The CEFR in English Language Teaching in Türkiye: A Systematic Review of Research and Practices (2001-2024)

Abstract

This study systematically reviewed CEFR-based English Language Teaching (ELT) research in Turkey to reveal its characteristics, methodologies, and key findings. A comprehensive search of five databases was conducted, yielding 643 studies, which were screened for relevance. After applying exclusion criteria (e.g., non-English/Turkish studies, non-ELT focus, methodological issues), 73 studies were selected. Descriptive and thematic data were extracted using MAXQDA 22.0, with an inter-rater reliability of 0.82 in the first coding round and 0.89 in the second. Findings revealed significant challenges in aligning the Turkish national curriculum with CEFR principles, leading to inconsistent practices and a neglect of key skills. Textbooks were critiqued for inadequate treatment of speech acts, imbalanced vocabulary profiles, and superficial cultural content. Assessment practices demonstrated a lack of standardization and insufficient teacher training, particularly for evaluating productive skills like speaking. Moreover, Turkish EFL teachers exhibited varying levels of CEFR knowledge, with many experiencing difficulties in practical implementation, limited understanding of key concepts, and varied views on the CEFR's suitability for the Turkish context. The analysis also underscored the need for increased teacher training, better localized resources and materials, and improved administrative support, and also more research on teacher perspectives. This systematic review highlights the complexities of implementing the CEFR in the Turkish EFL/ESL context and the need for a multi-faceted approach to improve language education outcomes.

Keywords

• English language teaching
• CEFR
• curriculum and assessment
• teacher training
• systematic review

Türkiye’de İngiliz Dili Öğretiminde D-AOBM: Araştırma ve Uygulamaların Sistematik Bir Derlemesi (2001-2024)

Öz

Bu sistematik derleme, PRISMA 2020 ilkelerine uygun olarak Türkiye’de İngiliz dili öğretimi bağlamında Diller için Avrupa Ortak Başvuru Metni (D-AOBM) ile ilgili araştırma ve uygulamaları sentezlemektedir. D-AOBM ile ilgili araştırmaların betimsel özelliklerini, metodolojik yaklaşımlarını ve temel bulgularını analiz eden bu derleme; ilgili alana kapsamlı bir bakış sunmakta ve olası boşlukları öne çıkarmaktadır. Bu amaçlar doğrultusunda DergiPark, Ulusal Tez Merkezi, SOBIAD, EBSCO Academic Search Ultimate ve ERIC olmak üzere beş veri tabanında tarih sınırlaması olmaksızın tarama yapılmıştır. Hem Türkçe hem de İngilizce yazılmış araştırmaları kapsayacak şekilde kaynakça taraması ve serbest metin taramaları yapılmıştır. Yinelenen kayıtların çıkarılması ve dâhil etme kriterlerinin uygulanmasının ardından, 2001-2024 yılları arasında yayımlanmış 70 çalışma (makale, yüksek lisans tezi ve doktora tezi) araştırmaya dâhil edilmiştir. Veri analizi, MAXQDA 22.0 yazılımı kullanılarak tümevarımsal içerik analiziyle gerçekleştirilmiştir. Kodlayıcılar arası güvenirlik, Cohen’in kappası ile değerlendirilmiş olup iki kodlama sonucunda sırasıyla .82 ve .89 değerleri elde edilmiştir. Betimsel analiz eğitim kademelerine göre araştırmalar dengesiz bir dağılım sergilemiş , lisans düzeyi çok yoğun temsil edilirken okul öncesi ve lisansüstü düzeyleri i araştırmalar yeterince dâhil edilmemiştir. Başta Ankara olmak üzere büyükşehirler, D-AOBM ile ilgili çalışmalarda merkezî bir role sahiptir. Çalışmaların büyük çoğunluğu bütünleşik veya çoklu dil becerisini temel almakta olup bağımsız dinleme becerisine dayanan bir araştırmaya rastlanamamıştır. Tematik analiz, D-AOBM ile öğretim programları, ders kitapları ve ölçme değerlendirme arasında sorunlar olduğunu ortaya koymaktadır. Ayrıca öğretmenlerin D-AOBM ilkelerine yönelik bilgilerinin yetersiz olduğu ve D-AOBM konusunda mesleki gelişim olanaklarının sınırlı kaldığı tespit edilmiştir. Bütün bulgular, Türkiye'de D-AOBM uygulamalarının büyük ölçüde yüzeysel kaldığını ve yapısal, pedagojik ve kurumsal engellerle kısıtlandığını göstermektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• İngilizce dil öğretimi
• D-AOBM
• öğretim programı ve değerlendirme
• öğretmen eğitimi
• sistematik derleme

Kaynakça

1. Alanen, R., Huhta, A., Martin, M., Tarnanen, M., Mäntylä, K., Kalaja, P., & Palviainen, Å. (2012). Designing and assessing L2 writing tasks across CEFR proficiency levels. M. Torrance, D. Alamargot, M. Castelló, G. Ganier, O. Kruse, A. Mangen, L. Tolchinsky, & M. Van Waes (Eds.), Learning to write effectively: Current trends in European research (pp. 221–223). Brill. https://doi.org/10.1163/9781780529295_050
2. Alderson, J. C. (2002). Common European Framework of Reference for languages: Learning, teaching,assessment. Council of Europe.
