English education in Turkey: Why are we ‘very low level’?

Abstract

In the education policy of countries, FL education has never played such an important role as it has recently done. Most of the countries decreased FL learning age to the early years of education with a wide array of reasons ranging from the increasing interactions among nations to finding a prosperous occupation. Whatever the reason, every stakeholder expects the results of FL education to be satisfying. However, though some countries achieve better results, some others still fail to succeed as in Turkey. In Turkey, even at tertiary education most of the students are not so good at English which is also officially registered by some tests. Therefore, the current study aimed to scrutinize primary and secondary level English education in Turkey, to compare it to the countries that are among the most successful in learning FLs and in this respect to make suggestions for the improvement of FL education in Turkey. This qualitative study hinged on document analysis of relevant research and texts. As a result, it was found that on paper there are not so many differences among countries. However, having a centralized curriculum in all levels of education, problems in teacher education and training, and incompatibility of FL assessment practices to international tests and to the aims of language teaching are the issues that come into prominence in Turkish FL education and they require immediate action.

Keywords

• assessment
• comparative analysis
• compulsory education
• English education
• teacher education

Türkiye’de İngilizce eğitimi: Neden ‘çok düşük seviyeyiz’?

Öz

Yabancı dil eğitimi yakın zamana kadar ülkelerin eğitim politikasında hiç bu kadar önemli bir rol oynamamıştır. Ülkeler arasındaki etkileşimin artmasından başarılı bir meslek bulmaya kadar çok çeşitli nedenlerle çoğu ülke yabancı dil öğrenme yaşını eğitimin ilk yıllarına kadar indirmiştir. Nedeni ne olursa olsun her paydaş yabancı dil eğitiminin sonuçlarının tatmin edici olmasını bekler. Ancak bazı ülkeler daha iyi sonuçlar elde ederken, bazıları ise Türkiye’de olduğu gibi başarısız olmaktadır. Türkiye’de yükseköğretimde okuyan öğrencilerin dahi İngilizcede çok iyi olmadıkları bir gerçektir ve birçok uluslararası testlerle de bu durum tescillenmiştir. Bu yüzden bu çalışmada Türkiye'deki İngilizce eğitimini incelemek ve yabancı dil öğrenmede en başarılı ülkelerle Türkiye’yi karşılaştırmak bu sayede de Türkiye’deki yabancı dil eğitiminin geliştirilmesi için öneriler getirmek amaçlanmıştır. Bu nitel çalışma, ilgili araştırma ve metinlerin analizine dayanmaktadır. Sonuç olarak, kâğıt üzerinde ülkeler arasında çok fazla farklılık olmadığı sonucuna ulaşılmıştır. Ancak, eğitimin her kademesinde merkezi bir müfredata sahip olmak, öğretmen eğitimindeki yetersizlikler, dil öğretimindeki problemler ve yabancı dil ölçme ve değerlendirme uygulamalarının uluslararası testlere ve de dil öğretiminin amaçlarına uyumsuzluğu Türk yabancı dil eğitiminde ön plana çıkan ve acil eylem gerektiren konulardır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• değerlendirme
• karşılaştırmalı analiz
• zorunlu eğitim
• İngilizce eğitimi
• öğretmen yetiştirme

Kaynakça

1. Alkan, M. F., & Kartal, Ş. (2018). Comparison of teaching English as a foreign language in Turkey with Denmark, Hungary, and Portugal. Turkish Online Journal of English Language Teaching, 3(1), 10-23.
2. Arıkan, A. (2015). An autoethnography of teaching English to young learners: From theory to practice. Antropologist, 20 (1, 2), 77-85.
3. *Cabau, B. (2014). The “language tournament” within the Swedish school system (1849-1946). Documents pour l’histoire du français langue étrangère ou seconde, 53, 65-89.
4. Croker, R. A. (2009). An introduction to qualitative research. In J. Heigham & R. A. Croker (Ed.). Qualitative research in applied linguistics: A practical introduction (pp. 3-24). London, Great Britain: Palgrave Macmillan.
5. Çomoğlu, İ., & Kic-Drgas, J. (2017). A comparison of English language teacher education programs in Poland and Turkey. Batı Anadolu Eğitim Bilimleri Dergisi, 8(2), 112-121.
6. Doğançay-Aktuna, S., & Kızıltepe, Z. (2005). English in Turkey. World Englishes, 24 (2), 253-265.
7. Education First (2019). English proficiency index: A Ranking of 100 Countries and Regions by English Skills. Retrieved from https://www.ef.com/__/~/media/centralefcom/epi/downloads/full-reports/v9/ef-epi-2019-english.pdf
8. Egel-Pekkanlı, İ. (2009). The yesterday and today of the European language portfolio in Turkey. GEMA Online Journal of Language Studies, 9 (1), 1-15.

