Akdeniz Eğitim Araştırmaları Dergisi
Abbreviation: MJER | ISSN (Print): 1309-0682 | DOI: 10.29329/mjer

Orjinal Araştırma Makalesi | Akdeniz Eğitim Araştırmaları Dergisi 2020, Cil. 14(34) 510-528

A Critical Analysis of the 2014 and 2018 High Schools Elt Curricula of Turkey

Ahmet Acar

ss. 510 - 528   |  DOI: https://doi.org/10.29329/mjer.2020.322.24

Yayın tarihi: Aralık 25, 2020  |   Okunma Sayısı: 33  |  İndirilme Sayısı: 30


Özet

This study explores what new contributions the 2018 ELT curriculum for high schools with no foreign language preparatory classes in Turkey brought by comparing it with the previous ELT curriculum for high schools with no foreign language preparatory classes, namely, the 2014 high school ELT curriculum by utilizing document analysis as a form of qualitative research. Because of word limitation, the ELT curriculum for high schools with foreign language preparatory classes was excluded from the study and only 12th-grade syllabi in both curricula are compared. The result of the analysis indicates that many parts of the theoretical background of the 2018 ELT curriculum for high schools are copied (without citation) from the theoretical background of the 2014 ELT curriculum for high schools. The new contribution in the theoretical background of the 2018 ELT curriculum is observed to be the inclusion of ‘ethics and values education’, which is explained in only half of the page. There is no difference between the two curricula in terms of the treatment of needs analysis, assessment and evaluation and the use of mother tongue in the classroom. Minor revisions are observed in goal and objectives, content (syllabus), approach and method, materials and weekly class hours.

Anahtar Kelimeler: English Curriculum For High Schools, Curriculum Evaluation, Syllabus Design, Approach and Method


Bu makaleye nasıl atıf yapılır?

APA 6th edition
Acar, A. (2020). A Critical Analysis of the 2014 and 2018 High Schools Elt Curricula of Turkey . Akdeniz Eğitim Araştırmaları Dergisi, 14(34), 510-528. doi: 10.29329/mjer.2020.322.24

Harvard
Acar, A. (2020). A Critical Analysis of the 2014 and 2018 High Schools Elt Curricula of Turkey . Akdeniz Eğitim Araştırmaları Dergisi, 14(34), pp. 510-528.

Chicago 16th edition
Acar, Ahmet (2020). "A Critical Analysis of the 2014 and 2018 High Schools Elt Curricula of Turkey ". Akdeniz Eğitim Araştırmaları Dergisi 14 (34):510-528. doi:10.29329/mjer.2020.322.24.

