International Association of Educators   |  ISSN: 1949-4270   |  e-ISSN: 1949-4289

Original article | Educational Policy Analysis and Strategic Research 2021, Vol. 16(3) 316-335

An Analysis of the Content Knowledge Elective Courses of the ELT Departments: A Suggested Syllabus

Melis Şenol & Kürşat Cesur

pp. 316 - 335   |  DOI: https://doi.org/10.29329/epasr.2021.373.16   |  Manu. Number: MANU-2101-29-0002.R1

Published online: September 20, 2021  |   Number of Views: 17  |  Number of Download: 47


Abstract

This research study took its sprouts from the reform implemented by the Council of Higher Education (CoHE), Turkey in 2018. The recent update has focused not only on the deficiencies of the existing programme but also enhancing the number of the elective courses up to 25 per cent. Correspondingly, CoHe suggested thirteen “Content Knowledge” electives along with granting authorization to universities to add six more electives on demand. Originated with these decision-making exigencies, this two-phased study was planned to disclose the favoured elective of 1093 EFL teachers in the first phase while the focus on the second phase changed direction to a syllabus design on the relevant elective with the guidance of teacher educators. The first phase of the research exploits a mixed method sequential exploratory design involving qualitative and quantitative research paradigms revealing “Current Trends in ELT” as the most favoured elective course, consequently. In the following phase, a further step was taken, and 62 teacher educators were consulted regarding the content of the course. Having analysed the responses by open-coding technique, the theme ‘technology integration’ was found out to be teacher educators’ main concern. Based on this data, the targeted topic-based syllabus was designed around the suggested sub themes of technology integration and ultimately fine-tuned through the lenses of two experts. The study also presented a compilation of teacher educators’ responses which should carefully be scrutinized and utilized by the policy makers and decision-making parties.

Keywords: Current Trends In ELT, Elective Courses, Content Knowledge Courses, Syllabus Design


How to Cite this Article?

APA 6th edition
Senol, M. & Cesur, K. (2021). An Analysis of the Content Knowledge Elective Courses of the ELT Departments: A Suggested Syllabus . Educational Policy Analysis and Strategic Research, 16(3), 316-335. doi: 10.29329/epasr.2021.373.16

Harvard
Senol, M. and Cesur, K. (2021). An Analysis of the Content Knowledge Elective Courses of the ELT Departments: A Suggested Syllabus . Educational Policy Analysis and Strategic Research, 16(3), pp. 316-335.

Chicago 16th edition
Senol, Melis and Kursat Cesur (2021). "An Analysis of the Content Knowledge Elective Courses of the ELT Departments: A Suggested Syllabus ". Educational Policy Analysis and Strategic Research 16 (3):316-335. doi:10.29329/epasr.2021.373.16.

