AN EVALUATION OF PHD ELT PROGRAMS IN TURKEY TÜRKİYE’DEKİ İNGİLİZCE ÖĞRETMENLİĞİ DOKTORA PROGRAMLARININ DEĞERLENDİRİLMESİ Hülya KÜÇÜKOĞLU Submitted to the Graduate School of Educational Sciences of Hacettepe University in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Doctoral Degree in English Language Teaching 2015 ii This is to certify that we have read this dissertation, entitled “An Evaluation of PhD ELT Programs in Turkey”, and that in our opinion it is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Program of English Language Teaching. APPROVAL OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF EDUCATIONAL SCIENCES This is to certify that this dissertation was approved by the aforementioned examining committee members on 31 July 2015 in accordance with the relevant articles of the Rules and Regulations of Hacettepe University Graduate Education, and accepted as a dissertation for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Program of English Language Teaching by the Board of Directors of the Graduate School of Educational Sciences on ………/………/2015 Prof. Dr. Berrin AKMAN Director The Graduate School of Educational Sciences iii AN EVALUATION OF PHD ELT PROGRAMS IN TURKEY Hülya KÜÇÜKOĞLU ABSTRACT This current study aims to evaluate the PhD ELT programs in Turkey in terms of program descriptions, program content, and atmosphere in the department, as well as departmental support and program resources. The study seeks to further explore course components such as research component, linguistics component, educational sciences component, methodology component, and literature and culture courses component. The participants of the study were students enrolled in PhD ELT programs and graduates who had already graduated from those programs. The final aim of the study was to suggest a syllabus for these programs depending on the findings. The study was conducted to shed light on these programs. The study also serves as a needs analysis which was a very important point for the betterment of every ongoing program. An extensive literature review was conducted in order to give a clear picture of the current status of English and the importance of program evaluation in the educational field of study. As data collection instrument, a questionnaire was used in order to get a thorough picture of the current status of these programs. The collected data were analyzed in order to make a general evaluation of PhD ELT programs. Then, the data were exposed to further statistical analysis in order to investigate the influence of every component and aspect listed above in the evaluation of PhD ELT programs on the part of participants. Finally, the last part of the study focused on the evaluation of PhD ELT programs of participating universities. These universities were Hacettepe University, Istanbul University, Boğaziçi University, Ankara University, Gazi University, Çanakkale University, Hacettepe University, Yeditepe University, Çukurova University, Anadolu University, Atatürk University, and Dokuz Eylül University. Based on the analysis of the responses given by the participants, a suggested program for the PhD ELT programs was formed in the last part of the dissertation. iv Keywords: Curriculum, Program Evaluation, PhD ELT Programs, Postgraduate Education Supervisor: Prof. Dr. Mehmet DEMİREZEN, Hacettepe University, Department of Foreign Language Education, Division of English Language Teaching v TÜRKİYE'DEKİ İNGİLİZCE ÖĞRETMENLİĞİ DOKTORA PROGRAMLARININ DEĞERLENDİRMESİ Hülya KÜÇÜKOĞLUĞRETMEN ADAYLARININ ÇOKLU ZEKÂ, DUYGUSAL ZE, ÖĞRENME STİLLERİ VE AKADEMİK BAŞARILARI ARASINDAKİ İLİŞKİLER ÖZ Bu çalışmanın amacı Türkiye’de sunulan ELT doktora programlarını amaçlanan hedefler doğrultusunda öğrenci ve mezun görüşleri alınarak değerlendirmektir. Bu programlar değerlendirirken, program eğitimi sürecine dâhil olan tüm bileşenler de göz önüne alınarak irdelenmiştir. Bu bileşenler arasında bulunan dilbilim, metodoloji, eğitim bilimleri ve edebiyat ve kültür de değerlendirmiştir. Çalışmanın sonunda elde edilmesi amaçlanmış bir diğer konu ise, bu verilerin ışığında bu programlara katkı sağlamak, yeni program önerilerde bulunmak ve Türkiye’de sunulan ELT doktora bölümleri için bir program önermektir. Bu öneriler doğrultusunda programa katkı sağlayacağı düşünülen dersler ve alan bağlamında, değişen dünyanın beklentilerini karşılamakta yetersiz olduğu düşünülen derslerin de programdan çıkarılması öneriler arasında yer almaktadır. Türkiye'deki doktora programların değerlendirmesi amacıyla alan taraması yapılmış ve bu doğrultuda ihtiyacı karşılamak üzere araştırma soruları oluşturulmuştur. Aynı alanda yapılan ve ELT yüksek lisans programlarının değerlendirilmesinde kullanılan veri toplama aracı bu çalışmanın amacına uygun olarak adapte edilmiş ve uygulanmıştır. Veri toplama sürecinin ardından toplanan veriler amaca uygun olan farklı istatiksel analizler kullanarak değerlendirilmiştir. Değerlendirme sürecinde programın hedefleri ve çıktılarının öğrenci ve mezunlardan alınan veriler ışığında ele alınmış ve bu doğrultuda yorumlanmıştır. Çalışmada ayrıca, çalışmanın uygulandığı dönemde yürütülen tüm ELTdoktora programları değerlendirilmiş ve sonuçlar her bir üniversite ve her bir bileşen bağlamında ele alınmıştır. Çalışmada veri toplanan üniversiteler: Hacettepe Üniversitesi, Gazi Üniversitesi, Orta Doğu Teknik Üniversitesi (ODTÜ), Atatürk Üniversitesi, Çukurova Üniversitesi, Yeditepe Üniversitesi ve İstanbul Üniversitesi. Boğaziçi Üniversitesi, Çanakkale Üniversitesi, Çukurova Üniversitesi, Anadolu Üniversitesi ve Ankara Üniversitesi'dir. Çalışmanın sonunda elede edilen veriler ışığında, ders önerilerinde bulunulmuştur. vi Anahtar sözcükler: Öğretim Programı, Program Değerlendirmesi, ELT Doktora Programları, Lisansüstü Eğitim Danışman: Prof. Dr. Mehmet DEMİREZEN, Hacettepe Üniversitesi, Yabancı Dil Eğitimi Anabilim Dalı, İngiliz Dili Eğitimi Bilim Dalı viii ACKNOWLEDEMENTS I would like to express my deepest gratitude to my dissertation supervisor Prof. Dr. Mehmet DEMİREZEN for his invaluable guidance, support, supervision, and encouragement throughout the research study. He has been the driving force in the completion of this dissertation. He has always been a source of motivation. Without his constant scientific guidance, continuous feedback, encouragement, and faith in me, I would not have been able to finish this study. I would also like to thank Assoc. Prof. Dr. Arif SARIÇOBAN for all his contributions, insight and inspiration especially at the beginning of the study, and feedback and support throughout the study. His valuable comments, suggestions and providing relevant references and insight throughout the research have contributed significantly to this study. I am also grateful for the invaluable insights and recommendations put forth by Asst. Prof. Dr. Hüseyin ÖZ, especially during the last but the most stressful weeks before handing in my dissertation. I greatly enjoyed discussing with him every aspect related to my research study and making use of his suggestions, invaluable comments and his expertise in the field. I would also like to extend my sincere thanks to the members of the Dissertation Monitoring Committee, Prof. Dr. Mehmet Demirezen, Assoc. Prof. Dr. Arif SARIÇOBAN and Assoc. Prof. Dr. Paşa Tevfik CEPHE for their constant support and valuable advice. My heart-felt thanks also go to the members of the Examining Committee, who spared their valuable time and effort to be the Examining Committee Members. I greatly enjoyed their sincere comments about this study and gained more insight into the field. I would especially want to present my appreciation to Assoc. Prof Dr. Nalan KIZILTAN for being there during one of her most sorrowful days. I would also like to express my sincere appreciation to my colleague and friend Dr. Jafar POURFEIZ for his support throughout the study especially in analyzing the data of the study. My gratitude is extended to Prof. Dr. Sinan BAYRAKTAROĞLU, for his invaluable criticisms and feedback throughout the study. I have truly enjoyed the guidance ix and the thought stimulating conversations I had with him besides the tremendous personal support I had the privilege of having. I have learnt a lot from his academic and personal experiences. I would like to thank the participants who participated in the study and spent their valuable time in contribution to the data collection. Without their participation this dissertation research would not have been possible. My sincere and special thanks go to my friends, especially Nuran ÖZOL and Serap POLAT, who wholeheartedly supported me during my most stressful time while writing my dissertation. I also wish to present my sincere appreciations to my family who brought me up to these days. I am grateful to my mother Zeynep KOÇAK and father Yaşar KOÇAK for their encouragement and support despite the distance between us. They were there whenever I needed them. I wish to express my love, deepest gratitude and wholehearted thanks to my beloved family for their endless love, support and patience during this study. My deepest feelings of gratitude go to my lovely daughter Minez Su and my little hero Çağın Alp. Having them near me in every part of the PhD journey gave me strength and hope even in my most stressful days. I am the luckiest mother to have such supporting children. My last but not the least gratitude goes to my husband Dr. Bayram KÜÇÜKOĞLU for his endless love and patience. He has always been there for me whenever I needed him. I am thankful to him for being such an understanding and patient person to endure with me during the hard times all through my PhD studies. x TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDEMENTS ..................................................................................................... viii TABLE OF CONTENTS ....................................................................................................... x LIST OF TABLES .............................................................................................................. xv LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................................ xx LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ............................................................................................. xxiii 1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 1 1.1. Statement of the Problem ............................................................................................. 3 1.2. Significance of the Study .............................................................................................. 3 1.3. Purpose of the Study .................................................................................................... 4 1.3.1. Research Questions ........................................................................................... 4 1.4. Limitations of the Study ................................................................................................ 5 1.5. Definition of Terms ........................................................................................................ 6 2. REVIEW OF LITERATURE ............................................................................................. 9 2.1. Introduction ................................................................................................................... 9 2.2. Current Status of English Language ............................................................................. 9 2.3. An Overlook at the Status of English language in the Turkish Education System ...... 10 2.4. An Overview of Curriculum ......................................................................................... 12 2.4.1. Approaches to Curriculum Evaluation .............................................................. 17 2.5. Definition and Importance of Program Evaluation ...................................................... 19 2.5.1. Types of Evaluation .......................................................................................... 