ABSTRACT
The aim of this qualitative study is to reveal the condition involved in teaching Turkish as a second language to Syrian refugees. Participants were selected using a criterion-based sampling technique; they were six (6) instructors and forty (40) Syrian students. The data of the research were compiled using open-ended questionnaire developed by the researchers for the students, and semi-structure interview developed for the instructors. It was revealed that the students have problems mastering basic language skills (especially speaking and listening), the teaching materials are inadequate and physical environment is not conducive. Moreover, it appears that the students have problems in using and pronouncing certain vowels, the confuse letters, and use words in figurative sense. It has also been revealed that the teachers use the same practices, render feedback-correction, and have difficulty in teaching due to lack of right curriculum, the courses being above the students’ levels, and non-functional course equipment. The participants underlined that camp and class environments need to be improved, that students should be given greater opportunities to communicate with native Turkish speakers, audiovisual materials need to be improved, teachers need to be aware of the students’ psychological conditions, teachers should be very versed in at least two languages, and teachers need to be trained extensively.
Key words: Turkish as second language, Syrian refugees, refugee camp, qualitative research.
Immigration refers to the action of coming to live permanently in a foreign country. This act of mobility may have a cross-border dimension due to factors such as economic, political and/or legal inequalities between neighboring countries (Tekin, 2007; Yazgan et al., 2015). Syrians have demonstrated the highest level of cross-border mobility, with 6.5 million people having taken refuge in Turkey since April 2011 as a result of the civil war (NTV News, 2017).
According to data released by the Emigration Administration General Directorate (2017), there are currently 2,834,441 Syrian refugees living in Turkey. Turkey declared an “open door” policy for Syrians in 2011, whereby refugee camps coordinated by the Turkish Emergency Management Directorate (AFAD) were established in certain provinces, and refugees were granted “temporary protection” status in October 2011 (Middle East Strategic Research Center, 2015). In
addition to health, housing, and economic rights, Syrian refugees with temporary protection status also have the right to education in the country they reside in. Based on the Convention on the Rights of Children that Turkey signed in 1995, Turkey is obliged to provide education to Syrians (Seydi, 2014). Thus, on September 26, 2013, the Turkish National Ministry of Education (MNE) issued a public mandate titled "Educational and Instructional Services for Syrian Citizens under Temporary Protection in our Country", which emphasized that education services be provided according to certain standard, that in and out-of-camp education services be conducted in conjunction and, more, that university education be given particular importance (MEB, 2013).
State schools and universities operate non-camp educational facilities that individuals who have entered the country with a passport are able to attend. However, the language problem experienced by Syrians is one of the biggest obstacles to the productivity of the educational facilities (Middle East Strategic Research Center, 2015). The right to education, which is one of the most important of the aforementioned rights, requires that foreign children and young adults learn Turkish language for them to communicate with their teachers and peers. Learning and teaching are activities that cannot be isolated from communication, and when it is considered that learning is largely based on language skills, it is not possible for a learner with weak language skills to succeed in classes (Tekin, 2007; Güngör, 2015).
An individual can acquire language skills as a native language based on where she/he was born and raised or can acquire this tool later within the context of a different culture and country. Thus, the concept of learning a second or foreign language is significant. A second language is the language used as the medium of communication after or alongside one’s mother tongue, and is acquired and spoken in a social environment (Klein, 1996). A foreign language, on the other hand, includes all languages learned by an individual later on and in a planned manner and tends not to be used in one’s everyday life (BaÅŸkan, 2006; Zorbaz, 2013). Turkish language education for those who reside in Turkey whose mother tongue is a language other than Turkish is referred to as “Turkish as a second language (TSL)” education in the literature; they use that second language in their everyday lives. Syrians living in Turkey thus learn Turkish as a second language.
The teaching of TSL is conducted with a gradual course level system and involves textbooks that are adequate for the levels of the students: beginner, intermediate, upper-intermediate, and advanced (CandaÅŸ, 2009). Syrian refugees consider the learning of Turkish to be important in order to be able understand and integrate into Turkish culture, to complete their unfinished education in Turkey, and to start a business (Açık, 2008; Güler, 2012). Thus, most Syrians do Turkish courses provided by TÖMER (Turkish and Foreign Languages Implementation and Research Center, 2018) in refugee camps and universities. The determination of Syrians’ language learning needs and conducting the education based on curricula developed with respect to these needs are important to enable them to adapt better to the life and culture in Turkey. However, the teaching of TSL to Syrians comes with three broad challenges: problems related to the system, students, and teachers.