References
  1. Akbay, A., & Cesur, K. (2019). Views on general knowledge elective courses of ELT departments: Suggested syllabus for diction course. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 15(4), 1332-1354. https://doi.org/10.17263/jlls.668465 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  2. Altan, M. Z. (1998).  A call for change and pedagogy: A critical analysis of teacher education in Turkey. European Journal of Education, 33(4), 407-417. [Google Scholar]
  3. Altman, H. B., & Cashin, W. E. (1992). Writing a syllabus. Idea Paper, 27, 3-5. Kansas State University Center for Faculty Evaluation and Development, Division of Continuing Education: Manhattan. Retrieved on the 10th March from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED395539.pdf [Google Scholar]
  4. Amjah, D. Y. P. H. (2014). A study of teachers’ strategies to develop students’ interest towards learning English as a second language. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 134, 188–192. https://doi.org/doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.04.238 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  5. Attride-Stirling, J. (2001). Thematic networks: An analytic tool for qualitative research. Qualitative Research, 1(3), 385-405. [Google Scholar]
  6. Aydoğan, İ., & Çilsal, Z. (2007). Yabancı dil öğretmenlerinin yetiştirilme süreci (Türkiye ve diğer ülkeler). Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 22, 179-197. [Google Scholar]
  7. Bailey, K. D. (1994). Methods of social research. New York: Free Press. [Google Scholar]
  8. Başal, A. (2015). İngilizce öğretmenleri ve teknoloji eğitim. Eğitimde Kuram ve Uygulama, 11(4), 485-507. Retrieved from https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/eku/issue/5467/74252 [Google Scholar]
  9. Başal, A., Yılmaz, S., Tanrıverdi, A., & Sarı, L. (2016). Effectiveness of mobile applications in vocabulary teaching. Contemporary Educational Technology, 7(1), 47-59. https://doi.org/10.30935/cedtech/6162 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  10. Berg, B. L., & Lune, H. (2017). Qualitative research methods for the social sciences (9th ed.). Boston: Pearson. [Google Scholar]
  11. Binbaşıoğlu, C. (1995). Türkiye’de eğitim bilimleri tarihi. İstanbul: Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı Yayınları.  [Google Scholar]
  12. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77-101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  13. Chinnery, G. M. (2006). Going to the MALL: Mobile assisted language learning. Language Learning & Technology, 10(1), 9-16. Retrieved September 12, 2019 from http://llt.msu.edu/vol10num1/pdf/emerging.pdf  [Google Scholar]
  14. Council of Higher Education (2018). The undergraduate teacher education programs. Retrieved November 2, 2018 from https://www.yok.gov.tr/Documents/Kurumsal/egitim_ogretim_dairesi/Yeni-Ogretmen-Yetistirme-Lisans Programlari/AA_Sunus_%20Onsoz_Uygulama_Yonergesi.pdf. [Google Scholar]
  15. Coşkun, A., & Daloğlu, A. (2010). Evaluating an English language teacher education program through Peacock’s model. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 35(6), 24-42. http://dx.doi.org/10.14221/ajte.2010v35n6.2 [Google Scholar]
  16. Coşkun, H. (2008). Türkiye ve Almanya’da yabancı dil öğretmeni yetiştirme programlarının karşılaştırılması. C.Ü. Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 33(1), 61-73. [Google Scholar]
  17. Coşgun-Ögeyik, M. (2009). Evaluation of English language teaching education curriculum by student teachers. Bilim, Eğitim ve Düşünce Dergisi, 9(1), 42-57. [Google Scholar]
  18. Creswell, J.  W.  (2014). Research design:  Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (4th ed.). Sage Publications, Inc. [Google Scholar]
  19. Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2007). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. [Google Scholar]
  20. Egbert, J., Paulus, T. M., & Nakamichi, Y. (2002). The impact of CALL instruction on classroom computer use: A foundation for rethinking technology in teacher education. Language and Learning & Technology, 6(3), 108 – 126.  [Google Scholar]
  21. Graham, C. R. (2006). Blended learning systems definition, current trends, and future directions. In C. J. Bonk, and R. Graham (Eds.) (2006). The Handbook of blended learning: Global perspectives, local designs. San Francisco: Pfeiffer.  [Google Scholar]
  22. Gürler, İ. (2018). Evaluation of the current curriculum in ELT departments from the perspectives of lecturers and students: A needs analysis (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Atatürk University, Institute of Educational Sciences, Erzurum, Turkey.  [Google Scholar]
  23. Güven, I. (2008). Teacher education reform and international globalization hegemony: Issues and challenges in Turkish teacher education. World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology, 16, 625-634. [Google Scholar]
  24. Hall, L. D., Fisher, C., Musanti, S., & Halquist, D. (2006). Professional development in teacher education: What can we learn from PT3?. Techtrends: Linking Research and Practice to Improve Learning, 50(3), 25-31. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11528-006-7600-3 [Google Scholar]
  25. Hubbard, P. (2008). CALL and the future of language teacher education. CALICO Journal, 25, 175-188.  [Google Scholar]
  26. Ivankova, N. V., Creswell, J. W., & Stick, S. L. (2006). Using mixed methods sequential explanatory design: From theory to practice. Field Methods, 18(1), 3–20. https://doi.org/10.1177/1525822X05282260 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  27. Jarvis, H. (2015). From PPP and CALL/MALL to a praxis of task-based teaching and mobile assisted language use. Teaching English as a Second or Foreign Language Electronic Journal, 19(1), 1-10.  [Google Scholar]