Kaynakça
  1. Acar, A. (2010). On EIL competence. Journal of English as an International Language, 5, 11-26.  [Google Scholar]
  2. Acar, A. (2018). Evaluating goals and methodologies in the Turkish primary school ELT curriculum. Milli Eğitim, 47(219), 5-18. [Google Scholar]
  3. Acar, A. (2019). The action-oriented approach: Integrating democratic citizenship education into language teaching. English Scholars Beyond Borders Journal, 5(1), 122-141.  [Google Scholar]
  4. Acar, A. (2020a).  Transforming communicative tasks into mini-projects.  Elementary Education Online, 19 (3), 1660-1668.  [Google Scholar]
  5. Acar, A. (2020b). An analysis of the English textbook ‘let’s learn English’ in terms of the action-oriented approach, Turkish Studies – Educational Sciences, 15(3), 1449-1458.  [Google Scholar]
  6. Acar, A. (2020c). Social-action-based textbook design in ELT. English Scholarship Beyond Borders, 6 (1), 27-40. [Google Scholar]
  7. Alptekin, C. (2002). Towards intercultural communicative competence in ELT. ELT Journal, 56(1), 57-64.  [Google Scholar]
  8. Bowen, G.A. (2009). Document analysis as a qualitative research method.  Qualitative Research Journal, 9(2), 27-40.  [Google Scholar]
  9. Brown, J. D. (1995). The elements of language curriculum. Heinle and Heinle Publishers: Boston. [Google Scholar]
  10. Canale, M., & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics, 1, 1-47.  [Google Scholar]
  11. Cook, V. (1999). Going beyond the native speaker in language teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 33(2), 185-210.  [Google Scholar]
  12. Council of Europe (CoE). (2001). Common European framework of reference for languages: Learning, teaching, assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar]
  13. Council of Europe (CoE). 2018.  Common European framework of reference for languages: Learning, teaching, assessment. Companion volume with new descriptors. Retrieved from https://rm.coe.int/cefr-companion-volume-with-new-descriptors-2018/1680787989 [Google Scholar]
  14. Ekşi, G. Y. (2017). Designing curriculum for second and foreign language studies. In A. Sarıçoban (Ed.), ELT Methodology (pp. 39-60). Anı Yayıncılık: Ankara. [Google Scholar]
  15. Handler, B. (2010). Teacher as curriculum leader: A consideration of the appropriateness of that role assignment to classroom-based practitioners. International Journal of Teacher Leadership, 3(3), 32-42. [Google Scholar]
  16. Hymes, D. (1972). On communicative competence. In J. Pride & J. Holmes, (Eds.), Sociolinguistics (pp. 269- 93). Harmondsworth: Penguin. [Google Scholar]
  17. Jenkins, J. (2003). World Englishes. London: Routledge. [Google Scholar]
  18. Jenkins, J. (2006). Points of view and blind spots: ELF and SLA. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 16(2), 137-291.  [Google Scholar]
  19. Karakaya, N. & Hatipoğlu, Ç. (2017). Attitudes of EFL teachers in Turkey context towards teaching English varieties in their lessons. Journal of Educational and Instructional Studies in the World, 7(3), 41-48. [Google Scholar]
  20. McKay, S. L. (2002). Teaching English as an international language: Rethinking goals and approaches. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar]
  21. McKay, S.  L. (2003). Toward an appropriate EIL pedagogy: Re-examining common ELT assumptions. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 13(1), 1-22.  [Google Scholar]
  22. Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı, (MEB) [Turkish Ministry of National Education]. (2013). İlköğretim kurumları (ilkokullar ve ortaokullar) İngilizce dersi (2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ve 8. sınıflar) öğretim programı [Primary education institutions (primary and secondary schools) English language teaching program (Grades 2-8)]. Ankara: T.C. Millî Eğitim Bakanlığı.  [Google Scholar]
  23. Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı  ̧ (MEB) [Turkish Ministry of National Education]. (2018). İngilizce Dersi öğretim programı (ilkokul ve ortaokul 2,3,4,5,6,7 ve 8. sınıflar) [English language teaching program (primary and secondary schools grades 2,3,4,5,6,7 and 8)]. Ankara: T.C. Millî Eğitim Bakanlığı. [Google Scholar]
  24. Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı¸ (MEB) [Turkish Ministry of National Education]. (2014). Ortaöğretim İngilizce Dersi  (9, 10, 11 ve 12. sınıflar) Öğretim Programı [English Language Teaching Program (High Schools Grades 9, 10, 11 and 12)]. Ankara: T.C. Millî Eğitim Bakanlığı. [Google Scholar]
  25. Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı¸ (MEB) [Turkish Ministry of National Education]. (2018). Ortaöğretim İngilizce Dersi  (9, 10, 11 ve 12. sınıflar) Öğretim Programı [English Language Teaching Program (High Schools Grades 9, 10, 11 and 12)]. Ankara: T.C. Millî Eğitim Bakanlığı. [Google Scholar]
  26. Nunan, D. (1988). Syllabus design. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar]
  27. Nunn, R. (2005). Competence and teaching English as an international language. Asian EFL Journal, 7(3), 61-74. [Google Scholar]
  28. Nunn, R. (2007). Redefining communicative competence for international and local communities. The Journal of English as an international language, 2(2), 7-49. [Google Scholar]
  29. Nunn, R. (2011). From defining to developing competence in EIL and intercultural communication. Journal of English as an International Language, 6(1), 21-46. [Google Scholar]
  30. Piccardo, E., & North, B. (2019). The Action-oriented approach: a dynamic vision of language education. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.  [Google Scholar]
  31. Puren, C. (2008). De l'approche communicative à la perspective actionnelle, et de l'interculturel au co-culturel. Retrieved from https://www.christianpuren.com/mes-travaux/2008e/. [Google Scholar]
  32. Puren, C. (2014a). Approche communicative et perspective actionnelle, deux organismes méthodologiques génétiquement opposés… et complémentaires. Retrieved from   https://www.christianpuren.com/mes-travaux/2014a/. [Google Scholar]
  33. Puren, C. (2014b).  La pédagogie de projet dans la mise en œuvre de la perspective actionnelle. Retrieved from https://www.christianpuren.com/mes-travaux/2014b/ [Google Scholar]
  34. Puren, C. (2017). Opérations cognitives (proaction, métacognition, régulation) et activités fonda-mentales (rétroactions, évaluations) de la démarche de projet. Retrieved from https://www.christianpuren.com/mes-travaux/2017a/ [Google Scholar]
  35. Puren, C.  (2019). De la tâche finale au mini-projet:un exemple concret d’analyse et de manipulation didactiques. Retrieved from file:///C:/Users/User/Downloads/PUREN_2019f_Tache_finale_a_mini-projet%20(1).pdf [Google Scholar]
  36. Puren, C. (2020).  From an internationalized communicative approach to contextualised plurimethodological approaches. Retrieved from https://www.christianpuren.com/mes-travaux/2020c-en/ [Google Scholar]
  37. Rogers, T. (1989). Syllabus design, curriculum development and policy determination. In R. K. Johnson (ed.), The second language curriculum. New York: Cambridge University Press. 24-34. [Google Scholar]
  38. Seidlhofer, B. (2001). Closing a conceptual gap: The case for a description of English as a     lingua franca. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 11(2), 133-58.  [Google Scholar]
  39. Seidlhofer, B. (2004). Research perspectives on teaching English as a lingua franca. Annual      Review of Applied Linguistics, 24, 209-239.  [Google Scholar]
  40. Taba, H. (1962). Curriculum development: Theory and practice. New York: Harcourt Brace. [Google Scholar]
  41. White, R. V. (1988). The ELT curriculum. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers. [Google Scholar]
  42. Yeni-Palabiyik, P., & Daloğlu, A. (2016). English language teachers' implementation of curriculum with action-oriented approach in Turkish primary education classrooms. Journal on English Language Teaching, (6)2, 45-57.    [Google Scholar]
  43. Yüce & Mirici (2019). A qualitative inquiry into the application of 9th grade EFL program in terms of the CEFR. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 15(3), 1171-1187. [Google Scholar]
  44. Zorba M.G., & Arıkan A., (2016). A study of Anatolian high schools’ 9th grade English language curriculum in relation to the CEFR. Uşak Üniversitesi Eğitim Araştırmaları Dergisi, 2(2), 13-24.  [Google Scholar]