It has been reported that those who learn TSL mainly experience problems first with writing, followed by speaking, reading, and listening (Açık, 2008). It is known that students experience difficulties in vocalizing the main sounds/letters in general, whether in writing, reading or speaking (Er et al., 2012; Açık, 2008; MavaÅŸoÄŸlu and Tüm, 2010; Adalar, 2010; Demirci, 2015; Dönmez and Paksoy, 2015; KarataÅŸ et al., 2016). In a study conducted by Er et al. (2012), it was reported that students generally experienced difficulties processing and pronouncing the sounds ÄŸ, ÅŸ, ç, ı and ü, whilst a study by Açık (2008) revealed that students struggled most with the writing of vowels. MavaÅŸoÄŸlu and Tüm (2010) stated that students experienced problems in hearing and voicing the ÄŸ and csounds. Furthermore, Adalar (2010) reported that Arabic-speaking students made several mistakes in terms of voicing and writing the soundsü, o and ö sounds, none of which exist in the phonology of most Arabic dialects. In addition, Demirci (2015) reached the conclusion that Syrians doing B1 level courses in Turkish made mistakes in "reading aloud" due to differences in alphabet and phonemic differences between Turkish and their native Arabic, which, in turn, negatively affected their motivation. Due to the phonetic and structural differences between the mother tongue and target language, problems related to syntax are encountered in addition to pronunciation (Açık, 2008; MavaÅŸoÄŸlu and Tüm, 2010; Demirci, 2015; Büyükikiz and Çangal, 2016). MavaÅŸoÄŸlu and Tüm (2010) reported that students who are accustomed to the "subject-predicate-object" (SVO) order of their native language cannot adapt to the "subject-object-predicate" (SOV) order in Turkish and the syntax problems that they had experienced thus led to concurrent morphological, semantic, and phonetic problems. Another problem that arises from the structural differences between languages is related to semantics and use of affixes (MavaÅŸoÄŸlu and Tüm, 2010; Adalar, 2010; CandaÅŸ, 2009; Özkan, 1994). According to MavaÅŸoÄŸlu and Tüm (2010), foreign students experience more difficulty in using the case and possessive suffixes, and are particularly hesitant about which morpheme to use with which word. CandaÅŸ (2009) found that students experienced difficulty in using ı, i, u and ücase specification suffixes, as well as aa and ecase orientation suffixes.
Students also seem to experience problems related to how Turkish is taught. These problems can be classified as problems related to methods and techniques, to instructional material and technology, and to textbooks. Previous studies have emphasized that the language instruction methods and techniques used in the courses were monotonous and not diversified based on contemporary requirements and language instruction aims (Açık, 2008; Er et al., 2012; Göçer and MoÄŸul, 2011; Ünlü, 2011). Ünlü (2011) emphasizes that the preferred methods and techniques differ based on the institution; each institution us edits own unique methods and techniques, and that there was no uniform instruction among the institutions. Another problem area is related to the materials used. Problems experienced in this context can be listed as being material that is inadequate, unqualified, and culturally inappropriate (Er et al., 2012; Ünlü, 2011; Göçer, 2013; DurmuÅŸ, 2013; Güngör, 2015; DaÄŸdelen, 2015; CiÄŸerci and Güngör, 2016; Büyükikiz and Çangal, 2016; Emin, 2016; MavaÅŸoÄŸlu and Tüm, 2010).
Yet another problem that appears to exist concerns competency of language instructors, which includes their inability to communicate in the native language(s) of their students (Güler, 2012; MavaÅŸoÄŸlu and Tüm, 2010), their lack of knowledge of their students and their cultures (Güler, 2012), their inability to use information technology in the classroom (Büyükaslan, 2007), their lack of proper field training, and their considering their job of being temporary (Özyürek, 2009; Ünlü, 2011; YaÄŸmur, 2011; Yıldız, 2014).
While many revolutionary developments in the field of teaching TSL have occurred in recent years, the existence of fundamental problems negatively affects the productivity in the process, and moreover prevents more accurate use of Turkish language as a global language. Thus, the determination of the teaching-learning experiences of as well as the problems faced by teachers and students of TSL is quite important, particularly when it comes to meeting to the needs of Syrian refugees. It is expected that the findings of this study be of value in deterring the problems that Syrian students living in refugee camps face when it comes to learning TSL, as well as in guiding the development of educational-instructional activities that may resolve these problems.
The aim of the study
The main aim of this study is to determine the current status in teaching TSL to Syrian refugees based on teachers’ and students’ views. Thus, the following research questions were posed:
(1)What are the general views of teachers and students about the instruction of Turkish?
(2)What problems do teachers and students experience when it comes to teaching and learning Turkish?
(3) What are the possible solutions to these problems?
Research model
In this study, a basic qualitative research design was conducted within the scope of the qualitative research method. Basic qualitative research can be observed in every application field and discipline. In this type of research, data are collected through interviews, observations, and/or document analysis. Moreover, both the data collected as well as the data collection methods may vary based on the theoretical framework of the study in question (Merriam, 2013).
Participants
The study participants were selected using a criterion-based sampling method, which is a purposive sampling technique. The basic criterion determined in the present study was the learning or the instruction of TSL. The participants comprise six teachers and forty students.