20 2.5.2. Phases of Program Evaluation ......................................................................... 23 2.5.3. The Need for Program Evaluation .................................................................... 25 2.6. Related Studies on Evaluation Studies ....................................................................... 29 2.6.1. Studies in the Turkish Context .......................................................................... 30 2.6.2. Evaluation Studies in Higher Education Abroad ............................................... 37 2.7. PhD Programs and Their Components in Turkey ....................................................... 42 2.7.1. Stages of Post Graduate Education ................................................................. 42 2.7.2. Motivation to get a PhD degree ........................................................................ 43 2.7.3. Stated Mission of PhD ELT Programs in Turkey .............................................. 44 2.7.4. Particular Aims of PhD ELT Programs ............................................................. 45 xi 2.7.5. Purposes of PhD ELT Programs in Turkey....................................................... 46 2.8.1. Courses Offered in PhD ELT Programs ........................................................... 47 2.8.1.1. Program Components of PhD ELT Program ....................................... 47 2.8.1.2. Literature and Culture Component ...................................................... 47 2.8.1.3. ELT Methodology Component ............................................................ 48 2.8.1.4. Research Component ......................................................................... 49 2.8.1.5. Linguistic Component ......................................................................... 49 2.8.1.6. Courses Offered in Some National Universities .................................. 50 2.8.2. Integration of the Courses within a Language Program ................................... 58 3. METHODOLOGY .......................................................................................................... 60 3.1. Introduction ................................................................................................................. 60 3.2. Research Design ........................................................................................................ 60 3.3. Population and Sampling ............................................................................................ 61 3.4. Data Collection Instruments ........................................................................................ 62 3.5. Validity and Reliability of the Tools ............................................................................. 64 3.6. Data Collection and Analysis Procedures ................................................................... 65 3.7. Ethical Considerations ................................................................................................ 67 4. DATA ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION ........................................................................... 68 4.1. Introduction ................................................................................................................. 68 4.2. The Participants’ Profiles ............................................................................................ 73 4.2.1. Professional career choice ............................................................................... 73 Table 4.10. Reasons for getting a PhD degree in ELT ..................................................... 75 4.2.2. The Influence of Factors in Deciding to do PhD Studies .................................. 75 4.3. The participants’ opinions on the General Characteristics of PhD Programs ............. 78 4.3.1. Program Description ......................................................................................... 78 4.3.2. Departmental Support ...................................................................................... 85 4.3.3. Atmosphere in the Department ......................................................................... 87 4.3.4. Program Instruction/Evaluation Methods .......................................................... 91 4.3.5. Classroom Management and Cooperation Skills .............................................. 97 4.3.6. Program Resources ........................................................................................ 100 4.3.7. Program Content ............................................................................................ 103 4.3.8. Overall Evaluation .......................................................................................... 111 4.4. Evaluation of Courses and Program Goals .............................................................. 116 4.4.1. The students’ Perceptions of the Goals of the Program ................................. 116 xii 4.4.2. The Effectiveness of Program Components in Becoming an Academic ........ 117 4.4.3. The Rates of Linguistic Courses ..................................................................... 118 4.4.4. ELT Methodology Courses ............................................................................. 121 4.4.5. The Rates of Literature Courses in Become an Academic ............................. 124 4.4.6. The Rates of Research-related Courses in Gaining the Competencies of a Qualified Researcher .................................................................................. 126 4.4.7. The Rates of Courses Related to the Discipline of Education ........................ 129 4.4.8. The Participants’ Perceptions of a PhD ELT Program According to their Degree of importance .................................................................................... 133 4.5. The Participants’ Perceptions of writing Dissertation Process .................................. 136 4.5.1. The Student’s Perceptions of the Effectiveness/helpfulness of their Advisors during writing their dissertations ..................................................... 136 4.5.2. The Student’s Perceptions of Professional Development during writing their Dissertation ............................................................................................ 139 4.5.3. The Student’s Perceptions of Overall Evaluation of the Program ................... 142 4.5.4. The Student’s Perceptions of their Prospective Career .................................. 145 4.6. The Participants Perceptions of General Evaluation of the Program Based on University .................................................................................................................. 148 4.7. The Role of Gender, Teaching Experience, Age, and Department Graduated in Participants’ Perceptions of PhD ELT Program ........................................................ 179 4.7.1. The Impact of Teaching Experience on the Participants’ Perceptions of the Goals of Program .................................................................................... 180 4.7.2. Gender and Program Evaluation .................................................................... 187 4.7.3. Age and Program Evaluation .......................................................................... 188 4.7.4. Department of Graduation and Program Evaluation ....................................... 189 4.8. Open Ended Items .................................................................................................... 193 4.8.1. Apart from the aforementioned courses, do you have any other suggestions? ................................................................................................. 193 4.8.2. Given the existing courses provided by the ELT Departments, which one(s) did you like the most? ......................................................................... 193 4.8.3. Given the existing courses provided by the ELT Departments, which one(s) did you like the least? ......................................................................... 199 4.8.4. What suggestions do you have for the improvement of the PhD programs in ELT Departments? ..................................................................................... 201 4.8.5. Are you happy with the teaching quality of the Associate Professors and Professors of the courses you have taken? .................................................. 206 5. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS .............................................................. 208 xiii 5.1. Conclusions .............................................................................................................. 208 5.1.1 Demographic Information of the Participants................................................... 208 5.1.2 The participants’ Profiles ................................................................................. 209 5.1.2.1 Professional career choice ................................................................. 209 5.1.2.2 The Influence of Factors in deciding to do PhD studies ..................... 209 5.1.3. The Participants’ Opinions on the General Characteristics of PhD Programs ....................................................................................................... 210 5.1.3.1. Program Description ......................................................................... 210 5.1.3.2. Departmental Support ....................................................................... 212 5.1.3.3. Atmosphere in the Department ......................................................... 212 5.1.3.4. Program Instruction/Evaluation Methods .......................................... 213 5.1.3.5. Classroom Management and Cooperation Skills .............................. 213 5.1.3.6. Program Resources .......................................................................... 214 5.1.3.7. Program Content ............................................................................... 214 5.1.3.8. Overall Evaluation ............................................................................. 215 5.1.4. Evaluation of Courses and Program Goals .................................................... 216 5.1.4.1. The Students’ Perceptions of the Goals of the Program ................... 216 5.1.4.2. The Effectiveness of Program Components in Becoming an Academic ........................................................................................ 216 5.1.4.3. The Rates of Linguistic Courses ....................................................... 216 5.1.4.4. ELT Methodology Courses................................................................ 217 5.1.4.5. The Rates of Literature Courses in Become an Academic ............... 217 5.1.4.6. The Rates of Research-related Courses in Gaining the Competencies of a Qualified Researcher ....................................... 217 5.1.4.7. The Rates of Courses Related to the Discipline of Education .......... 218 5.1.4.8. The Participants’ Perceptions of a PhD ELT Program According to their Degree of importance .......................................................... 218 5.1.5. The Participants’ Perceptions of Writing Dissertation Process ....................... 219 5.1.5.1. The Student’s Perceptions of the effectiveness/helpfulness of their Advisors during writing their dissertations ............................... 219 5.1.5.2. The Student’s Perceptions of Professional Development during writing their Dissertation .................................................................. 220 5.1.5.3. The Student’s Perceptions of Overall Evaluation of the Program ..... 220 5.1.5.4. The Student’s Perceptions of their Prospective Career .................... 220 5.1.6. Evaluation of PhD ELT Programs Based on Universities ............................... 221 xiv 5.1.7. The Participants Perceptions of General Evaluation of the Program Based on University ....................................................................................... 