  28. Javadi, M., & Zarea, M. (2016). Understanding tematic analysis and its pitfalls. Journal of Client Care, 1(1), 33-39. https://doi.org/10.15412/J.JCC.02010107 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  29. Jones, J. (2001). CALL and the teacher’s role in promoting learner autonomy. CALL-EJ Online, 3(1), 1-15.  [Google Scholar]
  30. Karakaş, A. (2012). Evaluation of the English language teacher education program in Turkey. ELT Weekly, 4(15), 1-16. [Google Scholar]
  31. Kartal, E. (2005). Bilişim-iletişim teknolojileri ve dil öğretim enstitüsü. TOJET: The Turkish online Journal of Educational Technology, 4(4), 82-87.  [Google Scholar]
  32. Kessler, G. (2006). Assessing CALL teacher training. In P. Hubbard & M. Levy (Eds.), Teacher education in CALL (pp. 23–42). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins. http://dx.doi.org/10.1075/lllt.14.05kes [Google Scholar]
  33. Kırkgöz, Y. (2005). English language teaching in Turkey: Challenges for the 21st century, In G. Braine (Ed.), Teaching English to the world: History, curriculum, and practice (pp. 159-175). Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.  [Google Scholar]
  34. Kırkgöz, Y. (2007). English language teaching in Turkey: Policy changes and their implementations. RELC Journal, 38(2), 216-228. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0033688207079696 [Google Scholar]
  35. Kirschner, P., & Selinger, M. (2003). The state of affairs of teacher education with respect to information and communication technology. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 12(1), 5-17. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14759390300200149 [Google Scholar]
  36. Köksal, D., & Ulum, Ö. G. (2018). The state of EFL teacher education in Turkey: From past to present. ELT Research Journal, 7(4), 161-174.  [Google Scholar]
  37. Krosnick, J. A., & Fabrigar, L. R. (2013). The handbook of questionnaire design. New York: Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar]
  38. Kukulska-Hulme, A., & Shield L. (2008). An overview of mobile assisted language learning: From content delivery to supported collaboration and interaction. ReCALL, 20(3), http://dx.doi.org/271-289. 10.1017/S0958344008000335 [Google Scholar]
  39. Meyer, D. Z., & Avery, L. M. (2009). Excel as a qualitative data analysis tool. Field Methods, 21(1), 91-112. https://doi.org/10.1177/1525822X08323985 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  40. Padurean, A., & Margan, M. (2009). Foreign language teaching via ICT. Revista de Informaticã Socialã, 7(12), 97-101. Retrieved September 13, 2019 from http://www.ris.uvt.ro/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/apadurean.pdf [Google Scholar]
  41. Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants. On the Horizon, 9(5), 1-6. Retrieved October 20, 2019 from http://www.marcprensky.com/writing/default.asp [Google Scholar]
  42. Sağlam, M., & Kürüm, D. (2005). Türkiye ve Avrupa Birliği ülkelerinde öğretmen eğitiminde yapısal düzenlemeler ve öğretmen adaylarının seçimi. Milli Eğitim Dergisi, 167, 53-70. [Google Scholar]
  43. Salı, P. (2008). Novice EFL teachers’ perceived challenges and support needs in their journey to become effective teachers (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Anadolu University, Institute of Educational Sciences, Eskişehir,Turkey.  [Google Scholar]
  44. Salihoğlu, U. M. (2012). Pre-service English language teacher education: The Turkish case. Contemporary Online Language Education Journal, 2(1), 151-168. [Google Scholar]
  45. Sanlı, S. (2009). Comparison of the English language teaching (ELT) departments’ curricula in Turkey’s education faculties. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 1(1), 838-843. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2009.01.150 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  46. Seferoğlu, G. (2006). Teacher candidates’ reflections on some components of a pre-service English teacher education programme in Turkey. Journal of Education for Teaching, 32(4), 369-378. https://doi.org/10.1080/02607470600981953 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  47. Singer, E., & Couper, M. P. (2017). Some methodological uses of responses to open questions and other verbatim comments in quantitative surveys. Methods, data, analyses: a journal for quantitative methods and survey methodology (mda), 11(2), 115-134. https://doi.org/10.12758/mda.2017.01 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  48. Şallı-Çopur, D. S. (2008). Teacher effectiveness in the initial years of service: A case study on the graduates of METU language education program (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Middle East Technical University, Institution of Social Sciences, Ankara, Turkey. [Google Scholar]
  49. Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (1998). Mixed methodology: Combining qualitative and quantitative approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. [Google Scholar]
  50. Yaman, I., Ekmekçi, E., & Şenel, M. (Eds.). (2016). Current trends in ELT. Ankara: NÜANS. [Google Scholar]
  51. Yanguas, I., & Flores, A. (2014). Learners’ willingness to communicate in face-to-face versus oral computer-mediated communication. The JALT CALL Journal, 10(2), 83-103. https://doi.org/10.29140/jaltcall.v10n2.169 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  52. Yavuz, A. & Zehir-Topkaya, E. (2013) Teacher educators’ evaluation of the English language teaching program: A Turkish Case. Novitas-ROYAL (Research on Youth and Language), 7(1), 64-83. [Google Scholar]