Data collection tools
Two survey forms, one containing open-ended questions, and the other containing a semi-structured interview form were used to determine the views of students and teachers, respectively, both on learning and TSL courses. A personal information form was also included, which reflected the demographics utilized as the basis for the students’ and teachers’ views.
The open-ended questions-based survey form was designed to acquire students’ views. Eight (8) carefully researched open-ended questions were developed and presented to experts for review before being administered to the students. The field experts were asked to check the comprehensibility and relevance of the questions. The interview form, on the other hand, was developed based on the principles of comprehensibility, focused questions, the development of alternative questions and probes, different types of questions, and logical organization of the questions (Yıldırım and ÅžimÅŸek, 2016). A draft interview form was developed, and experts were consulted for the interview form content. A pilot scheme was conducted with one teacher after obtaining the experts’ opinion; the teachers’ responses were analyzed in order to rephrase any outstanding, incomprehensible questions. The teacher who participated in the pilot scheme was excluded from the study.
Data collection, analysis and interpretation
After collecting the data obtained through the open-ended survey form from the students, it was checked individually before being coded; forms that contained missing information were excluded from the analysis. The analyzed data collection instruments were enumerated, and the data were transferred onto computer.
In order to analyze the data collected regarding students’ views, students’ responses were read and coded. Through the basics of quantitative content analysis (Lincoln and Guba, 1985), the information on the codes was provided in terms of percentage based on frequency analysis. The coding of the data in the open-ended form reflected the shared views of the researchers and a field expert based on the literature.
The qualitative content analysis technique was utilized in order to analyze the data obtained from the teachers in the study. In qualitative content analysis, the data was first coded, themes were determined, the suitability of the themes was checked, the themes were finalized, and the findings were interpreted. In order to establish the validity and reliability of the data collected with semi-structured interview forms in the study, credibility, transferability, consistency and verifiability were utilized as criteria (Lincoln and Guba, 1985).
Credibility
The analysis process was conducted by two different researchers, supported by experts in the determination of methodology and content analysis. The analysis reports were presented to an independent researcher, and analyzed independently; the data were analyzed independently by both the researchers and a field expert, and then the analyses were compared. Discussions were held until a consensus between the researcher and field expert was established and only then was the analysis finalized.
Transferability
This study contains detailed descriptions and purposive sampling based on direct citations within the scope of the transferability.
Consistency
Researchers established consistency among the codes during the individually conducted coding process, and later at the agreement phase, reliability was established.
Verifiability
Both raw data and analyses were presented for experts’ supervision within the scope of verifiability.
FINDINGS AND INTERPRETATION
Here, the findings and related comments obtained from teachers and Syrian refugees were presented based on the aims of the study.
Findings on the views of teachers
Teachers’ reasons for working with refugees
Based on the findings, it was observed that the teachers’ reasons for working as Turkish teachers included their not being appointed by the MNE, the field of TSL providing employment opportunities, their assuming that they are versed in the teaching of TSL, and their desire to obtain pre-service teaching experience in this field.
Camp conditions
According to participating teacher views, the instruction process was adversely affected by the physical conditions in the camp: collective lifestyle, inadequate psychosocial conditions, insufficient course material, and high student absenteeism.
Cultural differences and the linguistic value of Turkish
Based on the teachers’ views, it was observed that the cultural differences between Turks and Arabs were important in Turkish language instruction. While a number of teachers stated that the differences between the cultures did not affect the instruction extensively, the majority of teachers emphasized that cultural diversity affected the instruction process both positively and negatively. Ä°.Ö., who stated that cultural differences lead to a prejudice and hesitation towards the target culture and the language, argued that cultural differences have a negative impact on the teaching of Turkish: "You are learning the language of a culture that is completely different from the culture in which the individual has lived, learned, and known, which is very challenging. It is different from your lifestyle and it is different for you. This leads to a disadvantage in instruction by creating an involuntary prejudice within the student."Despite camp conditions and the problems caused by cultural differences and absenteeism of students due to these problems, the teachers emphasized that several students attended the classes due to the linguistic value of Turkish, and attached great importance to Turkish. According to the teachers, although the students considered Turkish difficult, there were also students who were aware of their obligation to speak Turkish since it was both a regional language and an important global language, and because it was important for their higher education. Teachers, who agreed with the students that Turkish was important as a global language asserted that the geopolitical significance of Turkey resting between Europe and the Middle East makes the systematic, purposive and programmed instruction of Turkish necessary for foreigners.
Language course leveling system
Turkish education in the camps is conducted with a gradual course level system based on TÖMER programs. The participants stated that the course level system was generally effective in instruction; however, since the students mainly learn Turkish in order to attend university, the system due to its general structure makes the students lean towards rote learning in order to pass course exams.