221 5.1.8. Teaching Experience, The Role of Gender, Age, and Department Graduated in Participants’ Perceptions of PhD ELT Program ....................... 230 5.1.8.1. The Impact of Teaching Experience on the Participants’ Perceptions of the Goals of Program .............................................. 230 5.1.8.2. Gender and Program Evaluation....................................................... 232 5.1.8.3. Age and Program Evaluation ............................................................ 232 5.1.8.4. Department of Graduation and Program Evaluation ......................... 232 5.1.9. Open Ended Items .......................................................................................... 234 5.2. Implications ............................................................................................................... 236 5.2.1 Implications for Future Language Improvement Courses ................................ 236 5.2.2. Implications for Further Research................................................................... 243 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................ 247 APPENDICES .................................................................................................................. 255 APPENDIX-1: APPROVAL OF THE COMMITTEE ON ETHICS ..................................... 256 APPENDIX-2: QUESTIONNAIRE .................................................................................... 257 APPENDIX-3: ORIGINALITY REPORT ........................................................................... 270 CURRICULUM VITAE ..................................................................................................... 271 xv LIST OF TABLES Table 2.1 Differences between Formative and Summative Evaluation ............................. 23 Table 2.2 Doctorate Program at Hacettepe University ...................................................... 50 Table 2.3 Doctorate Program at Boğaziçi University ......................................................... 51 Table 2.4 Doctorate Program at Gazi University ............................................................... 52 Table 2.5 Doctorate Program at Anadolu University ......................................................... 53 Table 2.6 Doctorate Program at Middle East Technical University (METU) ...................... 53 Table 2.7 Doctorate Program at Dokuz Eylül University .................................................... 54 Table 2.8 Doctorate Program at Yeditepe University ........................................................ 55 Table 2.9 Doctorate Program at Çanakkale University ...................................................... 55 Table 2.10 Doctorate Program at Çukurova University ..................................................... 56 Table 2.11 Doctorate Program at Atatürk University ......................................................... 56 Table 3.1. The Reliability Scale of the Data Collection Instruments .................................. 64 Table 3.2. Likert-Type Item Value Distribution ................................................................... 66 Table 4.1. Distribution of participants in terms of gender and age .................................... 68 Table 4.2. Distribution of participants in terms of present state of teaching, type of school, level of students, and years of teaching experience ...................................... 69 Table 4.3. Distribution of participants in terms of departments .......................................... 70 Table 4.4. Distribution of participants in terms of years of teaching experience ................ 70 Table 4.5. Distribution of Participants in Terms of Graduation .......................................... 71 Table 4.6. Distribution of participants in terms of their current occupation ........................ 71 Table 4.7. Distribution of Participants According to the Undergraduate Programs ........... 72 Table 4.8. Distribution of Participants According to the M.A. Degrees .............................. 72 Table 4.9. Professional Career Choice of the Participants ................................................ 74 Table 4.11. Factors influential in deciding to do PhD program .......................................... 75 Table 4.12. Factors important for enrolment in PhD programs and Department Selection ..................................................................................................................... 76 Table 4.13. The Importance Assigned on the Purposes of PhD programs by the Departments ............................................................................................................... 77 Table 4.14. The importance expected to be assigned for PhD programs purposes by the ELT departments .................................................................................................. 78 Table 4.15. The participants’ perceptions of program description ..................................... 84 Table 4.16. The participants’ Perceptions of Departmental Support ................................. 87 Table 4.17. The participants’ Perceptions of Atmosphere in the Department ................... 91 xvi Table 4.19. The Participants’ Perceptions of Classroom Management and Cooperation Skills ....................................................................................................... 99 Table 4.20. PhD Students’ and Graduates’ Opinions on Program Resources ............... 102 Table 4.21. PhD Students’ and Graduates’ Opinions on Program Contents ................... 110 Table 4.22. PhD Students’ and Graduates’ Opinions on Overall Evaluation ................... 115 Table 4.23. The Importance of Program Components in Relation to the Goals of the Program .................................................................................................................... 116 Table 4.24. The Effectiveness of Program Components in Becoming an Academic ...... 118 Table 4.25. The Rates of Linguistic Courses ................................................................... 119 Table 4.26.The Rates of Linguistic Courses Based on Universities ................................ 120 Table 4.26.The Rates of Linguistic Courses Based on Universities (Continued) ............ 121 Table 4.27. ELT Methodology Courses ........................................................................... 122 Table 4.28. The Rates of ELT Methodology Courses Based on Universities .................. 123 Table 4.28. The Rates of ELT Methodology Courses Based on Universities (Continued) ............................................................................................................... 124 Table 4.29. The Rates of Literature Courses in Becoming an Academic ........................ 125 Table 4.30. The Rates of Literature Courses Based on Universities ............................... 126 Table 4.31. The Rates of Research-related Courses in Becoming an Academic ............ 127 Table 4.32. The Rates of Research-related Courses Based on Universities .................. 128 Table 4.32. The Rates of Research-related Courses Based on Universities (Continued) ............................................................................................................... 129 Table 4.33. The Rates of Courses Related to Discipline of Education ............................ 130 Table 4.34 .The Rates of Courses Related to Discipline of Education ............................ 131 Table 4.34 .The Rates of Courses Related to Discipline of Education (Continued) ........ 132 Table 4.34 .The Rates of Courses Related to Discipline of Education (Continued) ........ 133 Table 4.35. The Importance of Courses Offered in a PhD ELT Program ....................... 135 Table 4.35. The Importance of Courses Offered in a PhD ELT Program (Continued) ... 136 Table 4.36. The Helpfulness of Advisors during the Process of writing Dissertation ....... 137 Table 4.37. The Helpfulness of Advisors during the Process of Writing Dissertation Based on University .................................................................................................. 138 Table 4.37. The Helpfulness of Advisors during the Process of Writing Dissertation Based on University (Continued) .............................................................................. 139 Table 4.38. The participants’ Perceptions of their Professional Development during Writing their Dissertation .......................................................................................... 140 Table. 4.39. The participants’ Perceptions of their Professional Development during Writing their Dissertation Based on University .......................................................... 141 xvii Table. 4.39. The participants’ Perceptions of their Professional Development during Writing their Dissertation Based on University (Continued) ...................................... 142 Table 4.40. Overall Evaluation of the PhD Program ........................................................ 143 Table 4.41. Overall Evaluation of the PhD Program ........................................................ 144 Table 4.42. The participants’ opinions on their prospective university, department, and advisors ............................................................................................................. 145 Table 4.43. The participants’ opinions on their prospective university, department, and advisors ............................................................................................................. 147 Table 4.44. Perceptions of Participants on Program Description .................................... 150 Table 4.44. Perceptions of Participants on Program Description (Continued) ................ 151 Table 4.44. Perceptions of Participants on Program Description (Continued) ................ 152 Table 4.44. Perceptions of Participants on Program Description (Continued) ................ 153 Table 4.45. Sum of the Means for the Perceptions of Participants on Program Description ................................................................................................................ 153 Table 4.46. Opinions of Participants on Departmental Support ....................................... 154 Table 4.47. Sum of the Means for the Perceptions of Participants on Departmental Support ..................................................................................................................... 156 Table 4.48. Opinions of Participants on Atmosphere in the Department ......................... 157 Table 4.48. Opinions of Participants on Atmosphere in the Department (Continued) ..... 158 Table 4.49. Sum of the Means for the Perceptions of Participants on Atmosphere in the Department ......................................................................................................... 158 Table 4.50. Opinions of Participants on Program Instruction/Evaluation Methods .......... 160 Table 4.50. Opinions of Participants on Program Instruction/Evaluation Methods (Continued) ............................................................................................................... 161 Table 4.50. Opinions of Participants on Program Instruction/Evaluation Methods (Continued) ............................................................................................................... 162 Table.4.51. Sum of the Means for the Perceptions of Participants on Program Instruction/Evaluation Methods................................................................................. 163 Table 4.52. Perceptions of Participants on Classroom Management and Cooperation Skills ..................................................................................................... 164 Table 4.53. Sum of the Means for the Perceptions of Participants on Classroom Management and Cooperation Skills Methods ......................................................... 165 Table 4.54. Perceptions of Participants on Program Resources ..................................... 166 Table 4.54. Perceptions of Participants on Program Resources (Continued) ................. 