3. Alderson, J. C., Figueras, N., Kuijper, H., Nold, G., Takala, S., & Tardieu, C. (2006). Analysing tests ofreading 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. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15434311laq0301_2
4. Alwi, N. A. N. M., & Halim, W. A. H. W. A. (2024). Variations and methodological components in CEFR-aligned language tests: A systematic review. Journal of Creative Practices in Language Learning and Teaching, 12(1), 133–148. https://doi.org/10.24191/cplt.v12i1.25189
5. Arnott, S., Brogden, L. M., Faez, F., Péguret, M., Piccardo, E., Rehner, K., Taylor, S. K., & Wernicke, M.(2017). The Common European Framework of Reference (CEFR) in Canada: A research agenda.The Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics / Revue canadienne de linguistique appliquée, 20(1), 31–55.
6. Baldwin, R., & Apelgren, B. M. (2018). Can do and cannot do: CEFR-inspired examination and assessment in a Swedish higher education context. Apples-Journal of Applied Language Studies, 12(2), 19–35. https://doi.org/10.17011/apples/urn.201809144127
7. Beacco, J. C., Byram, M., Cavalli, M., Coste, D., Cuenat, M. E., Goullier, F., & Panthier, J. (2016). Guidefor the development and implementation of curricula for plurilingual and intercultural education. Council of Europe. https://doi.org/10.3917/europ.beac.2016.02
8. Belur, J., Tompson, L., Thornton, A., & Simon, M. (2021). Interrater reliability in systematic review methodology: Exploring variation in coder decision-making. Sociological Methods & Research, 50(2), 837–865. https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124118799372

9. Bengtsson, M. (2016). How to plan and perform a qualitative study using content analysis. NursingPlus Open, 2, 8–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.npls.2016.01.001
10. Berger, A. (2022). Refining the vertical axis of the CEFR for classroom purposes: Local reference points. E. Piccardo, N. Northrup, & B. Lawrence (Eds.), Reflecting on the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages and its companion volume ,(pp. 144– 158). Multilingual Matters. https://doi.org/10.21832/9781800410206-017
11. Birch, G. C. (2021). Foreign language education reform through action research - Putting CEFR educational principles into practice. CEFR Journal-Research and Practice, 4, 43–65. https:// doi.org/10.37546/jaltsig.cefr4-3
12. Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (2009). Developing the theory of formative assessment. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 21(1), 5–31. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11092- 008-9068-5
13. Booth, A. (2016). Searching for qualitative research for inclusion in systematic reviews: A structured methodological review. Systematic Reviews, 5, 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-016- 0249-x
14. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
15. Budak, B., & Budak, T. T. (2025). Comparing international and national language assessments: Cambridge, Oxford, ÖSYM, and MEB within the CEFR framework. ASES International Journal of Education Science, 5(2), 659–670. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.18002643
16. Byram, M., & Parmenter, L. (Eds.). (2012). The Common European Framework of Reference: The globalisation of language education policy (Vol. 23). Multilingual Matters. https://doi. org/10.1007/s10993-013-9307-6
17. Charttrakul, K., & Damnet, A. (2021). Role of the CEFR and English teaching in Thailand: A case study of Rajabhat universities. Advances in Language and Literary Studies, 12(2), 82–89. http://dx.doi.org/10.7575/aiac.alls.v.12n.2.p.82
18. Chen, L.-C., Chang, K.-H., Yang, S.-C., & Chen, S.-C. (2023). A corpus-based word classification method for detecting difficulty level of English proficiency tests. Applied Sciences, 13(3), 1699.https://doi.org/10.3390/app13031699
19. Council of Europe. (2001). Common European Framework of Reference for Languages. Cambridge University Press. http://assets.cambridge.org/052180/3136/sample/0521803136ws.pdf
20. Council of Europe. (2011). Relating language examinations to the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, teaching, assessment. Council of Europe.