Instruction process and activities
It was observed that the views under this main theme were grouped under four sub-themes: reading, listening, writing and speaking activities. It was stated that the teachers invited other teachers to the classroom, allowed students to read the reading texts, attempted to effectively utilize the listening CDs available as part of TÖMER book sets, allowed the students to find the missing and inaccurate words in listening texts, and frequently engaged in dictation studies to listen and make sense of various conversations while the students acquire listening skills. Teachers, who noted that the listening and writing instructions were conducted subsequently, stated that they frequently applied dictation activities and, furthermore, that they had students fill-in-the-blanks-based activities in stories and poems, find and correct the wrong word in a text, write essays, and summarize the stories they read. Within the scope of speech instruction, it was concluded that teachers implemented the question and answer method, organized debate activities, allowed the students to talk about daily life, conducted drama and role-playing activities, created dialogue groups of two students in the attempt to remove their reservations in speaking.
Teachers, in expressing their views on reading skills and activities, stated that they used literary and entertaining reading materials such as poetry, songs, and stories for students in order to acquire reading skills. In this context, it was stated that they allowed the reading texts to be read in turns, allowed the students to correct inverted sentences, and asked the students to mark the unfamiliar words in the texts, whereupon those words were written on the board and their meanings checked using dictionaries. Some teachers had emphasized the lack of course materials, and stated that they purchased storybooks using their own money and let the students to read these books. Teachers, in explaining which activities and methods they used in terms of developing students’ four basic language skills, stated that they based the instruction process on cultural similarities, which in turn motivated the students.
The main problems affecting instruction
The main theme was categorized into three sub-themes based on the views related to the causes of problems experienced in Turkish instruction: disciplinary problems, grammatical problems, and problems in speaking and writing. Within the context of grammatical problems, it was stated that students experienced problems in using vowels, in pronouncing the vowels, and in confusing letters. On the subject, E.Ö. stated the following:"I guess some Turkish sounds do not exist in Arabic, and the students frequently confuse the vowels "o-ö", "u-ü" and "e-i", and they cannot use these. I say "üzüm" but the student says “uzum”. There are some students whom I failed to teach. After many repetitions, those who worked hard corrected it later, but some of them tried really hard, but then I was convinced that they could not succeed. They cannot pronounce "ü" or “ö”. There is no way they can pronounce “üç”; they say “uç”. They cannot pronounce "u-ü" and "o-ö"; these are very confusing for them. In writing, they confuse "e" with "i". In the pronunciation, they confuse "o-ö", "u-ü"; when writing, you say "e", they write "i"; you say "i", they write "e". Furthermore, the teachers emphasized that students experienced problems with the vocalization of hard consonants. Besides phonetic problems, it was observed that teachers experienced problems with teaching sentence formation and sentence elements, and that students incorrectly ordered sentence elements, confusing the order of the genitive and the definitive in possessive and adjective clauses. Teachers moreover pointed out that students had problems while using the case and possessive suffixes accurately, and that they experienced problems with the use of punctuation marks at the beginning of the process; however, the frequency of these issues has gradually decreased over time. Linguistic problems such as replacing unrecognized words with words in Arabic, confusing Latin-based Turkish letters with Arabic letters, and not paying attention to punctuation and spelling rules were experienced during the instruction of speech and writing. Within the context of disciplinary problems, it was stated that students speak Arabic among themselves, that they do not fulfill their assignments and responsibilities and abstain from attending class. It was stated that these problems were due to the age difference among the students, their educational and grade levels, and negative physical conditions.
Recommendations
Teachers were asked to make recommendations about TSL instruction. In this context, it was observed that the teachers expressed the need for a better physical and auditory instructional environment, thus enabling the establishment of communication between refugees and Turks in a way that enable reflective learning, the need for the development of Turkish textbooks that emphasized the similarities and relationship between the two cultures, as well as the need for the inclusion of visual materials in the book sets. Furthermore, teachers proposed that the teachers should be aware of the conditions and the psychosocial status of the refugees, they need to speak at least two languages, be experts in basic language skills, and receive comprehensive training before instructing each course level, and that course level instruction last longer. Regarding the gradual course level system, it was suggested that course periods be extended due to the extensive book content, and that difficult texts should not be included at the initial levels.
Findings on the views of Syrian refugees
General views on Turkish language
General views of the participants on Turkish demonstrated that eleven (11) students considered Turkish as an important language, six (6) students considered it as a difficult language to learn, and four (4) students experienced difficulties in learning Turkish language initially; however, they got used to the language later.
Reasons for learning Turkish
Analysis of the views of refugee students on the reasons for learning Turkish demonstrated that twenty-nine (29) students were learning Turkish in order to attend university, ten (10) students studied Turkish because they feel that it ought to be learned as a new language, eight (8) students were learning Turkish in order to find a job in Turkey or in neighboring countries, seven (7)students were learning Turkish because they liked the language, and one (1) student was learning Turkish in order to work as an interpreter for Arab tourists. The fact that most students stated that they were learning Turkish in order to attend university was consistent with the finding that, according to teachers, the main reason for the students to learn Turkish was to attend university.