167 Table 4.55. Sum of the Means for the Perceptions of Participants on Program Resources ................................................................................................................ 167 Table 4.56. Perceptions of Participants on Program Contents ........................................ 170 xviii Table 4.56. Perceptions of Participants on Program Contents (Continued) .................... 171 Table 4.56. Perceptions of Participants on Program Contents (Continued) .................... 172 Table 4.56. Perceptions of Participants on Program Contents (Continued) .................... 173 Table 4.56. Perceptions of Participants on Program Contents (Continued) .................... 174 Table 4.57. Sum of the Means for the Perceptions of Participants on Program Contents ................................................................................................................... 174 Table 4.58. Perceptions of the Participants on Overall Evaluation of the Program ......... 176 Table 4.58. Perceptions of the Participants on Overall Evaluation of the Program (Continued) ............................................................................................................... 177 Table 4.58. Perceptions of the Participants on Overall Evaluation of the Program (Continued) ............................................................................................................... 178 Table 4.59. Sum of the Means for the Perceptions of Participants on Overall Evaluation of the Program ........................................................................................ 179 Table 4.60.Teaching Experience and the Importance of PhD ELT Program Goals ........ 180 Table 4.61. The Impact of Experience on the Effectiveness of PhD ELT program ......... 182 Table 4.62. The Impact of Experience on the Rates of Linguistic Courses ..................... 183 Table 4.63. The Impact of Experience on the Rates of ELT Methodology Courses ........ 184 Table 4.64. The Impact of Experience on the Rates of Literature Courses ..................... 184 Table 4.65. The Impact of Experience on the Rates of Research-related Courses ........ 185 Table 4.66. The Impact of Experience on the Rates of Discipline of Education Courses .................................................................................................................... 186 Table 4.67. The Impact of Experience on the Overall Evaluation of the Program ........... 187 Table 4.68. The Impact of Gender on Program Evaluation ............................................. 188 Table 4.69. The Impact of Age on Program Evaluation ................................................... 189 Table 4.70. Distribution of Courses Suggested for a PhD ELT program ......................... 191 Table 4.71. The Impact of university type on Program Evaluation .................................. 192 Table 4.72. Participants’ Suggested Program Components ............................................ 193 Table 4.73. The Participants’ Perceptions of the Most Favored Courses ........................ 195 Table 4.73. The Participants’ Perceptions of the Most Favored Courses (Continued) .... 196 Table 4.74. The Most Favored Courses Based on Universities ...................................... 197 Table 4.74. The Most Favored Courses Based on Universities (Continued) ................... 198 Table 4.75. The Participants’ Perceptions of the Least Favored Courses ....................... 199 Table 4.76. The Least Favored Courses Based on Universities ..................................... 200 Table 4.76. The Least Favored Courses Based on Universities (Continued) .................. 201 Table 5.76. Participants’ Suggested Program Components ............................................ 234 xix Table 5.77. Researchers' Suggested Program Components .......................................... 236 xx LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Brown’s Systematic Approach to Designing and Maintaining Language Curriculum (Brown, 1995, p.20). ................................................................................. 17 Figure 2. Distribution of Participants in terms of Universities ............................................ 73 Figure 3. Satisfaction on the respect given to the students by the faculty ......................... 79 Figure 4. Satisfaction on the rapport in the program ......................................................... 80 Figure 5.Tension in the faculty ........................................................................................... 80 Figure 6. Satisfaction on the program in terms of meeting the needs ............................... 81 Figure 7. Satisfaction on the encouragement in taking courses outside the department ................................................................................................................. 81 Figure 8. Satisfaction on the candidacy exam in testing knowledge. ................................ 82 Figure 9. Satisfaction on the candidacy exam to test the ability to be a scholar ............... 82 Figure 10. Satisfaction on the interaction between the departments ................................. 83 Figure 11. Satisfaction on the employment of qualified professors ................................... 83 Figure 12. Satisfaction on the support given and the number of clerical staff ................... 84 Figure 13. Satisfaction on finding an employment ............................................................. 86 Figure 14. Satisfaction on preparation for future professional work .................................. 86 Figure 15. Satisfaction on the helpfulness of the program ................................................ 87 Figure 16. Satisfaction about the environment in the department ..................................... 88 Figure 17. Satisfaction about the cooperation of the program head .................................. 88 Figure 18. Satisfaction about the support between the students ....................................... 89 Figure 19. Satisfaction about the communication between faculty and PhD students ...... 90 Figure 20. Satisfaction about the instruction of the courses .............................................. 92 Figure 21. Satisfaction about the linkage between different courses ................................ 92 Figure 22. Satisfaction about the balance between teacher-centered and student- centered teaching ....................................................................................................... 93 Figure 23. Satisfaction on the necessary instructional technologies and other resources. ................................................................................................................... 93 Figure 24. Satisfaction about the encouragement ............................................................. 94 to be a reflective teacher ................................................................................................... 94 Figure 25. Satisfaction about departmental support for the intellectual development ....... 95 Figure 26. Satisfaction ratings on the balance between theory and practice. ................... 95 Figure 27. Satisfaction on the preparation to teach English in the classroom ................... 96 Figure 28. Satisfaction on receiving valuable feedback ..................................................... 96 xxi Table 4.18. The Participants’ Perceptions of Program Instruction/Evaluation Methods ...................................................................................................................... 97 Figure 29. Satisfaction on receiving classroom management skills .................................. 98 Figure 30. Satisfaction on preparing and using foreign language teaching materials. ...... 98 Figure 31. Satisfaction on adapting foreign language teaching materials. ........................ 99 Figure 32. Satisfaction on offering sufficient computer and Internet support ................... 100 Figure 33. Satisfaction on the relevancy of the university library holdings ...................... 101 Figure 34. Satisfaction on the specialized facilities ......................................................... 101 Figure 35. Satisfaction on the adequacy of the financial resources ................................ 102 Figure 36. Satisfaction on the logical sequencing of the program ................................... 103 Figure 37. Satisfaction of the program about being up-to-date ....................................... 104 Figure 38. Satisfaction of the program of allocating sufficient time for each course ........ 104 Figure 39. Satisfaction of the program on giving adequate training in making research in ELT ........................................................................................................ 105 Figure 40. Satisfaction of the program on giving adequate training for the needs of the local context ........................................................................................................ 105 Figure 41. Satisfaction of the program on giving adequate training in teaching skills ..... 106 Figure 42. Satisfaction of having well-tailored graduate courses .................................... 106 Figure 43. Satisfaction of having variety of PhD level courses and offerings .................. 107 Figure 44. Satisfaction on the relevancy to the student needs ........................................ 107 Figure 45. Satisfaction about the encouragement to reflect on past experiences as a language learner ....................................................................................................... 108 Figure 46. Satisfaction on teaching how to follow the current trends in ELT ................... 108 Figure 47. Satisfaction on avoiding overlapping information between different courses ..................................................................................................................... 109 Item 46. The program gives/gave adequate training in research methods. ..................... 109 Figure 48. Satisfaction on giving adequate training in research methods ....................... 109 Figure 49. Satisfaction about the valuable learnings given by the program .................... 111 Figure 50. Satisfaction on the powers of self-evaluation ................................................. 112 Figure 51. Satisfaction of feeling competent enough to do research on ELT. ................. 112 Figure 52. Satisfaction of developing knowledge and necessary skills required for chosen career. .......................................................................................................... 113 Figure 53. Satisfaction of feeling confident to carry out research in the field on ELT- related studies. ......................................................................................................... 113 Figure 54. Satisfaction of the variety of the courses opened in the program ................... 114 Figure 55. Satisfaction on the number of credits taken ................................................... 114 xxii Figure 56. Satisfaction of the overall quality of the learning ............................................ 115 Figure 57. General perception of participants on the overall evaluation according to universities ................................................................................................................ 179 Figure 58. Mean scores given in order for the Perceptions of Participants on Overall Evaluation of the Program ........................................................................................ 230 Figure 58. General perception of participants given in order on the overall evaluation according to universities ........................................................................................... 