21. Council of Europe. (2018). The Common European Framework of Reference for Languages Learning, Teaching, Assessment—Companion volume with new descriptors.
22. Council of Europe Publishing. https://rm.coe.int/cefr-companion-volumewith-newdescriptors- 2018/168078798
23. Council of Europe. (2020). Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment—Companion volume. Council of Europe Publishing. https://www. coe.int/en/web/common-european-framework-reference-languages
24. Darling-Hammond, L., & Richardson, N. (2009). Research review/teacher learning: What matters. Educational Leadership, 66(5), 46–53.
25. Davies, P. (2000). The relevance of systematic reviews to educational policy and practice. Oxford Review of Education, 26(3-4), 365–378. https://doi.org/10.1080/713688543
26. Demirel, İ. F., & Fakazlı, Ö. (2021). A CEFR-based comparison of English and Turkish language teaching course books in terms of speaking and writing skills. Journal of Theoretical Educational Science, 14(2), 167–185. https://doi.org/10.30831/akukeg.851117
27. Diez-Bedmar, M. B. (2012). The use of the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages to evaluate compositions in the English exam section of the university admission examination. Revista de Educación, 357, 55–80.
28. Ellis, R. (2009). Task‐based language teaching: Sorting out the misunderstandings. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 19(3), 221–246. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1473- 4192.2009.00231.x
29. Erdoğan, S. P., & Çavuşoğlu, A. A. (2023). An analysis of “Wie bitte A1.1” German coursebook according to the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages in terms of listening skills. Journal of Necmettin Erbakan University Ereğli Faculty of Education, 5(Special Issue), 65–91. https://doi.org/10.51119/ereegf.2023.38
30. Eş, A. T., & Aktaş, E. (2023). An analysis of productive language skills activities in Turkish as a foreign language textbooks according to action-oriented approach. RumeliDE Journal of Language and Literature Studies, (Ö13), 157–197. https://doi.org/10.29000/rumelide.1379142
31. Figueras, N. (2012). The impact of the CEFR in Catalonia. ELT Journal, 66(4), 477–485. https://doi. org/10.1093/elt/ccs037
32. Foley, J. A. (2019). Issues on the initial impact of CEFR in Thailand and the region. Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 9(2), 359–370. https://doi.org/10.17509/ijal.v9i2.20233
33. Franz, J., & Teo, A. (2018). A2 is normal—Thai secondary school English teachers’ encounters with the CEFR. RELC Journal, 49(3), 322–338. https://doi.org/10.1177/0033688217738816
34. Göçmenler, H., & Açık, F. (2021). Evaluation of Turkish language and Turkish culture (4th- 5th grades) textbook according to cultural categories in the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages. Iğdır University Social Sciences Journal, 27, 144–174. https:// dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/igdirsosbilder/issue/64336/948470
35. Gough, D., Oliver, S., & Thomas, J. (2017). An introduction to systematic reviews (2nd ed.). Sage Publications.
36. Green, A. (2012). Language functions revisited: Theoretical and empirical bases for language construct definition across the ability range. Cambridge University Press.