Course facilities and material
Analysis of views regarding course facilities and material demonstrated that fourteen (14) students considered textbooks to be detailed and difficult, eleven (11) students considered the educational resources used in the classroom to be inadequate, six (6) students thought that the reading texts featured in the book were long, six (6) students considered the textbooks to be useful, five (5) students considered visual and auditory resources to be inadequate, and three (3) students emphasized that teachers’ efforts were significant and found the instructional activities to be adequate. Students’ views on the inadequacy of educational resources were consistent with the views of teachers regarding the inadequacy of the educational resources available in the refugee camp, and lack of audiovisual and technological equipment in classrooms. Emphasizing the inadequacy of educational resources, S.Ö. stated the following: "We have only one source; there is no other resource than books. We experience difficulties for that reason."
Course level system
Analysis of the views on the course examination demonstrated that twelve (12) students felt that the duration of TSL courses is overly short in proportion to the volume of course content, the topics were instructed in a very intense and rapid manner, and therefore had to memorize instead of thoroughly learning the several linguistic rules. The student views were consistent with the views of the teachers on the gradual course level system, and on the disadvantages of the exam-oriented course level system.
Experienced problems and causes of these problems
Analysis of the views about problems experienced in terms of learning demonstrated that eleven (11) students experienced problems in the speech skills, six (6) students experienced problems with learning and using grammatical rules, four (4) students experienced problems due to lack of adequate listening and speaking activities, and four (4) students experienced problems in doing homework due to lack of studying opportunities, and lack of study environment at home. Students’ views regarding communication problems demonstrated that twenty (20) students did not have any opportunity to communicate with Turks, seven (7) students could not practice Turkish because they spoke Arabic to each other, six (6) students could only get the chance to speak Turkish with their teachers, and five(5) students had no communication opportunities due to camp conditions. These findings are consistent with the teachers’ views that the life in camps impeded the use of Turkish. Students’ views regarding adaptation demonstrated that twelve(12) students experienced problems in both their social lives and the instruction process due to cultural differences, thirteen (13) students were not happy about the containers where the instruction was conducted, and that eight(8) students considered the class environment to be adverse.
Recommendations
Within the scope of the students’ recommendations, it was revealed that twenty-one (21) students suggested that opportunities for communication with Turks be increased in order to better learn Turkish, ten(10) students suggested that the length of instruction in each course level be increased, seven (7) students suggested that the time allowed for final examinations be lengthened, seven (7)students suggested that provisions be made for audiovisual resources, five (5) students suggested that speaking activities be increased, and five (5) students suggested Turkish teachers be experts in TSL. The recommendations shared by both the teachers and students demonstrated that both participant groups had the same views regarding the creating of communication opportunities with the Turks, the extending of course durations, teachers being both experienced and knowledgeable in the field, and there being an adequate educational environment both in physical and audiovisual sense.
Based on the study findings, it was concluded that the teachers taught TSL because they were not appointed by the MNE, because the field of TSL provided employment opportunities, they assumed being versed in the teaching of TSL, and they desired to obtain pre-service teaching experience in this field. Most students were learning Turkish because they wanted to attend university in the future, they felt that Turkish ought to be learned as a new language, they wanted to find an employment in Turkey and in neighboring countries, and they liked Turkish and wanted to work as interpreters for Arab tourists. It is possible to argue that the teaching of TSL is a new discipline and phenomenon in Turkey, and that the present study and its findings have a unique value since there are no previous studies that focused on the reasons for the involvement of teachers and students in this field.
Based on the study findings, it was observed problems in Turkish instruction were concentrated on linguistic, cultural, and communicative dimensions, and these findings were consistent with the findings reported by Güngör (2015), Büyükikiz and Çangal (2016), CiÄŸerci and Güngör (2016), Özer et al. (2016), SarıtaÅŸ et al. (2016), and Uzun and Bütün (2016). Participants stated that in Turkish language instruction, problems were experienced in the acquisition of basic language skills, especially when it came to speaking and listening activities. The sources of this problem included inadequate activities, difficult listening texts, insufficient communication opportunities, inadequate physical classroom and camp conditions, and the presence of students from different age groups and education levels in the same class. These findings were consistent with studies by Arslan et al. (2010), MavaÅŸoÄŸlu and Tüm (2010), Er et al. (2012), Ünlü (2011), Polat (2012), Göçer (2013), Güngör (2015), Büyükikiz and Çangal (2016), and Emin (2016), who stated that inadequate physical conditions and course tools and material have an impact on learning and teaching processes. Furthermore, it was concluded that teachers mostly experienced problems with the teaching of vowels, whilst students experienced problems with voicing the letters and confusing. These findings were consistent with studies by Er et al. (2012), Açık (2008), MavaÅŸoÄŸlu and Tüm (2010), Adalar (2010), CandaÅŸ (2009), Demirci (2015), and Dönmez and Paksoy (2015). Thus, it is possible to argue that there is a close relationship between the problems experienced in the teaching of TSL, low academic achievement, and the acquisition of language skills.