9. *Eurydice (2009). Organization of the education system in Hungary 2008/ 2009. Education, Audio-Visual and Culture Executive Agency. Brussels: European Commission. *Eurydice (2011). National system overviews on education systems in Europe and ongoing reforms: Hungary. Brussels: European Commission.
10. *Eurydice (2020). Finland: Single structure education (integrated primary and lower secondary education). Retrieved from https://eacea.ec.europa.eu/national-policies/eurydice/finland/single-structure-education-integrated-primary-and-lower-secondary-education_en
11. *Eurydice (2021). Hungary: Teachers and education staff. Retrieved from https://eacea.ec.europa.eu/national-policies/eurydice/content/teachers-and-education-staff-34_en Fraenkel, J. R. & Wallen, N. E. (2010). How to design and evaluate research in education. New York: McGraw-Hill
12. *Finnish National Board of Education – FNBoE (2016). New national core curriculum for basic education: focus on school culture and integrative approach. Helsinki: Finnish National Board of Education.
13. *Finnish Education in a Nutshell- FEiN (2017). Education in Finland series. Grano, Helsinky: Ministry of Education and Culture.
14. Gürsoy, E. (2018). English teachers’ understanding of the new English language teaching program and their classroom implementations. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 14 (2), 18-33.
15. *Howe, S. (2015). Learning English in Sweden and Japan: An overview. Fukuoka University Review of Literature and Humanities, 48 (1), 97-128.
16. *Huhta, A. & Leontjev D. (2019). Follow-up pilot of a flagship project on early language learning: The final report. University of Jyväskylä, Centre for Applied Language Studies. Retrieved from https://www.jyu.fi/hytk/fi/laitokset/solki/ajankohtaista/julkaisut/huhta-et-al-kielenopetuksen-varhentamisen-karkihankkeen-seurantapilotti-loppuraportti
17. Işık, A. (2008). Where do the mistakes in our foreign language education system stem from? Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 4 (2), 15-26.
18. Irican, E. S. (2017). A comparative study on basic education curricula of Finland and Turkey in foreign language teaching. International Journal of Curriculum and Instruction, 9 (2), 137-156.
19. *Johansson, O. (2001). Swedish school leadership in transition: in search of a democratic, learning and communicative leadership? Pedagogy, Culture and Society, 9 (3), 387-406.
20. Kachru, B. (1983). The Indianization of English: The English language in India. New Delhi: Oxford University Press.
21. *Karakaş, A. (2012). Evaluation of the English language teacher education program in Turkey. ELT Weekly, 4 (15), 1-16.
22. Kırkgöz, Y. (2007). English language teaching in Turkey policy changes and their implementations. RELC Journal, 38(2), 216-228.
23. *Kurki-Suonio, O. (2018). Language teaching in Finland starts at just the wrong time: The minister of education rejoices at the language reform. Uusi Suomi. Retrieved from https://www.uusisuomi.fi/uutiset/suomessa-kielten-opetus-alkaa-juuri-vaaralla-hetkella-opetusministeri-riemuitsee-kieliuudistuksesta/60b3a6ac-80b3-3aac-af72-0d6d2984da22
24. Labuschagne, A. (2003). Qualitative research: Airy fairy or fundamental? The Qualitative Report, 8(1), 100-103.
25. *Lainio, J. (2001). The protection and rejection of minority and majority languages in the Swedish school system. In S. Boyd & L. Huss (Ed.). Managing multilingualism in a European nation-state: Challenges for Sweden (pp. 32–50). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
26. Lenneberg, E.H. (1967). Biological Foundations of Language. New York: John Wiley and Sons.
27. Madalinska-Michalak, J., & Bavli, B. (2018). Challenges in teaching English as a foreign language at schools in Poland and Turkey. European Journal of Teacher Education, 41(5), 688-706.
28. *MoNe (Turkish Ministry of National Education). (2013). İlköğretim Kurumları (İlkokullar ve Ortaokullar) İngilizce Dersi (2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ve 8. Sınıflar) Öğretim Programı. Ankara: T.C. Millî Eğitim Bakanlığı.
29. *MoNE (Turkish Ministry of National Education). (2018). İngilizce dersi öğretim programı: İlkokul ve Ortaokul 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ve 8. Sınıflar. Ankara: T.C. Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı *Ministry of Education and Culture-MoEC (2016). Teacher education in Finland. Retrieved from
30. https://minedu.fi/documents/1410845/4150027/Teacher+education+in+Finland/57c88304-216b-41a7-ab36-7ddd4597b925