245 xxiii LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS PhD: Doctor of Philosophy CHE: Council of Higher Education ELT: English Language Teaching CIPP: Content – Input – Process – Product MA: Master of Arts DTCF: Faculty of Letters COTE: Certificate for Overseas Teachers of English SFL: School of Foreign Languages ABET: Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology CTE: The Certificate for Teachers of English DBE: The Department of Basic English DML: Department of Modern Languages FLTTC: Foreign Language Teacher Training College GSPE: Graduate Student Program Evaluation 1 1. INTRODUCTION Learning and teaching English has become an indispensable tool for communication as English started to be used as a Lingua Franca worldwide by people who are originally from different countries and are in need for interaction for education, business, academic research, political or social purposes. The advance in speed and frequency of the international interactions has demonstrated that the 21st century human civilization has entered the “Age of Communication” (Wallace, 1991). English language started to serve as the common language of communication, research in science, industry and technology. English language has established itself as the world language of research and publication and it is being used by a multitude of universities and institutes all around the world as the language of instruction (Flowerdew and Peacock, 2001). It can clearly be seen that English is the most successful globalized language in history, with having the official status in 25 countries and co-official status in 27 countries (Wardhaugh, 1987, cited in Dogancay-Aktuna, 1998). In the current dynamics of the expansion of globalization, English teaching and learning has become an inevitable part of curriculum designs all around the world as well as in Turkey. In Turkey, this situation brought the need for well-educated teachers who are capable in teaching English. As a result of this need, language teacher education programs have enhanced and ELT programs were established within newly established universities and the number ELT programs increased. According to the 2015 statistics taken from Higher Education Council, the total number of state and private universities is 193 in Turkey. 109 of these universities are state, while the other 84 are private. There are 86 English Language Teaching Departments in 95 Faculties of Education. Although the number of universities that offer undergraduate programs to serve the need for qualified teacher education is comparably high, the number is lower in graduate programs, especially PhD programs. PhD programs have a great importance, as it is one the most important aspects of being the scientific part of the education system. The number of PhD programs offering ELT was only 12, in 2013-2014 academic year. PhD programs in ELT have an important place in teacher education in preparing academicians as well as preparing candidates to become teacher educators. 2 Konig (2003) suggests that in Turkey, the main aims for the teaching of English are usually for higher education, better job opportunities and for following technological and scientific improvements. As supported by Karaman and Bakırcı (2010) in their studies, the fundamental aim of post-graduate education is to promote human force that produces and uses knowledge and empower problem solving skills. In this sense, M.A. programs are considered as the basic building blocks of the academicians as they are the essential stepping stones to postdoctoral programs. Master's degree is one of utmost importance as these programs can be considered as a bridge to research based postdoctoral studies. In Turkey, newly established universities are in need for well-educated academicians; therefore, M.A. and PhD in ELT programs have a significant place to serve as a source for this need. As Alhas (2006) mentions, the quality of postgraduate education is highly important in terms of coping with the current developments both in national and international context. As a result of this significant place in the academic field, the PhD ELT programs need to be evaluated by researchers and policy makers in order to strengthen the quality of the education given. To get the most out of these programs, researchers have a responsibility to collect data on these ongoing programs in the form of program evaluation. The area of teacher education and language teaching are the most experimental parts of the research area. It is for this reason that program evaluation is considered as one of the most important parts of these programs. The effectiveness of the program that has been used in the curriculum depends on program evaluation. Evaluating the program that is in use strengthens the quality of the teaching programs and improves the outcomes for the learners and the institute. The main aim of program evaluation is to improve the effectiveness of the program. Such extensive program evaluation studies may help to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the existing curriculums, improve the existing programs and identify the language development needs and expectations of the student teachers enrolled in these programs. 3 1.1. Statement of the Problem Evaluating the ongoing programs through a comprehensive research study and discovering areas that need development plays a crucial part in the academic curricula. To our knowledge, the evaluation studies on English Language curriculum at Graduate level is few in number and almost none of the studies conducted search for PhD level of the Graduate Programs. Although there are a number of studies done on post- graduate education in the Turkish context, PhD ELT program evaluation has not been studied earlier. It is the goal of this study to have a critical look at these programs in the Turkish context and evaluate them. Therefore, the problem statement of this study is “What are the main characteristics of the PhD in ELT Departments in Turkey?” Based on this main problem statement, the following sub-problems are also within the problems of this study;  the strengths and weaknesses of PhD ELT programs  whether PhD ELT programs can keep up with the changes  whether PhD ELT programs meet the needs of the students and graduates. 1.2. Significance of the Study Making a comprehensive research study and discovering areas that need improvement is the main aim of this study. The study not only provides the necessary information to the insiders, but also gives a thorough picture of the ongoing programs to the stakeholders such as Council of Higher education, program designers, and academicians in the field in order to make the necessary changes. In a direct sense, the study will inform the decision makers about the strengths and weaknesses of the ELT programs pertaining to PhD It will also help to figure out how effective the current program is in relation to evaluating and improving. This evaluation study will help decision makers to make relevant changes, additions and deletions to the program. Additionally, the results will provide information regarding program description, content, instruction, departmental support, atmosphere in the department, program resources as well as; linguistic, literature culture, ELT methodology, research and 4 educational sciences components, all of which will definitely add up to the suggestions to improve the identified deficiencies in these programs. One other significance of this study is that it will contribute to the scanty body of literature on the program evaluation of PhD ELT programs in Turkey. This current study is the only study conducted on program evaluation for PhD ELT programs in the Turkish context. By this means, the results of the study may be considered a hint for PhD ELT programs in understanding and modifying the deficiencies in these programs. It is hoped that the results of the study will provide valuable insights into the effectiveness of the program and be used as a framework for designing and improving the studies at PhD ELT programs in Turkey. 1.3. Purpose of the Study The purpose of this study is to determine the main characteristics of post-graduate education in ELT Departments which are offered in Turkish context in regards to PhD ELT programs. A comprehensive evaluation will also be conducted as a part of this dissertation study. The 12 universities that have been the subjects of the study were also rated among each other. By evaluating these programs it is intended to facilitate the ELT Departments to collect data on the ongoing programs in Turkish setting. The study is additionally proposed to guide the fundamental changes that may be required in the PhD ELT programs in Turkey. These progressions may embody changes, substitutions of courses, increases or oversights of courses in PhD ELT programs in Turkish setting. 1.3.1. Research Questions This study has been conducted to identify, analyze, and evaluate the existing situation of the PhD ELT programs in the Turkish context concerning up until 2013-2014 academic year in terms of; program description, content, instruction, departmental support, atmosphere in the department, program resources as well as; linguistic, literature, culture, ELT methodology, research and educational sciences components. In order to evaluate the PhD ELT programs in Turkish context the following research questions were formed under the supervision of the experts in the field of English Language Teaching. The present study will address the following research questions: 5 RQ1- What are students’ perceptions of the importance given to the purposes of program by themselves and by their department? RQ2- What are the students’ perceptions of the general characteristics of the PhD programs? RQ3- What are the students’ perceptions in terms of the goals of the program? RQ4- What are perceptions of the students’ regarding the effectiveness of the program? RQ5- How successful was the Main Course components in helping students’ to become an academic? RQ6- What are students' perceptions of the most important PhD courses offered in their PhD ELT program? RQ7- What are the students' perceptions of the effectiveness/helpfulness of their advisors’ during the dissertation writing process? RQ8- What are the students' perceptions of the overall evaluation of their PhD ELT program? RQ9- Do teaching experiences, gender and age differences make any differences in participants’ perceptions? RQ10- What are the students' perceptions of the courses to be included in the PhD ELT programs in the future? RQ11- Are there any differences in participants’ perceptions of the program in relation to the department they are currently working at? RQ12. Is there any relationship between the program graduated and the participants’ perceptions of offered courses in the program? 1.4. Limitations of the Study The current research has some of limitations. Some of the limitations of this study include the number of graduates who took part in the study. The number of graduates who took part in the study is lower compared to the number of students. 6 The second limitation of the study was the imbalance in the number of participants from different PhD ELT programs in Turkey. The number of participants from some universities is comparable low. Although the survey was sent to all ELT Departments for the attention to their students and graduates, only the voluntary participants took the survey. Another limitation of the present study is that it did not embrace perceptions of the professors who teach at these departments in order to see the differences in perception which requires another research. The number of participants of the study is 116 in total. Although the number is comperably high for a research study, having a higher population of respondents would have given a better profile about the current situation of the PhD ELT programs offered in the Turkish context. 1.5. Definition of Terms The terms frequently used in the study will be given below in order to facilitate the reading of this dissertation. Curriculum: 1 an overall plan for a course or program, as in the freshman composition curriculum. 