The findings of our study had demonstrated that the fact that Turkish is being structurally different from Arabic posed a challenge for students, who experienced difficulties in learning the words without Arabic equivalents, and who especially failed in being able to use words in a metaphorical context. In this respect, the results of the present study were consistent with the findings of studies conducted by Polat (2012), Demirci (2015), and Büyükikiz and Çangal (2016).
The findings of this study reveal that teachers utilize various activities in the areas of listening, reading, speaking and writing, and that these activities were created based on their personal experiences and creativity. It was also found that teachers use the same activities in the overall instruction process, and that they coordinate the instruction process and activities. In the scope of the activities, teachers appear to employ certain instructional strategies, provide immediate feedback, to correct students’ performances in order to ensure the retention of learning and prevent inaccurate learning, and to use body language when teaching vocabulary. However, the lack of a standard curriculum, the fact that the courses are not tailored towards students’ needs, desires, and levels, the fact that the inadequacy of course material leads to instructional problems, and the fact that teachers have to instruct the students using presentation-based education have all lead to the use of rote learning. These findings were consistent with studies of Açık (2008), Er et al. (2012), Göçer and MoÄŸul (2011), Ünlü (2011), and Demirci (2015), who emphasize that language instruction methods and techniques utilized in TSL courses were monotonous, and not diversified based on the contemporary requirements and language instruction aims. It can be stated that the book sets provided by TÖMER do not adequately reflect the Turkish cultural elements, and that they are not suitable for students’ levels. In this context, it is possible to argue that textbooks and material use dare not functional, as the findings of DaÄŸdelen (2015) suggest, who reports that the utilization of texts that reflect Turkish culture and use of cultural elements in classroom environment thus increase motivation.
It was observed that the problems experienced by students while adapting to a new country and language have a negative impact on the instruction process. The problems related to discipline are associated with the facts that students constantly spoke Arabic among each other, that they could not complete their homework and responsibilities, and that was lack of communication opportunity between the students, teachers, and the Turkish public. In this regard, Büyükikiz and Çangal (2016) state that the development of language skills of students is negatively affected by their lack of opportunity to speak Turkish outside the classroom.
It has been concluded from the recommendations of both teachers and the students that the camp and classroom environments need to be improved, communication opportunities in Turkish and more speaking activities ought to be provided, audiovisual and technological tools and materials be madeavailable and/or improved,Turkish textbooks that emphasize the similarities and relationship between the two cultures be authored, visual materials be included in book sets, teachers need to be knowledge about the psycho-social conditions of the refugees, teachers should be ableto speak at least two languages, teachers should specialize in basic language skills, teachers be provided comprehensive training, and that the duration of each course level be lengthened.Thus, it was observed that the findings of this study were consistent with the results of studies by Polat (2012), Mete and Gürsoy (2013), Güngör (2015) Büyükikiz and Çangal (2016), CiÄŸerci and Güngör (2016), Özer et al. (2016), and SarıtaÅŸ et al. (2016). In order conduct more functional and systematic instruction of TSL in refugee camps, it is possible to suggest that a standard curriculum be developed that is tailored toward the specific needs of Turkish language instruction in refugee camps, the interests and desires of the students and teachers be considered when developing the curriculum, course tools and materials need to be improved, audiovisual and technological tools need to be utilized, physical conditions of the classes need to be improved, courses need to be organized around students’ levels and needs, and teachers need to be competent in the field of TSL.
There is need for future studies designed with larger samples and mixed methods (both qualitative and quantitative research methods), and also application-based empirical studies ought to be conducted on the TSL pedagogy.
The authors have not declared any conflict of interests.
REFERENCES
|
Açık F (2008). Türkiye'de yabancılara Türkçe öÄŸretilirken karşılaşılan sorunlar ve çözüm önerileri. Uluslararası Türkçe EÄŸitimi ve ÖÄŸretimi Sempozyumu'nda sunulan sözlü bildiri. DoÄŸu Akdeniz Üniversitesi EÄŸitim Fakültesi Türkçe EÄŸitimi Bölümü, LefkoÅŸa.
|
|
|
|
Adalar SD (2010). TÖMER'de yabancı dil olarak Türkçe öÄŸrenen Arap öÄŸrencilerin kompozisyonlarında hata analizi. Dil Dergisi 148:7-16.
