SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Kuramsal Eğitimbilim Dergisi / 2026 / Cilt: 14 Sayı: 2

A CEFR-based Comparison of English and Turkish Language Teaching Course Books in Terms of Speaking and Writing Skills

İbrahim Fatih Demirel(KASTAMONU ÜNİVERSİTESİ, EĞİTİM FAKÜLTESİ)0000-0002-9647-2672
Özlem Fakazlı(Kastamonu Üniversitesi)0000-0003-4509-607X
Pages
167–185
Publication Date
2021-04-27
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Basically, the study concluded that ‘interaction’ skills in Headway and ‘production’ skills in Yeni Istanbul are prioritized.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This study aims to investigate to what extent the competences in the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR) (Council of Europe, 2001) are fulfilled in language teaching course books in terms of productive skills (speaking-writing) in foreign / second language teaching.
📊
Key Findings & Data:According to the content analysis, it was observed that there were differences and similarities in both course books in terms of the implementation of CEFR and the representation of A2 level descriptors.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Basically, the study concluded that ‘interaction’ skills in Headway and ‘production’ skills in Yeni Istanbul are prioritized.
🔬Design:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Scope:2001 Verileri
⚙️Variables:CEFR · foreign/second language teaching course books · speaking skill

Abstract

This study aims to investigate to what extent the competences in the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR) (Council of Europe, 2001) are fulfilled in language teaching course books in terms of productive skills (speaking-writing) in foreign / second language teaching. More specifically, in the study, speaking and writing activities in Headway for teaching English as a foreign/second language and in Yeni İstanbul for teaching Turkish as a foreign/second language, which were said to have been developed based on CEFR, were examined and compared in terms of the compatibility with the competences specified in the CEFR through content analysis. At this point, the distinction of ‘writing / speaking as a production skill’ and ‘writing / speaking as an interaction skill’ defined in the CEFR has been used in the detailed analysis of the activities. According to the content analysis, it was observed that there were differences and similarities in both course books in terms of the implementation of CEFR and the representation of A2 level descriptors. Although both course books claim that they have been developed with reference to the CEFR, findings showed that they do not reach the learning outcomes in terms of speaking and writing skills related to ‘interaction’ and ‘production’ specified in the CEFR at the same rate. Basically, the study concluded that ‘interaction’ skills in Headway and ‘production’ skills in Yeni Istanbul are prioritized. The results also emphasize that these two course books need to be revised and reorganized to reflect the CEFR at A2 level.

🔖

Cite This Article

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. Kuramsal Eğitimbilim Dergisi, Cilt: 14 Sayı: 2, 167–185. https://doi.org/10.30831/akukeg.851117

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (26)

  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). Çukurova University, Adana.
  2. 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.
  3. British Council. (2008). Teaching English: Course books. London.
  4. Büyüköztürk, Ş., Kılıç-Çakmak, E., Akgün, Ö. E., Karadeniz, Ş., & Demirel, F. (2019). Eğitimde bilimsel araştırma yöntemleri (27. basım). Ankara: Pegem Akademi.
  5. Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2007). Research methods in education (6th Edition). New York: Taylor & Francis.
  6. Council of Europe (2001). Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, teaching, assessment - Companion volume, Council of Europe Publishing, Strasbourg. Retrieved December 22, 2020 from https://rm.coe.int/1680459f97.
  7. Council of Europe (2020). Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, teaching, assessment – Companion volume, Council of Europe Publishing, Strasbourg. Retrieved December 22, 2020 from https://rm.coe.int/common-european-framework-of-reference-for-languages-learning-teaching/16809ea0d4.
  8. Creswell, J. (2018). Nitel araştırma yöntemleri (4.Baskı) (M. Bütün ve S.B. Demir Çev.Ed.). Ankara: Siyasal Kitabevi.
  9. Dincer, A., & Koç, H. K. (2020). The implementation of an intensive English language program in the fifth grade in Turkey: A qualitative evaluation. Journal of Theoretical Educational Science, 13(1), 25-43. http://doi.org/10.30831/akukeg.532955
  10. Ekiz, D. (2009). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemleri (Geliştirilmiş 2. baskı). Ankara: Anı Yayıncılık.
  11. Enever, J., Moon, J., & Raman, U. (2009). Young learner English language policy and implementation: International perspectives. Garnet Publishing.
  12. Fişne, F. N., Güngör, M. N., Guerra, L., & Gonçalves, O. (2018). A CEFR-based Comparison of ELT Curriculum and Course Books used in Turkish and Portuguese Primary Schools. Novitas-ROYAL (Research on Youth and Language), 12(2), 129-151.
  13. Karakaya-Özyer, K., & Yıldız, Z. (2020). Country-of-origin and International Students’ Motivation in Turkey: A Correspondence Analysis. Journal of Theoretical Educational Science, 13(1), 44-64. https://www.doi.org/10.30831/akukeg.533005
  14. Karasar, N. (2020). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemi (35. basım). Ankara: Nobel Akademik Yayıncılık.
  15. 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.
  16. 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.
  17. Merriam, S. B. (2013). Nitel araştırma: Desen ve uygulama için bir rehber (S. Turan, Çev. Ed.). Ankara: Nobel Akademik Yayıncılık.
  18. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis (2nd Ed.). United
  19. Tok, M., & Yıgın, M. (2013). Yabancı uyruklu öğrencilerin Türkçe öğrenme nedenlerine ilişkin bir durum çalışması. Dil ve Edebiyat Eğitimi Dergisi, 8, 132-147.
  20. Tomlinson, B. (2012). Material development for language learning and teaching. Language Teaching, 45(2), 143-179.
  21. Tuzcu-Eken, D., & Dilidüzgün, Ş. (2014). The types and the functions of the listening activities in Turkish and English course books. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Science, 152, 989 -994.
  22. Tüm, G. (2017). Yabancı dil olarak Türkçe öğretimi ders kitaplarına yöntemsel bakış: Tümevarım ve tümdengelim yöntemleri. Turkish Studies, 12, 491-500.
  23. Tüm, G., & Parmaksız-Emre, 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.
  24. Uzun, N. (2012). Türkçenin dünya dilleri arasındaki yeri üzerine. Türkoloji Dergisi, 19(2), 115-134.
  25. Ünlü, A. (2015). A Comparison of the presentation of grammar and grammar exercises in Hitit 1 and Yeni Hitit 1. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Yabancı Dil Olarak Türkçe Araştırmaları Dergisi, 2(2), 137-150.
  26. Yıldırım, A., & Şimşek, H. (2013). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri. Ankara: Seçkin Yayıncılık.