAQUALS, (2008). Portfolio descriptor revision project. Retrieved September 9, 2017, from https://www.eaquals.org/
20. Erlandson, D. A., Harris, E. L., Skipper, B. L., & Allen, S. D. (1993). Doing naturalistic inquiry: A guide to methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
21. Girard, D., & Trim, J. L. M. (Eds.). (1998). Learning and teaching modern languages for communication: Final report of the project group (activities 1982/87). Strasbourg: Council of Europe.
22. Given, L. M. (2015). 100 questions (and answers) about qualitative research. California: Sage.
23. Güneş, T. (2009). Teachers’ opinions on the English language curriculum of the 5th grade of primary education. (Unpublished master’s thesis), Hacettepe University, Institute of Social Sciences, Ankara.
24. Hulstijn, J. H. (2007). The shaky ground beneath the CEFR: Quantitative and qualitative dimensions of language proficiency. The Modern Language Journal 91, 663-667.
25. Huy, N. V., & Hamid, M. O. (2015). Educational policy borrowing in a globalized world: A case study of Common European Framework of Reference for languages in a Vietnamese University. English Teaching: Practice & Critique, 14(1), 60-74.
26. Ilc, G., & Stopar, A. (2015). Validating the Slovenian national alignment to CEFR: The case of the B2 reading comprehension examination in English. Language Testing, 32(4), 443 –462.
27. Karcı, C. (2012). Evaluation of English curriculum in 9th grade of secondary schools through teachers’ views. (Unpublished master’s thesis), Adnan Menderes University, Aydın.
28. Khalifa, H., & Ffrench, A. (2008). Aligning Cambridge ESOL examinations to the CEFR: Issues & Practice. Paper presented at the 34th Annual Conference of the International Association for Educational Assessment, Cambridge, England.
29. Kondakçı, N. (2014). A comparative analysis of national and international English language curricula for high schools in Turkey. (Unpublished master’s thesis), Bilkent University, Ankara.
30. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. (2nd ed). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
31. Ministry of National Education (MoNE) (2018). English language teaching curriculum of secondary education. Retrieved January 25, 2018, from http://mufredat.meb.gov.tr/ProgramDetay.aspx?PID=342
32. Mirici, İ. H. (2014). The Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR) and the European Language Portfolio (ELP). In S. Çelik (Eds.). Approaches and Principles in English as a Foreign Language (EFL) Education (381-396). Ankara: Eğiten.
33. Mirici, İ. H. (2015). European policy and practices in training foreign language teachers. H. U. Journal of Education, 30(4), 42-51.
34. Moustakas, C. (1994). Phenomenological research methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
35. Nakatani, Y. (2012). Exploring the implementation of the CEFR in Asian contexts: Focus on communication strategies. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 46, 771 – 775.
36. North, B. (2014). The CEFR in practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
37. Örmeci, D. N. (2009). An evaluation of English language curricula implemented at the 4th, 5th, and 6th grades in respect of teachers’ opinions. (Unpublished master’s thesis), Trakya University, Edirne.
38. Özel, R. T. (2011). Determination of challenges encountered in the implementation of English curricula for primary schools (the sample of Ankara). (Unpublished master’s thesis), Ankara University, Ankara.
39. Özer, Ö. (2012). Comparative analysis of secondary school 3rd grade English language curriculum in parallel with the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages. (Unpublished master’s thesis), University of Bülent Ecevit, Zonguldak.
40. Öztürk, A. R. (2006). An analysis of ELT teachers’ perceptions of some problems concerning the implementation of English language teaching curricula in elementary schools. (Unpublished master’s thesis), University of Gaziantep, Gaziantep.
41. Palmer, C., & Bolderston, A. (2006).A brief introduction to qualitative research. The Canadian Journal of Medical Radiation Technology, 37(1), 16-19.
42. Patton, M. Q. (2002)(3rd ed). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. London: Sage.
43. Runnels, J. (2016). Self-assessment accuracy: Correlations between Japanese English learners’ self-assessment on the CEFR-Japan’s can do statements and scores on the TOEIC. Taiwan Journal of TESOL, 13(1), 105-137.
44. Sak, Ö. (2013). A comparative analysis of English language curriculum for primary education in Turkey and Finland according to common European framework for languages. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation), Abant İzzet Baysal University, Bolu.
45. Sarıca, Ö. K. (2009). An analysis of the language levels of the eighth (8th) graders in state primary schools in Turkey according to Common European Framework criteria and content. (Unpublished master’s thesis), Pamukkale University, Denizli.
46. Seitova, M. (2017). The European Portfolio for Student Teachers of Languages (EPOSTL) promotes professional development: ELT in-service teachers’ views. International Online Journal of Education and Teaching (IOJET), 4(4), 541-550.
47. Shaarawy, H. Y., & Lotfy, N. E. (2013). Teaching writing within the Common European Framework of Reference (CEFR): A Supplement asynchronous blended learning approach in an EFL undergraduate course in Egypt. Higher Education Studies, 3(1), 123-135.
48. Şentürk, B., & Mirici, İ. H. (2019). Does the ELP Promote Learning English as a Foreign Language at Tertiary Level?. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 15(2), 695-718.
49. Wolcott, H. F. (1994). Transforming qualitative data: Description, analysis, and interpretation. New Delhi: Sage.
50. Yaman, S. (2010). Assessment of English curriculum for primary schools’ 4th and 5th grades according to teachers’ opinions: (A Case study in Gaziantep). (Unpublished master’s thesis), Fırat University, Elazığ.
51. Yıldırım, A., & Şimşek, H. (2013). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri (9th ed). Ankara: Seçkin Yayıncılık.
52. Yörü, B. (2012). İlköğretim sekizinci sınıf İngilizce öğretim programına ilişkin öğretmen görüşleri (Eskişehir örneği). (Yayımlanmamış yüksek lisans tezi), Eskişehir Osmangazi Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Eskişehir.
53. Yüce, E. (2019). EPOSTL: Revisiting the roles of language teachers at a recently established ELT department. International Online Journal of Education and Teaching (IOJET), 6(1). 1272-1281.
54. Zorba, M. G. (2012). An evaluation of Anatolian high schools’ 9th grade EFL curriculum and course materials through the principles of the common European framework of reference for languages. (Unpublished master’s thesis), Akdeniz University, Antalya.