Crossref
|
|
|
|
|
Arslan Z, Kechriotis C, Erdem B (2011). Türkçe öÄŸrenen yabancı öÄŸrencilerin eÄŸilimleri ve ders planlama süreci" and "Dünya Dili Türkçe Sempozyumu Bildiri Kitabı. Izmir DokuzEylülÜniversitesi 593-601.
|
|
|
|
|
BaÅŸkan Ö (2006). Yabancı dil öÄŸretimi ilkeler ve çözümler, Ä°stanbul: Multilingual Yabancı dil öÄŸretimi ilkeler ve çözümler.
|
|
|
|
|
Büyükaslan A (2007). Yabancı dil Türkçenin öÄŸretilmesinde yeni yöntemler: BiliÅŸim uygulamaları, çözüm Önerileri.
|
|
|
|
|
Büyükikiz KK, Çangal Ö (2016). Suriyeli misafir öÄŸrencilere Türkçe öÄŸretimi projesi üzerine bir deÄŸerlendirme. Uluslararası Türkçe Edebiyat Kültür EÄŸitim Dergisi 5(3):1414-1430.
|
|
|
|
|
CandaÅŸ Karababa ZC (2009). Yabancı dil olarak Türkçenin öÄŸretimi ve karşılaşılan sorunlar. Ankara Üniversitesi EÄŸitim Bilimleri Fakültesi Dergisi, 42(2):265-277.
|
|
|
|
|
CiÄŸerci FM, Güngör F (2016). The problems encountered by the foreign primary school students from the perspectives of classroom teachers (Bilecik sampling). Journal of Education and Future, 10: 137-164.
|
|
|
|
|
DaÄŸdelen D (2015). Yabancılara Türkçe öÄŸretimi programının öÄŸretmen ve öÄŸrenci görüÅŸlerine göre. Published master thesis, East Mediterranean University.
|
|
|
|
|
Demirci M (2015). B1 seviyesinde Türkçe öÄŸrenen Suriyeli öÄŸrencilerin sesli okuma becerisiyle ilgili tespitler. Turkish Studies 10(7):333-358.
Crossref
|
|
|
|
|
Dönmez MÄ°, Paksoy S (2015). Türkiye'de öÄŸrenim gören Suriyeli öÄŸrencilerin Türkçe öÄŸrenmede karşılaÅŸtıkları sorunlar üzerine bir araÅŸtırma: Kilis 7 Aralık Üniversitesi örneÄŸi. International Journal of Languages' Education and Teaching.
Crossref
|
|
|
|
|
DurmuÅŸ M (2013). Türkçenin yabancılara öÄŸretimi: Sorunlar, çözüm önerileri ve yabancılara Türkçe öÄŸretiminin geleceÄŸiyle ilgili görüÅŸler. Adıyaman Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, Türkçenin ÖÄŸretimi Özel Sayısı 11:207-228.
|
|
|
|
|
Emin MN (2016). Türkiye'deki Suriyeli çocukların eÄŸitimi: Temel eÄŸitim politikaları.
|
|
|
|
|
Er O, Biçer N, Bozkırlı KÇ (2012). Yabancılara Türkçe öÄŸretiminde karşılaşılan sorunların ilgili alan yazını ışığında deÄŸerlendirilmesi. Uluslararası Türkçe Edebiyat Kültür EÄŸitim Dergisi 1(2):51-69.
|
|
|
|
|
Göç Ä°daresi Genel MüdürlüÄŸü [Emigration Administration General Directorate] (2017). 2016 Türkiye göç raporu.
|
|
|
|
|
Göçer A, MoÄŸul S (2011). Türkçenin yabancı dil olarak öÄŸretimi ile ilgili çalışmalara genel bir bakış. Turkish Studies 6(3):797-810.
|
|
|
|
|
Göçer A (2013). Türkiye'de yabancılara Türkçe öÄŸretimi. (Ed: DurmuÅŸ M. & Okur A.) in Yabancılara Türkçe ÖÄŸretimi El Kitabı. Ankara: Grafik Yayınları pp. 171-180.
|
|
|
|
|
Güler EB (2012). Yabancılara Türkçe öÄŸretiminde "öÄŸretmen" unsuru. The Journal of Academic Social Science Studies 5(2):129-134.
|
|
|
|
|
Güngör F (2015). Yabancı uyruklu ilkokul öÄŸrencilerinin eÄŸitim–öÄŸretiminde yaÅŸanan sorunlara iliÅŸkin öÄŸretmen ve öÄŸrenci görüÅŸleri. Unpublished master thesis, Anadolu University.
|
|
|
|
|
KarataÅŸ DemirtaÅŸ S ve KarataÅŸ Acer E (2016). Türkçe öÄŸretiminde karşılaşılan sorunlara yönelik bir deÄŸerlendirme: Passau Üniversitesi örneÄŸi.
|
|
|
|
|
Klein W (1996). Language acquisition at different ages. (Ed: Magnusson D) in Individual development over the Lifespan: Biological and Psychosocial Perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press pp. 88-108.
|
|
|
|
|
Lincoln YS, Guba EG (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, California: Sage Publications.
|
|
|
|
|
MavaÅŸoÄŸlu MV, Tüm G (2010). Türkçenin yabancı Dil (TYD) olarak öÄŸretiminde Çukurova Üniversitesinin uygulamaları, karşılaşılan sorunlar ve çözüm önerileri.
|
|
|
|
|
MEB (2013). Ülkemizde Geçici Koruma Altında Bulunan Suriye VatandaÅŸlarına Yönelik EÄŸitim ÖÄŸretim Hizmetleri Genelgesi.
