A CEFR-based comparison of Cambridge English Teaching Course Book and Ministry of National Education Course Book in terms of writing skills requirements

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to determine the extent to which the competencies outlined in the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR) are met in English language teaching course books in terms of writing skills in foreign language instruction. With this in mind, writing exercises from the public school textbooks “That's It” for teaching English as a foreign language and “Own It Two” for teaching English as a foreign language were contrasted and evaluated in terms of their conformity with the CEFR's listed writing skills. The analysis of these two books was made on writing activities. The correspondence, coherence and creative writing skills in the CEFR and the total number of activities were taken into account. As a consequence of the content analysis, it was discovered that the book "Own It 2" included more writing activities, the writing activities in the book "That's It" were observed less. However, when the use of coherence, correspondence and creative writing skills in activities is examined, it seems that the "That's It" book lags behind the "Own It 2" course book. Although both course books assert to have been produced in accordance with the CEFR, research has shown that they do not achieve the learning goals for writing skills according to CEFR at the same rate. Basically, the study reached the conclusion that “Own It 2” and “That's It” emphasize production qualities. The findings also highlight the necessity for these two course books to be updated and restructured to conform to the CEFR at A2 level. This study found that the course books do not progress toward the learning goals for writing skills in the CEFR at the same rate. It turned out that both books needed more updates on the writing skill.

Keywords

• Writing skills
• CEFR criteria
• productive skills
• CEFR levels
• coherence
• correspondence
• creative writing

Kaynakça

1. Balcı, B. (2017). A critical study on ELT course books regarding general competences presented in the common European Framework of references for languages. Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Cukurova University: Adana.
2. Bean, J. C. (2014). Engaging Ideas: The Professor’s Guide to Integrating Writing, Critical Thinking, and Active Learning in the Classroom. FAMILY MEDICINE, 46(2), 143.
3. Bekteshi, E. (2017). English Language teaching and the common European Frame of reference: a comparison of ELT in Portugal and in the Republic of Kosovo. International Journal of ANGLISTICUM Literature, Linguistics Interdisciplinary Studies, 6(1), 40-53.
4. Council, B. (2006). British Council....................................
5. Büyüköztürk, Ş., Kılıç Çakmak, E., Akgün, Ö. E., Karadeniz, Ş., & Demirel, F. (2018). Eğitimde bilimsel araştırma yöntemleri. Ankara: Pegem Akademi.
6. Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2007). edition 6. Research methods in education.
7. Creswell, J. (2018). Nitel araştırma yöntemleri (4.Baskı) (M. Bütün ve S.B. Demir Çev.Ed.). Ankara: Siyasal Kitabevi.
8. Demirel, I. F., & Fakazli, 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.

9. Duman, T., Karakaya, N., ÇAKMAK, M., Eray, M., & Özkan, M. (2001). Konu Alanı Ders Kitabı İnceleme Kılavuzu: Matematik.
10. Eken, D. T., & Dilidüzgün, Ş. (2014). The types and the functions of the listening activities in Turkish and English course books. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 152, 989-994.
11. Ekiz, D. (2009). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemleri (Geliştirilmiş 2. baskı). Ankara: Anı Yayıncılık.
12. Enever, J., Moon, J., & Raman, U. (2009). Young learner English language policy and implementation: International perspectives. Garnet Publishing.
13. Guerra, L., Gonçalves, O., Fisne, F. N., & Gungor, M. N. (2018). A CEFR-based comparison of ELT curriculum and course books used in Turkish and Portuguese primary schools.
14. Karakaya-Özyer, K., & Yildiz, Z. (2020). Country-of-origin and international students’ motivation in Turkey: A correspondence analysis. Journal of Theoretical Educational Science, 13(1), 44-64.
15. Karasar, N. (2016). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemi,(31. Basım) Ankara: Nobel Akademik Yayıncılık.
16. Kennedy, C., & Tomlinson, B. (2013). Implementing language policy and planning through materials development. In B. Tomlinson (Ed.), Applied linguistics and materials development, (pp. 255-267). India: Bloomsbury.
17. Kırkgöz, Y. (2008). A case study of teachers’ implementation of curriculum innovation in English language teaching in Turkish primary education. Teaching and teacher education, 24(7), 1859-1875.
18. Klimova, B. F. (2014). Approaches to the teaching of writing skills. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 112, 147-151.
19. Krashen, S. (2009). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. Retrieved December 4, 2020 from http://www.sdkrashen.com/content/books/principles_and_practice.pdf.
20. Küçükahmet, L. (Editör), (2011), Konu Alanı Ders Kitabı İnceleme Kılavuzu (Ed. Leyla Küçükahmet), Nobel Yayın Dağıtım, Ankara.
21. Lakshminarayanan KR & Murugavel T. (2008). Communication Skills for Engineers, Chennai: Scitech Publications Pvt. Ltd,
22. Martínez-Ciprés, H. E. L. G. A. (2016). La interacción como herramienta para mejorar la producción escrita: Un estudio de caso. E-AESLA, 2, 85-94.
23. Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2015). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. John Wiley & Sons.
24. Morrow, K. (Ed.). (2004). Insights from the common European framework. Oxford University Press.
25. Moore, K. (2016). Study: Poor writing skills are costing businesses billions. Inc. com, 31.
26. Sreena, S., & Ilankumaran, M. (2018). Developing productive skills through receptive skills–a cognitive approach. International Journal of Engineering & Technology, 7(4.36), 669-673.
27. Tok, M., & Yıgın, M. (2013). Yabancı Uyruklu Öğrencilerin Türkçe Öğrenme Nedenlerine İlişkin Bir Durum Çalışması. Dil ve Edebiyat Egitimi Dergisi, 2(8).
28. Tüm, G. (2017). Yabanci Dil Olarak Türkçe Öğretimi Ders Kitaplarına Yöntemsel Bakış: Tümevarım ve Tümdengelim Yöntemleri. Electronic Turkish Studies, 12(33).
29. 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.
30. Uzun, N. E. (2012). Türkçenin dünya dilleri arasındaki yeri üzerine. Türkoloji dergisi, 19(2), 115-134.
31. Ünlü, A. (2015). A Comparison of the presentation of grammar and grammar exercises in Hitit 1 and Yeni Hitit 1. Hacettepe University. Yabancı Dil Olarak Türkçe Araştırmaları Dergisi. Yıl, 2, 137-150.
32. Totanes, K. (2020,). The CEFR: Why it's important for language teachers like you. The English Blog. https://theenglishblog.com/2020/05/the-cefr-why-its-important-for-language-teachers-like-you/
33. Walsh, K. (2010). The importance of writing skills: Online tools to encourage success.
34. Şimşek, H., & Yıldırım, A. (2011). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri. Ankara: Seçkin Yayıncılık, 432, 113-118.