37. Greenhalgh, T., & Peacock, R. (2005). Effectiveness and efficiency of search methods in systematic reviews of complex evidence: Audit of primary sources. BMJ, 331(7524), 1064–1065. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.38636.593461.68
38. Güleç, E. (2019). Used in Turkish language teaching as a foreign language investigation of reading texts in course books: Gazi TOMER example. Bayterek International Journal of Academic Research, 2(2), 115–139. Hai, L. T. T., & Nhung, P. T. H. (2018). Implementing the CEFR at a Vietnamese university—General English language teachers’ perceptions. CEFR Journal— Research and Practice, 1, 41–58. https://doi.org/10.37546/JALTSIG.CEFR1-4
39. Hamaratlı, E. (2023). Analysing argumentative texts in Turkish language teaching to foreigners textbooks (Example of YEE B2-C1 Textbook). Sakarya Language Journal, 1(1), 57–72.
40. Harsch, C., & Martin, G. (2012). Adapting CEF-descriptors for rating purposes: Validation by a combined rater training and scale revision approach. Assessing Writing, 17(4), 228–250. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2012.06.003
41. Heritage, M. (2013). Formative assessment in practice: A process of inquiry and action. Harvard Education Press.
42. Jeon, J. H. (2022). A systematic review of the CEFR-related research of English education in South Korea. Journal of Curriculum and Teaching, 11(8), 363. https://doi.org/10.5430/jct. v11n8p363
43. Kanchai, T. (2019). Thai EFL university lecturers’ viewpoints towards impacts of the CEFR on their English language curricula and teaching practice. NIDA Journal of Language and Communication, 24(35), 23–47.
44. Karagöl, E. (2020). Proficiency exams in teaching Turkish as a foreign language in TÖMER (Turkish and foreign languages research and application centers). Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 16(2), 930–947. https://doi.org/10.17263/jlls.759347
45. Kayhan, S., Kalyon, M., & Eyüp, B. (2022). A research on postgraduate theses examining Turkish and English textbooks with regard to criteria of Common European Framework of Reference Languages. Türkiye Education Journal, 7(1), 18–45. https://doi.org/11..11111/ted.xx
46. Kuiken, F., & Vedder, I. (2014). Rating written performance: What do raters do and why? Language Testing, 31(3), 329–348. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532214526174
47. Kyngäs, H., Mikkonen, K., & Kääriäinen, M. (Eds.). (2020). The application of content analysis in nursing science research. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-30199-6
48. Lahlou, H. (2022). A corpus analysis of polysemy in CEFR-based English textbooks. The 6th International Conference on Linguistics, Literature & Culture. https://doi.org/10.32388/ w7d3cb
49. Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33(1), 159–174. https://doi.org/10.2307/2529310
50. Lee, A., Mohd Kassim, A. A., & Aboo Bakar, R. (2022). The CEFR-aligned curriculum execution in Malaysia and other countries: A conceptual paper. Malaysian Journal of ELT Research, 19(1), 1– 15. https://doi.org/10.52696/tgct6849
51. Leung, C. (2023). English language proficiencies – recasting disciplinary and pedagogic sensibilities. Critical Inquiry in Language Studies, 20(4), 426–447. https://doi.org/10.1080/15427587.20 23.2292185
52. Levi, T., & Duval, S. (2023). Implementing a localized version of the CEFR-based curriculum in Israel. CEFR Journal—Research and Practice, 5, 56–74. https://doi.org/10.37546/JALTSIG. CEFR5-5
53. Liberati, A., Altman, D. G., Tetzlaff, J., Mulrow, C., Gotzsche, P. C., Ioannidis, J. P. A., Clarke, M., Devereaux, P. J., Kleijnen, J., & Moher, D. (2009). The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: Explanation and elaboration. BMJ, 339, b2700. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.b2700
54. Liddicoat, A., & Scarino, A. (2013). Intercultural language teaching and learning. Wiley-Blackwell. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118482070
55. Little, D. (2006). The Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Content, purpose, origin, reception and impact. Language Teaching, 39(3), 167–190. https://doi.org/10.1017/ s0261444806003557
56. Little, D. (2007). The Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Perspectives on the making of supranational language education policy. The Modern Language Journal, 91(4), 645–655. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2007.00627_2.x
57. Little, D. (2009). The European language portfolio: Where pedagogy and assessment meet. 8th International Seminar on the European Language Portfolio, Graz (Vol. 29).