2 the total program of formal studies offered by a school or institution, as in the secondary school curriculum (Richards and Schmidt, 2002). Curriculum has also been defined by Parkay and Hass (2000) as a process “that consists of planning experiences that lead to students’ learning and growth” (p. 3). Curriculum Design: Curriculum design aims to provide insights about the quality of program planning and organization (Mackay, 1994). Syllabus: a description of the contents of a course of instruction and the order in which they are to be taught. (Richards and Schmidt, 2002). Evaluation: There are many different ways to define the term evaluation which sometimes leads the reader in ambiguity. In general sense, it is the collection of information in a systematic way for the purpose of decision making. To collect data, evaluation may use both qualitative (e.g. interviews, observation, ratings) and also quantitative methods (e.g. Tests, surveys). The evaluation of individuals involves decisions about entrance to programs, placement, progress, and achievement. In evaluating both programs and individuals, tests and other 7 measures are frequently used (Richards and Schmidt, 2002). In the current study the term will be defined “as the systematic attempt to gather information in order to make judgments and decisions” about the program at issue (Lynch, 1996). Summative Evaluation: Summative evaluation is conducted at the end of the program. Formative Evaluation: Formative evaluation requires the assessment process to be carried out while the program is being established Evaluation of Need: tries to identify and measure the level of unmet needs within an organization or community (Gaber, 2000). Evaluation of Process: involves checking on the assumptions made while the program was being planned (Posavac and Carey, 2003). Evaluation of Outcome: becomes a focus of evaluation when program managers expect some behavioral changes in people (Posavac and Carey, 2003). Program: is the image of a series of courses linked with some common goal or end product (Lynch, 1996). Program Evaluation: is a process that helps to find out whether the developed and organized experiences are producing the intended outcomes or results; it is a process that helps to diagnose the strengths and weaknesses of the plans and organizations (Tyler, 1949). Program Design: is a series of tasks that contribute to the growth of consensus among the staff, faculty, administration, and students (Brown, 1995). The Product-Oriented Approach: This approach: observes if the curriculum applied, meets its goals and objectives. This type of evaluation is built on the basis of summative evaluation model which takes place at the end of the concluded curriculum to find out its effectiveness. The Static-Characteristic Approach: This approach intends to find out the effectiveness of the curriculum and it is carried out by outside experts. The Process-Oriented Approach: This approach seeks every step of the implemented curriculum to understand how it works and the focus is on the analysis of the process. 8 The Decision-Facilitation Approach: The main purpose of this evaluation is to facilitate the developers and administrators to give their own decisions about the program implemented. CIPP, CSE, and Discrepancy Model are the outstanding models of this approach. Aim of this model is to provide information for authorities who make decisions on the curriculum (Demirel,2004). Descriptive Data-Based Approach: The aim of this approach is to collect data from an ongoing program for the betterment of the program. (Rea-Dickens and Germaine.1992). Descriptive Research: This is a research which aims to describe the previous or the current situation of a program reflected as it is without additions or subtractions. Its situation of a program tried to be described in their own conditions or as they really are (Karasar, 2005) The Discrepancy Evaluation Model (DEM): The Discrepancy Evaluation Model (DEM), provides information on program assessment and program improvement. In the DEM model, evaluation is identified as the comparison of the actual performance to the desired standard. The evaluation information gathered by DEM facilitates rational decision making by career planning and placement counselors. Mixed-Methods Studies: The basic purposes of the mixed methods approach are to provide direction for improving programs as they evolve and to assess their effectiveness after they have had time to produce results. Use of both quantitative and qualitative methods is intended to ensure dependable feedback on a wide range of questions; depth of understanding of particular programs; a holistic perspective; and enhancement of the validity, reliability, and usefulness of the full set of findings. CIPP: This model makes provision for holistic evaluation. Its elements are systems oriented, structured to accommodate universal evaluation needs. They also notes the rarity of an evaluation model that offers process evaluation, CIPP model deals with products or outcomes not only at the conclusion of the program but also at various points during the program. Outcomes are then related to objectives; differences are noted between expected and actual results; and the decision maker decides to continue, terminate or modify the program. 9 2. REVIEW OF LITERATURE 2.1. Introduction As program evaluation is the main purpose of this study, this chapter presents a review of program and program evaluation. To be more accurate, literature on curriculum, syllabus, course design and evaluation in so far will be discussed as these concepts are the key points of this current dissertation study. In the first part of the study, the current status of the English language in the world and an overlook at the status of English language in the Turkish Education System will be pointed out. The second part of the study will focus on the terms such as curriculum and program evaluation will thoroughly be discussed and significance of carrying out program evaluation and the approaches related to language program evaluation will be put forward. On the last part, studies done on program evaluation both in Turkey and abroad will be reviewed. 2.2. Current Status of English Language The inevitable growth of interest in English Language has been growing gradually especially in the last decades. However, the spread of the English language and English language studies goes back to the 17th and 18th centuries, when Britain became the leading colonial nation. Crystal summarizes the history of the spread of English with these lines: In the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, English was the language of the leading colonial nation Britain. In the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, it was the language of the leader of the industrial revolution-also Britain. In the late nineteenth century and the early twentieth, it was the language of the leading economic power-the USA. As a result, when new technologies brought new linguistic opportunities, English emerged as a first rank language in industries which affected all aspects of society-the press, advertising, broadcasting, motion pictures, sound recording, transport and communications (Crystal, 1997, pp. 110-111). As Crystal (1997) summarizes, with the impact of colonization, British Empire took the first step to make English as the world language. When millions of people took off to live in the newly discovered continent of America, from British Isles, France, Spain and Italy, English had its role as an international language by means of technological, political, economic and academic relations. Starting from the nineteenth century till today, with its new role as the super power country, the United States took the preliminary steps to make the English language, as the common language among the world countries. English has gone beyond its 10 natural borders, nonnative speakers of English outnumber native speakers three to one as asserted by Crystal (1997). Throughout the years English has established itself as the world language of research and publication and it is being used by a multitude of universities and institutes of learning all around the world as the language of instruction (Flowerdew and Peacock, 2001). Toker (1999), also emphasizes the growing importance of the English language as; “the English language has become more common among world communities, especially since World War II, and accepted for international communication”. This situation has made learning a foreign language as one of the main elements of the formal curriculum. In Turkey the spread of English has become aa important point as it is in the rest of the World. English is now taught at all levels from primary schools to university level studies. Currently, English, as a foreign language, is the only compulsory language taught at all levels of education, and German and French being elective languages in some schools (Kirkgöz, 2007). In order to maintain suitable language classes, evaluation studies also gained importance. 2.3. An Overlook at the Status of English language in the Turkish Education System Being a newly established Republic, Turkey was also under the influence of scientific and technological developments as it was trying to modernize, improve and keep the pace with the other nations of the rest of the world. After the establishment of the Turkish Republic in 1923, modernization and westernization movements brought closer connections with Europe and the USA, which accelerated the spread of ELT in the country. Having strong political ties with the United States, led to give importance to foreign language learning and the number of schools teaching through the medium of English increased during this time. English gained precedence over other foreign languages particularly French, which was previously preferred in diplomacy, education and art (Kırkgöz, 2007). Doğançay-Aktuna (1998) suggests that after the 1980s, international ties had been strongly established and, in a rapidly globalizing world with liberalism and free enterprise, Turkey felt an even more urgent need to keep up in terms of foreign language proficiency. As English became the lingua franca of the fast growing world, the number of schools conducting English education increased. According to the surveys done 11 by Ministry of National Education, in Turkey in the 1987–1988 academic year, there were 193 English-medium secondary schools (103 private, 90 state-owned). By the 2004–2005 academic year, the number of private secondary schools reached 650, and the number of Anatolian high schools were 415. (http://rel.sagepub.com retrived at Hacettepe Univeristy on April 17, 2010). As for the higher education, in 1936, Faculty of Letters (DTCF) was opened for the same reason. The main purpose of the establishment of this Faculty was to conduct research on the culture, language and history of the Turkish language. 