|
|
|
|
|
Merriam SB (2013). Nitel araÅŸtırma: Desen ve uygulama için bir rehber. Ankara: Nobel Yayıncılık.
|
|
|
|
|
Mete F, Gürsoy Ü (2013). Yabancı dil olarak Türkçe öÄŸretiminde öÄŸretmen yeterliklerine iliÅŸkin öneriler. Hacettepe Üniversitesi EÄŸitim Fakültesi Dergisi 28(3):343-356.
|
|
|
|
|
OrtadoÄŸu Stratejik AraÅŸtırmalar Merkezi [Middle East Strategic Research Center] (2015). Suriyeli sığınmacıların Türkiye'ye etkileri.
|
|
|
|
|
Özer YY, KomÅŸuoÄŸlu A, AteÅŸok ZÖ (2016). Türkiye'deki Suriyeliçocu klarıneÄŸitimi: Sorunlarveçözümönerileri. Akademik Sosyal AraÅŸtırmalar Dergisi 4(37):34-42.
|
|
|
|
|
Özkan A (1994). Yabancı Dil Olarak Türkçe ÖÄŸretiminde Ad Durum Eklerinin ÖÄŸretilmesiyle Ä°lgili Kimi GörüÅŸler. Ankara: AÜ TÖMER Dil Dergisi.
|
|
|
|
|
Özyürek R (2009). Türk devlet ve topluluklarından gelen Türk soylu yabancı öÄŸrencilerin Türkçe öÄŸreniminde karşılaÅŸtığı problemler. Turkish Studies 4(3):1819-1861.
|
|
|
|
|
Polat ÖS (2012). Yabancıdilolarak TürkçeöÄŸretimindeÅŸiirekültürelbaÄŸlamdauygulamalıbiryaklaşım.Published master thesis, Ä°stanbul University.
|
|
|
|
|
SarıtaÅŸ E, Åžahin Ü, ÇatalbaÅŸ G (2016). Yabancı dil öÄŸretimi ilkeler ve çözümler. PamukkaleÜniversitesiSosyalBilimlerEnstitüsüDergisi, 25(1):208-229.
|
|
|
|
|
Seydi AR (2014). Türkiye'nin Suriyeli sığınmacıların eÄŸitim sorununun çözümüne yönelik izlediÄŸi politikalar. SDÜ Fen Edebiyat Fakültesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi 31: 267-305.
|
|
|
|
|
NTV News (2017). Suriye iç savaşında 6 yılda neler yaÅŸandı? [What was lived in Syria civil war for 6 years?]
|
|
|
|
|
Tekin U (2007). Avrupa'yagöçveTürkiye. Ä°ÜBF Dergisi 37:43-56.
|
|
|
|
|
Turkish and Foreign Languages Implementation and Research Center (2018). Türkçe ve Yabancı Dil AraÅŸtırma ve Uygulama Merkezi (2018). Taken from http://tomer.ankara.edu.tr/ in 20.01.2018.
|
|
|
|
|
Uzun EM, Bütün E (2016). Okul öncesi eÄŸitim kurumlarındaki Suriyeli sığınmacı çocukların karşılaÅŸtıkları sorunlar hakkında öÄŸretmen görüÅŸleri. Uluslararası Erken Çocukluk EÄŸitimi Çalışmaları Dergisii 1(1):72-83.
|
|
|
|
|
Ünlü H (2011). Türkiye'de ve dünyada Türkçenin yabancılara öÄŸretiminde karşılaşılan sorunlar ve çözüm önerileri. Gazi Üniversitesi Türkçe AraÅŸtırmaları Akademik ÖÄŸrenci Dergisi 1(1):108-116.
|
|
|
|
|
YaÄŸmur K. (2011). Batı Avrupa'da ana dili Türkçe olan öÄŸrencilere Türkçenin ikinci dil olarak öÄŸretimi ve kuramsal sorunlar. (Ed: Kılınç, A. ve Åžahin, A.) In Yabancı dil olarak Türkçe öÄŸretimi. Ankara: Pegem Akademi pp. 115-145.
|
|
|
|
|
Yazgan P, EroÄŸlu Utku D, Sirkeci Ä° (2015). Syrian crisis and migration. Migration Letters 12(3):181-192.
|
|
|
|
|
Yıldırım A, ÅžimÅŸek H (2016). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araÅŸtırma yöntemleri (10. press). Ankara: Seçkin Yayıncılık.
|
|
|
|
|
Yıldız Ü (2014). Yabancı dil olarak Türkçe öÄŸretiminde öÄŸretmen yeterlilikleri üzerine bir çalışma. International Journal of Language Academy 2(4):564-578.
|
|
|
|
|
Zorbaz KZ (2013). Yabancılara Türkçe öÄŸretiminin tarihî seyri. (Ed: DurmuÅŸ, M. ve Okur, A.), In Yabancılara Türkçe ÖÄŸretimi El Kitabı. Ankara: Grafiker Yayınları pp. 159-169.
|
|