58. Little, D. (2013). The Common European Framework of Reference for Languages and the European language portfolio: Some history, a view of language learner autonomy, and some implications for language learning in higher education. Language Learning in Higher Education, 2(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1515/cercles-2012-0001
59. Lumley, T. (2005). Assessing second language writing: The rater’s perspective. Peter Lang. Mahood, Q., Van Eerd, D., & Irvin, E. (2013). Searching for grey literature for systematic reviews: Challenges and benefits. Research Synthesis Methods, 5(3), 221–234. https://doi. org/10.1002/jrsm.1106
60. Martyniuk, W., & Noijons, J. (2007). Executive summary of results of a survey on the use of the CEFR at national level in the Council of Europe Member States. Council of Europe. http:// www.coe.int/T/DG4/Linguistic/Source/Survey_CEFR_2007_EN.doc
61. McElwee, S., Devine, A., & Saville, N. (2019). Introducing CEFR pre-A1 descriptors for language instruction and assessment: Consequences, opportunities and responsibilities. Zeitschrift für Fremdsprachenforschung, 30(2), 215–232.
62. McHugh, M. L. (2012). Interrater reliability: The kappa statistic. Biochemia Medica, 22(3), 276–282. https://doi.org/10.11613/BM.2012.031
63. Mohamed, S. (2023). The development of an Arabic curriculum framework based on a compilation of salient features from CEFR level descriptors. The Language Learning Journal, 51(1), 33–47. https://doi.org/10.1080/09571736.2021.1923781
64. Mohammed, N. A., Abdul Raof, A. H., & Md Yusof, M. A. (2021). Challenges in implementing the CEFR in English language classrooms. LSP International Journal, 8(2), 115–128. https:// doi.org/10.11113/lspi.v8.17977
65. Mohtar, M., & Sadhasivam, S. (2022). A scoping review on the CEFR: Methods used in past studies. Higher Education and Oriental Studies, 2(4). https://doi.org/10.54435/heos.v2i4.67
66. Moonen, M., Stoutjesdijk, E., de Graaff, R., & Corda, A. (2013). Implementing CEFR in secondary education: Impact on FL teachers’ educational and assessment practice. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 23(2), 226–246. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijal.12000
67. Nagai, N., Ayano, S., Okada, K., & Nakanishi, T. (2012). Adaptation of the CEFR to remedial Englishlanguage education in Japan. CercleS, 2(1), 35–58. https://doi.org/10.1515/ cercles-2012-0003
68. Nagai, N., Birch, G. C., Bower, J. V., & Schmidt, M. G. (2020). CEFR-informed learning, teaching and assessment: A practical guide. Springer Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15- 5894-8
69. Negishi, M. (2022). The impact of the CEFR in Japan. In D. Little & N. Figueras (Eds.), Reflecting on the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages and its Companion Volume (pp. 10–22). Multilingual Matters. https://doi.org/10.21832/9781800410206-005
70. Negishi, M., Tono, Y., & Fujita, Y. (2012). A validation study of the CEFR levels of phrasal verbs in the English vocabulary profile. English Profile Journal, 3(1), e3. https://doi.org/10.1017/ S2041536212000037
71. Norris, J. M., & Ortega, L. (2006). The value and practice of research synthesis for language learning and teaching. In J. M. Norris & L. Ortega (Eds.), Synthesising research on language learning and teaching (pp. 3–50). John Benjamins.
72. North, B. (2014). The CEFR in practice. Cambridge University Press.
73. North, B. (2021). The CEFR Companion Volume - What’s new and what might it imply forteaching/ learning and for assessment? CEFR Journal-Research and Practice, 4, 5–24. https://doi. org/10.37546/jaltsig.cefr4-1
74. North, B., & Piccardo, E. (2016). Developing illustrative descriptors of aspects of mediation for the Common European Framework of Reference (CEFR). Language Teaching, 49(3), 455–459. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0261444816000100
75. North, B., & Piccardo, E. (2019). Developing new CEFR descriptor scales and expanding the existing ones: Constructs, approaches and methodologies. Zeitschrift für Fremdsprachenforschung, 30(2), 142–160.
76. Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., Shamseer, L., Tetzlaff, J. M., Akl, E. A., Brennan, S. E., Chou, R., Glanville, J., Grimshaw, J. M., Hróbjartsson, A., Lalu, M. M., Li, T., Loder, E. W., Mayo-Wilson, E., McDonald, S., A McGuinness, L., A Stewart, L., Thomas, J., C Tricco, A., A Welch, V., Whiting, P., & Moher, D. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ, 372, n71. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71
77. Piccardo, E., North, B., & Maldina, E. (2019). Innovation and reform in course planning, teaching, and assessment: The CEFR in Canada and Switzerland, a comparative study. Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 22(1), 103–128. https://doi.org/10.7202/1060908ar
78. Plonsky, L. (2015). Advancing quantitative methods in second language research. In L. Plonsky (Ed.),Advancing quantitative methods in second language research (pp. 3–15). Routledge.
79. Rehner, K., Lasan, I., Popovich, A., & Palta, Z. (2022). The impact of CEFR-related professional learning on second-language teachers’ classroom practice: The case of French in Canada. Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics/Revue canadienne de linguistique appliquée, 26(1), 26–53. https://doi.org/10.37213/cjal.2021.28992
80. Runnels, J., & Runnels, V. (2019). Impact of the Common European Framework of Reference—A bibliometric analysis of research from 1990-2017. CEFR Journal-Research and Practice, 1, 18–32. https://doi.org/10.37546/jaltsig.cefr1-2
81. Saldaña, J. (2021). The coding manual for qualitative researchers (4th ed.). Sage Publications. Savski, K. (2020). Local problems and a global solution: Examining the recontextualization of CEFR in Thai and Malaysian language policies. Language Policy, 19(4), 527–547. https://doi. org/10.1007/s10993-019-09539-8
82. Schmidt, M. G., & Bower, J. V. (2024). Using the CEFR as a conceptual tool for action research. In Putting the CEFR into practice through action research: Reflecting on principles for foreign language teaching (pp. 3–18). Springer Nature. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-97-7545- 3_1
83. Schmidt, M. G., Runnels, J., & Nagai, N. (2017). The past, present and future of the CEFR in Japan. In F. O’Dwyer, M. Hunke, A. Imig, N. Nagai, N. Naganuma, & M. G. Schmidt (Eds.), Critical, constructive assessment of CEFR-informed language teaching in Japan and beyond (pp. 18–48). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-5894-8
84. Schmidt, R., & Head, E. (2019). Initial stages of individual teacher CEFR-related classroom curriculum projects at Miyazaki International College. CEFR Journal—Research and Practice, 3, 21–44. https://doi.org/10.37546/JALTSIG.CEFR3-2
85. Seker, E. Ö., & Seymen, A. (2022). Analysis of the reading activities in the textbook Deutsch Macht Spaß A1.2 within the frame of the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages. Education and Society in the 21st Century, 11(31), 227–242.
86. Selvi, A. F. (2014). The medium-of-instruction debate in Turkey: Oscillating between national ideas and bilingual ideals. Current Issues in Language Planning, 15(2), 133–152. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/14664208.2014.898357
87. Şengül, M., & Demirel, S. (2021). Comparison of the content of Turkish proficiency exam (TPE) and some language qualification exams with international language proficiency exams. Journal of Turkology, 31(2), 573–598. https://doi.org/10.26650/iuturkiyat.979947
88. Sidhu, G. K., Kaur, S., & Chi, L. J. (2018). CEFR-aligned school-based assessment in the Malaysian primary ESL classroom. Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 8(2), 452–463.https:// doi.org/10.17509/ijal.v8i2.13311
89. Silver, C., & Lewins, A. (2014). Using software in qualitative research: A step-by-step guide. Sage Publications. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781473906907
90. Smith, C. W., & Battistuzzi, A. (2023). Examining CEFR-related professional learning interventions for language teachers: A qualitative meta-synthesis. Canadian Journal for New Scholars in Education, 14(1), 131–143.