21 philology departments were opened in DTCF, in order to help gaining this main aim. The 1950s mark the first phase of the spread of English through schooling that lasted until the late 1970s (Doğançay-Aktuna, 1998). The strategies of the Higher Education Council cannot be separated from the education faculties which are also responsible for Foreign Language Teaching in the whole nation. A number of restructuring programs were designed to better the Education Faculties. Some important changes come forward in the 1997 ELT curriculum reform. One of the most important change was done in the curriculum of the education faculties. The curriculum of the teacher education departments at the undergraduate level in the ELT Departments of the Faculties of Education were revised because of the reform done in the curriculum of the high school program. The previous cirruculum did not fit the needs of the future teachers of the 21st century in terms of practice. Education is the most important aspect for the future of a country. Among all the other educational institutions, higher education institutions are the ones which should be considered as the core because they are the places where the leaders of the future are being educated. Higher education institutions carry the responsibility of the social and economic developments of a country, transferring the cultural values to the coming generations, enlightening the society with new findings for the sake of the humanity (Blackburn and Lawrence, 1995). It is also higher education institutes responsibility to higher the standards of the society. Higher Education Institutes influence the individuals as students and this situation effects the social upheaval (Bowen, 1980). http://rel.sagepub.com/ 12 As the English language gained importance, the need for more effective ways to learn this world language gained importance accordingly. English, the common language of the world, English Language Teaching has become the number one issue for the governments and precautions are being taken in order to have the learners get the best solution. Turkish Government has taken a number of initiatives in revising the curriculum of both the ELT Departments in the Education Faculties and the curriculum of all the language classrooms throughout the country. Another thing which gained importance is teacher education institutions. In order to accommodate new educational measures into the existing system, curriculum and evaluation is done in order to see the need of change in the existing programs. In order to make innovation in ELT systems and adapting the existing system to new educational norms, program evaluation studies should be done. The need and importance of program evaluation appears particularly in the ELT curriculum and the assessment system. Evaluation is a central component of the educational process as it lets you know whether or not the time and effort you are putting in your programs worth it. 2.4. An Overview of Curriculum The word curriculum originally comes from Latin meaning a racing chariot and from which is derived a racetrack, or a course to be run, and from this, a course of study (Ross, 2000, p.8). The rationale behind curriculum evaluation is to find out the efficacy of the planning procedures employed and assessing whether the content and objectives are appropriate (Richards, 2005). The concept of curriculum embodies the whole experiences that the students are required to learn at school. This experience covers the knowledge, skills, and values that are need to be achieved as the anticipated goals of the education process as well as the philosophical, social and administrative choices that play part in planning the educational program. Curriculum as a concept, has been defined in many different ways depending on the period of time when it is defined. One of the earliest definitions comes from researchers who regard curriculum as a system of production. To exemplify, Bobbitt (1923) defines curriculum as the series of things which children and youth must do and experience by developing ability to do the things well that make the affairs of adult life. Likewise Popham (1975) defines curriculum as the “objectives that an educational system hopes its learners will 13 achieve” (p. 96). In a broader sense curriculum refers to “what schools teach …. a specific educational activity planned for a particular student for a particular point of time” (Eisner, 2002, p. 25). In line with many other researchers such as Allen, (1984), Stem, (1984), Ross, (2000), Steinhouse, (1975), Kelly (1989), and Wilson (1990), defined the term in following words: Anything and everything that teaches a lesson, planned or otherwise. Humans are born learning, thus the learned curriculum actually encompasses a combination of all of the below -- the hidden, null, written, political and societal etc.. Since students learn all the time through exposure and modeled behaviors, this means that they learn important social and emotional lessons from everyone who inhabits a school -- from the janitorial staff, the secretary, the cafeteria workers, their peers, as well as from the deportment, conduct and attitudes expressed and modeled by their teachers. Many educators are unaware of the strong lessons imparted to youth by these everyday contacts. That is; everything within the educational system; the planned, the unplanned, the written and the unwritten is covered in the term "curriculum". However among all the definitions given, the one given by Her Majesty's Inspectorate in England and Wales can be considered as one of the broadest one. According to this definition, curriculum; " ... [consists] of all those activities designed or encouraged within its organizational framework to promote the intellectual, personal, social and physical development of pupils ....... " (DES, 1985a, para 11) Olivia (1997) on the other hand, states the depth and multifaceted status of the concept of curriculum in his following description: Curriculum is;  ..what is taught in schools  ..a set of subjects.  ..content  ..a program of studies.  ..a set of materials  ..a sequence of courses.  ..a set of performance objectives  ..a course of study 14  ..is everything that goes on within the school, including extra-class activities, guidance, and interpersonal relationships.  ..everything that is planned by school personnel.  ..a series of experiences undergone by learners in a school.  ..that which an individual learner experiences as a result of schooling Olivia (1997). Olivia (2001) also defined the term as; “The curriculum field is by no means clear; as a discipline of study and as a field of practice, curriculum lacks clean boundaries…’’. The idea is supported by the great number of other definitions indicated by the educational scientists in the field such as; Brown, (1995); Henderson and Hawthorne, (2000); Henson, (1995); Nunan, (1988a); Nunan (1989); Oliva, (1997); Pratt, (1980); Portelli, (1987). Studies show that there are more than 120 different definitions given by the researchers either broadly or narrowly. According to some educators, the concept covers the subjects or subject matters. For others, it covers every experience that the student undergoes within the school system. Tanner and Tanner (1980) identified curriculum as “the learning experiences and intended outcomes formulated through systematic reconstruction of knowledge and experience, under the auspices of the school, for the learners’ continuous willful growth in personal-social competence” (p. 102). Furthermore, Wiles and Bondi (1985) see curriculum as a goal or collection of values that are activated during the development stage in the teaching process besides a learning plan. Ornstein and Hunkins (2004) presents five different definitions for the concept of curriculum. These can be listed as follows;  A curriculum can be defined as a plan for action or a written document that includes strategies for achieving desired goals or ends.  A curriculum can be defined broadly- as dealing with experiences of the learner. 15  Curriculum can be considered as a system for dealing with people and the processes or the organization of personnel and procedures for implementing that system.  Curriculum can be viewed as a field of study.  Curriculum can be considered in terms of subject matter or content. Among the five definitions given by Ornstein and Hunkins (2004), the first definition can be considered as the one that covers the framework of this current study. It must be noted that another valuable definition comes from White (1993) who asserts that “curriculum theory encompasses philosophy and value systems; the main components of the curriculum: purposes, content, methodology and evaluation; and the process whereby curricula are developed, implemented and evaluated”. The evaluation of the curriculum is defined by Brown (1995), as; “the systematic collection and analysis of all relevant information necessary to promote the improvement of a curriculum and assess its effectiveness within the context of the particular institutions involved”. Every schooling system is in need of curriculum evaluation to improve the elements as well as the connectedness of the ongoing process of education (White, 1988; Brown 1995). Richards (2005) believes that, in order to find out if the objectives and the content goes along with the procedures and the assessment of an ongoing program, a continuous curriculum evaluation is needed. Richards (2005) also asserts that curriculum evaluation should be applied to find out;  how the program works,  how successfully it works,  whether the program responds lo learners’ needs,  whether further teacher training is required for teachers working in the program,  whether students are learning sufficiently, 16 According to Richards (2005), in order to find out the answers to the given statements, the following questions need to be answered:  Is the curriculum achieving its goals?  What is happening in classrooms and schools where it is being implemented?  Are those affected by the curriculum (e.g. teachers, students, administrators, parents, employers) satisfied with the curriculum?  Have those involved in developing and teaching a language course done a satisfactory job?  Does the curriculum compare favorably with others of its kind? (Richards, 2005) The need for clear curriculum evaluation is stated by a great number of researchers. To get a better understanding of the situation, in his book “The Elements of Language Curriculum, A Systematic Approach to Program Development” Brown (1995), categorizes every part of the teaching process into approaches, syllabuses, techniques, exercises or pedagogies. The process of teaching reveals with curriculum design with its components; needs assessment, goals and objectives, testing, materials, teaching, and program evaluation. 17 NEEDS ANALYSIS OBJECTIVES TESTING MATERIALS TEACHING Figure 1. Brown’s Systematic Approach to Designing and Maintaining Language Curriculum (Brown, 1995, p.20). To summarize, evaluation is the heart of language curriculum as it includes, connects, and gives meaning to all the other elements (Brown, 1995). Additionally, curriculum evaluation helps to decide about the future of the program by answering whether the program will be maintained, to what extent expanded, and what needs to be revised or should be abandoned (Pratt, 1980). 2.4.1. Approaches to Curriculum Evaluation There are several other approaches given to the term curriculum. According to Robert M. Gagne (1987), curriculum merges the subject matter, the statement of ends, sequencing of content, and pre-assessment of entry skills required of students when they begin the study of content. According to Richards and Platt and Platt (1993) curriculum is an educational program which illustrates  “(1) the educational purpose of the program (the ends), E V A L U A T I O N 18  (2) the content teaching procedures and learning experience which will be necessary to achieve this purpose (the means),  (3) some means for assessing whether or not the educational ends have been achieved”. (p. 94) According to Brown, grouped curriculum evaluation into four different dimensions. These are product-oriented approaches, static-characteristic approaches, process- oriented approaches, and decision-facilitation (Brown, 1995: 219). The main aim of The Product-Oriented Approach is to observe if the curriculum applied, meets its goals and objectives. This type of evaluation is built on the basis of summative evaluation model which takes place at the end of the concluded curriculum to find out its effectiveness. Tyler, Hammond, and Metfessel and Michael also other foremost researchers who suggested similar approaches such as Goal-based Evaluation Model (Tyler, 1942). This model also determines if the objectives of the program have been achieved. Demirel (2006: 179-180) lists the process of this type of model as follows:  Determination of the aims and objectives of the curriculum  Classification of the objectives according to features that are desired to be achieved  Stating the objectives in terms of behavior  Identifying the situation which demonstrates whether the objective is achieved or not  Development or selection of measurement techniques  Collecting data about students’ behavioral adequacy  Comparing determined objectives to data collected in the previous step (Demirel, 2006: 179-180). The Static-Characteristic Approach intends to find out the effectiveness of the curriculum and it is carried out by outside experts. In contrast to the Product-Oriented Approach, The Process-oriented Approach seeks every step of the implemented curriculum to understand how it works and the focus is on the analysis of the process. According to Fleischman and Williams 19 (1996), the purposes of this evaluation model is to describe an instructional curriculum and how it is implemented, and through this, understand why the objectives have been or have not been achieved. Scriven and Stake are the main supporters of this approach. As in Fleischman and Williams' studies, Scriven’s model (1967) also focuses on the scrutiny of the process rather than the outcomes. According to The Decision-Facilitation Approach, the main purpose of evaluation is to facilitate the developers and administrators to give their own decisions about the program implemented. CIPP (Content – Input – Process – Product), CSE (Center for the Study of Evaluation), and Discrepancy Model are the outstanding models of this approach. According to Demirel (2004), the aim of this model is to provide information for authorities who make decisions on the curriculum. 