31. *Ministry of Education and Research-MoER (2016). OECD review of policies to improve the effectiveness of resource use in schools (school resources review) country background report: Sweden. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/education/school/CBR_OECD_SRR_SE-FINAL.pdf
32. Mufwane, S. (2010). Globalization, global English, and world English(es): Myths and facts. In N. Coupland (Ed.). The handbook of language and globalization (pp. 31-55). Singapore: Blackwell.
33. *Mullis, I. V. S., Martin, M. O., Goh, S., & Cotter, K. (2016). TIMSS 2015 Encyclopedia: Education Policy and Curriculum in Mathematics and Science. Retrieved from http://timssandpirls.bc.edu/timss2015/encyclopedia/countries/hungary/teachers-teacher-education-and-professional-development/
34. Munoz, C. (2014). Contrasting effects of starting age and input on the oral performance of foreign language learners. Applied Linguistics, 35 (4), 463-482.
35. *National Core Curriculum of Hungary- NCCoH (2012). Magyar közlöny. Retrieved from http://www.eli-net.eu/good-practice/examples-of-good-practice/detail/project/national-core-curriculum-of-hungary
36. *OECD (2013). Education policy outlook: Finland. Paris: OECD.
37. *OECD (2015). Education policy outlook: Hungary. Paris: OECD.
38. *OECD (2018). Education policy outlook: Putting student learning at the center. Paris: OECD.
39. *Ostinelli, G. (2009). Teacher education in Italy, Germany, England, Sweden and Finland. European Journal of Education, 44 (2), 291-308.
40. *Öztürk, G. & Aydın, B. (2018). English language teacher education in Turkey: Why do we fail and what policy reforms are needed? AJESI - Anadolu Journal of Educational Sciences International, 9 (1), 181-213.
41. *Öveges, E. (2017). Year of intensive language learning, a special program to rocket Hungarian students’ foreign language proficiency: A success story? Sustainable Multilingualism, 10, 150-174.
42. *Petneki, K. (2009). Teaching foreign languages. Teaching and learning: Concerning observational research on school subjects. Retrieved from https://ofi.oh.gov.hu/teaching-and-learning-090617/teaching-foreign
43. *Sahlberg, P. (2007). Education policies for raising student learning: The Finnish approach. Journal of Education Policy, 22 (2), 147-171.
44. *Saloniemi, S. (2019). Early language teaching and its methods in Finnish primary school. Unpublished Bachelor’s Thesis. University of Jyväskylä, Department of Language and Communication Studies. Finland.
45. Sarıçoban, G. (2012). Foreign language education policies in Turkey. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 46, 2643-2648.
46. *Skolverket (2011). The national agency for education's position assessment. Retrieved from https://www.skolverket.se/publikationer?id=2692
47. *Skolverket (2018). Curriculum for the compulsory school, pre-school class and school-age educare. Stockholm: AB Typoform.
48. *Skolverket (2020a). Conduct and assess national exams in compulsory school. Retrieved from https://www.skolverket.se/undervisning/grundskolan/nationella-prov-i%20grundskolan/genomfora-och-bedoma-prov-i-grundskolan#h-Provresultatetsbetydelseforbetyget
49. *Skolverket, (2020b). Apply for certification with a foreign diploma. Retrieved from https://www.skolverket.se/regler-och-ansvar/lararlegitimation-och-forskollararlegitimation/lararlegitimation-och-forskollararlegitimation-med-utlandsk-examen/lankade-puffar/certification-of-teachers-with-a-foreign-diploma
50. Solak, E. (2016). English teacher training programs in Denmark, Sweden and Turkey. Prodecia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 232, 439-443.
51. *Sundin, K. (2000). English as a first foreign language for young learners: Sweden. In M. Nikolov & H. Curtain (Ed.). An early start: Young learners and modern languages in Europe and beyond (pp. 151-158). Strasbourg: Council of Europe.
52. *Szabó, I. (2008). Foreign language teaching in primary education in Hungary. Encuentro, 17, 23-27.
53. TOEFL IBT (2018). Test and score data: January 2018-December 2019. Retrieved from https://www.toefl-ibt.jp/dcms_media/other/toefl_data.pdf
54. *Toth, J., & Paulsrud, B. (2017). Agency and affordance in translanguaging for learning: Case studies from English-medium instruction in Swedish schools. In B. Paulsrud, J. Rosen, B. Straszer & A. Wedin (Ed.). New Perspectives on Translanguaging and Education (pp. 189-207). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
55. Yıldırım, A. & Şimşek, H. (2011). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri. Ankara: Seçkin.