91. Sönmez, L. (2024). Evaluation of alter ego+ A1 and Yedi İklim Turkish A1 in terms of mediation activities. Amasya Education Journal, 13(1), 90–110. https://doi.org/10.17539/ amauefd.1461972
92. Sözer, B., & Pilanci, H. (2021). The opinions of teachers who teach Turkish as a foreign language on the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages. Aydın Tomer Language Journal, 6(1), 85–102. https://doi.org/10.17932/iau.tomer.2016.019/tomer_v06i1004
93. Stathopoulou, M. (2020). The new CEFR descriptors for the assessment of written mediation: Exploring their applicability in a local context in an effort towards multilingual testing. CEFR Journal—Research and Practice, 2, 40–69. https://doi.org/10.37546/JALTSIG.CEFR2-3
94. Steiner-Khamsi, G. (2010). The politics and economics of comparison. Comparative Education Review, 54(3), 323–342. https://doi.org/10.1086/653047
95. Sulistyaningrum, S. D., & Purnawati. (2021). Incorporating CEFR bands and ICT-competences ingrammar syllabuses of English Language Education Study Program in Indonesia. Journal on English as a Foreign Language, 11(2), 335–357. https://doi.org/10.23971/jefl.v11i2.2863
96. Supunya, N. (2022). Towards the CEFR action-oriented approach: Factors influencing its achievement in Thai EFL classrooms. 3L: Language, Linguistics, Literature®, 28(2), 1–15. http://doi. org/10.17576/3L-2022-2802-03
97. Tepe, E., & Tüm, G. (2021). The reflection of basic principles in coursebooks for teaching Turkish as a foreign language. The Journal of Limitless Education and Research, 6(1), 152–178. https:// doi.org/10.29250/sead.876202
98. Thiagarajan, T., & Hua, T. K. (2023). Formative assessment in writing in CEFR-aligned secondarycurriculum: Malaysian teachers’ practices and beliefs. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 12(2), 1282–1297. https://doi. org/10.6007/ijarped/v12-i2/17271
99. Thorne, S. L., & Lantolf, J. (2007). A linguistics of communicative activity. In S. Makoni & A.Pennycook (Eds.), Disinventing and Reconstituting Languages (pp. 170–195). Multilingual Matters. https://doi.org/10.21832/9781853599255-009
100. Tiep, N. N. (2017). EFL teachers’ perceptions towards the use of CEFR-V. European Journal of English Language Teaching, 2(4), 74–86. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.820613
101. Tüm, G. (2016). A study on appropriateness of listening activities in TFL coursebooks related to the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages. International Journal of Languages’ Education and Teaching, 4(2), 125–142. https://doi.org/10.18298/ijlet.603
102. Tüm, G., & Emre-Parmaksız, G. (2017). Comparison of speaking activities in Turkish and English language teaching coursebooks regarding self-assesment grid of CEFR. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 13(2), 367–378.
103. Tyler, R. (1949). Basic principles of curriculum and instruction. University of Chicago Press. Uri, N. F. M., & Abd Aziz, M. S. (2020). Ascertaining the suitability of writing syllabus specifications to the CEFR: Subject matter experts’ perspectives. Issues in Language Studies, 9(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.33736/ils.2347.2020
104. Weigle, S. C. (2007). Teaching writing teachers about assessment. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16(3), 194–209. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2007.07.004
105. Weir, C. J. (2005). Language testing and validation: An evidence-based approach. Palgrave Macmillan UK. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230514577
106. Wilkins, M. (2017). Developing a speaking curriculum for EFL learners with the CEFR-J. Kwansei Gakuin University Humanities Review, 22, 91–100.
107. Yıldırım, Ş. S., & Sümengen, S. (2023). A CEFR-based comparison of Cambridge English Teaching Course Book and Ministry of National Education Course Book in terms of writing skills requirements. RumeliDE Dil ve Edebiyat Araştırmaları Dergisi, 33, 1295-1309. https://doi. org/10.29000/rumelide.1286184
108. Yıldırım, E. K., & Şentürk, B. (2022). A review of New Istanbul B1 level textbook writing activities. Research on Education and Psychology, 6(2), 228–235. https://doi.org/10.54535/rep.1209271
109. Zhao, W., Wang, B., Coniam, D., & Xie, B. (2017). Calibrating the CEFR against the China Standards of English for College English vocabulary education in China. Language Testing in Asia, 7(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40468-017-0036-1