2.5. Definition and Importance of Program Evaluation As being the core element of the components of curriculum, a whole number of researches of the field made definitions of evaluation. Program evaluation can be indicated as the most important part among the other components of curriculum as it gives feedback on the achievement of both the students and the curriculum and is the key elements to provide continuity of the program. As a central component of the educational process, program evaluation is certainly a critical and challenging mission. Kelly (1999) defines curriculum evaluation as the process by which we attempt to gauge the value and effectiveness of any particular piece of educational activity. One of the other earliest definitions comes from Popham who underlines the importance of evaluation by its function as an assessment tool. According to Popham (1975, cited in Brown, 1995), “systematic educational evaluation consists of a formal assessment of the worth of educational phenomena”. Brown (1995) also underlines the importance of evaluation by highlighting its role as an assessment aside with the improvement of the program evaluated. Brown’s definition also goes parallel with Tyler (1965) in relation with its focus on the improvement role of evaluation. He describes evaluation as the final step leading to program improvement. According to Brown (1995), evaluation is “the systematic collection and analysis of all relevant information necessary to promote the improvement of a curriculum 20 and assess its effectiveness within the context of the particular institutions involved”. Program evaluation is defined by Demirel as (2006), “the whole of dynamic relations among the components of goals and objectives, content, teaching/learning processes, and evaluation”. Apart from providing the necessary information and the deficiencies of the ongoing program to the insiders, program evaluation also offers the relevant information about the program to the steakholders, such as the Council of Higher education, in order to make the necessary changes. The outcome of program evaluation aims to find whether the ongoing program designed, developed, implemented can create the sought results. The strengths and the weaknesses of the curriculum before implementation and the effectiveness of its implementation can be highlighted by the help of evaluation (Ornstein and Hunkins, 1998). As Johnson and Johnson (1992) suggests, a curriculum cannot be evaluated without reference to its context, aims and objectives, designers, managers, teachers and its resource base. As Peacock (2009) asserts, evaluation of these programs is the starting point in the way towards professionalization of the field of ELT. It is also necessary for the improvement of the program; as a result of this, systematic evaluation should be placed at the very heart of a program (Rea-Dickins and Germaine, 1998). According to Brown (1995: 218), curriculum evaluation is “the systematic collection and analysis of all relevant information necessary to promote the improvement of a curriculum and assess its effectiveness within the context of the particular institutions involved”. 2.5.1. Types of Evaluation As Brown (1995) indicates from his below definition, "collecting and analyzing the relevant information necessary to promote the improvement of a curriculum and assess its effectiveness" is the main concern of program evaluation studies. Depending on the purpose of the study that is going to be conducted, the researcher chooses one of the evaluation models discussed by Richards (2005); formative, illuminative and summative. In formative evaluation, the researcher focuses on the development and improvement of an ongoing program by asking the following questions: 21  Has enough time been spent on particular objectives?  Have the placement tests placed students at the right level in the program?  How well is the textbook being received?  Is the methodology teachers are using appropriate?  Are teachers or students having difficulties with any aspect of the course?  Are students enjoying the program? If not, what can be done to improve their motivation?  Are students getting sufficient practice work? Should the workload be increased or decreased?  Is the placing of the material adequate? (Richards, 2005: 288) The purpose of this type of evaluation is to collect information about an ongoing program to improve its effectiveness. Illuminative evaluation on the other hand, focuses on the teaching and learning process in order to get a better understanding about the different features of the certain program. To do this, answer to the following questions are studied by the researcher;  How do students carry out group-work tasks? Do all students participate equally in them?  What type of error-correction strategies do teachers use?  What kinds of decisions do teachers employ while teaching?  How do teachers use lesson plans when teaching?  What type of teacher-student interaction patterns typically occur in classes?  What reading strategies do students use with different kinds of texts?  How do students understand the teachers’ intentions during a lesson?  Which students in class are most or least active? (Richards, 2005: 288) This type of evaluation study aims to bring out a deeper look at a program with all of its aspects related about the teaching and learning as a process. 22 Summative evaluation that is done after the completion of the implementation of a program. The main concern of this type of evaluation is to reveal the overall efficiency and effectiveness of the program. Richards (2005) mentions about the following questions to be asked in order to make a clear evaluation on the mentioned purpose;  How effective was the course? Did it achieve its aims?  What did students learn?  How well was the course received by students and teachers?  Did the materials work well?  Were the objectives adequate or do they need to be revised?  Were the placement and achievement tests adequate?  Was the amount of time spent on each unit sufficient?  How appropriate were the teaching methods?  What problems were encountered during the course? (Richards, 2005: 288) Fitzpatrick et al (2004, p. 19) also mention formative and summative as the two basic types of evaluation. Researchers underline formative evaluation with an aim “to provide information for program improvement”. On the other hand the purpose of summative evaluation is “to serve decisions or assist in making judgments about program adoption, continuation or expansion” (Fitzpatrick and et al., 2004). That is, while the main focus is on the process in formative evaluation, it is on the product in summative evaluation. To better understand the difference of these two evaluation models, below table was given by Worthen and Sanders (1998). 23 Table 2.1 Differences between Formative and Summative Evaluation Basis for Comparison Formative Evaluation Summative Evaluation Purpose To improve the program To certify program utility Audience Program administrators and staff Potential consumer Who should do it? Internal evaluator External Evaluator Major characteristics Timely Convincing Measures Often informal Valid/reliable Frequency of data collection Frequent Limited Sample size Often small Usually large Questions What’s working? What needs to be improved? How can it be improved? With whom? At what cost? With what training? Educational Evaluation: Alternative Approaches and Practical Guidelines by Blaine Rorthern and James R. Sanders (1998). Another researcher distinguishes evaluation into two different aspects. Gilbert (2004) indicates these two aspects as intrinsic evaluation and extrinsic evaluation. In intrinsic evaluation model, the study focuses on the value of the objectives, consequences, outcomes and implications of programs which might not have been given in the program. On the other hand, extrinsic evaluation focuses on judging the aims and objectives that are aimed to be achieved and assumes that the outcomes of a program could be stated in measurable terms (Gilbert, 2004). The main difference between the mentioned evaluation models is the time when the evaluation is applied. While the summative evaluation is applied after the implementation of a program, formative evaluation is applied while the program is being implemented, in order to make the necessary changes for the betterment of the program being implemented. Even though the approaches and methods indicated by different researchers focus on a variety of areas, the main aim of program evaluation is to improve the quality of the programs. 2.5.2. Phases of Program Evaluation Program evaluations studies are done in a well-organized plan to fulfill its function. Fleischman and Williams (1996) explain the steps of the evaluation process as: 24  Defining the purpose and scope of the evaluation  Specifying the evaluation questions  Developing the evaluation design and data collection plan  Collecting the data  Analyzing the data  Using the evaluation report for program improvement Other than the steps to be taken presented by Fleischman and Williams (1996), Norris and Watanabe (2007) presents four evaluation measurements that needs to be considered in the process of evaluation. These measurements are indicated by the following questions:  Utility: Is evaluation useful to the intended users?  Feasibility: Is the evaluation plan realistic and practical?  Propriety: Is evaluation conducted ethically?  Accuracy: Is evaluation conducted appropriately and systematically, and can it be justified? Identifying the purpose of evaluation is the first step to be taken in the evaluation process. The questions to be asked at this stage are put forward by (Varış, 1997; cited in Zincir, 2006) as “Why do we evaluate?” and “Who will participate in evaluation?” The purpose of the evaluation study vary in number depending on its expected outcome. The target group of the study may also be from a wide range of participants from program developers to students and the teaching staff. The study can be done in order to find out the effectiveness or the strengths and weaknesses of the program or the Rates of the program in general. As the second step, the answers to the following question should be answered to identify the questions of the evaluation. “What will be evaluated?” (Varış, 1997; cited in Zincir, 2006). The questions of the study may focus on different components of the program such as the content, goal, the process of teaching, assessment, strengths, and weaknesses of the program as a whole and so on. 25 The next step deals with the data collection method and plan depending on the purpose of the study to be cond