In the Academic Year 2014-15, a group of language teachers at Georgetown University participated in a project with about 100 students to integrate Teletandem on-line partnered native language speaker exchange into language classes. Teletandem is a technology-enhanced language learning method where speakers of one language (e.g., English speakers) will interact with speakers of another language (e.g.,Turkish etc.) for reciprocal learning of each other’s languages and cultures. The project took place under the umbrella of the Provost’s Initiative on Technology Enhanced Learning. Of the group from the Faculty of Languages and Linguistics, which was guided by a long-time Teletandem researcher Joao Telles from Brazil, only the Turkish Program attempted to use Teletandem with beginning-level students. This presentation will make recommendations about the possibilities of Teletandem to create a hybrid-learning situation which can enhance student learning and motivation, even at the beginning level. Some samples of the prompts, consent forms, and student notes will be provided to show how the sessions progressed. In this experiment, issues of logistics and partnerships were crucially important, and various lessons were learned. One sample prompt about proverbs will be displayed, and recommendations for further ways to benefit from the possibilities of native-speaker language exchange will be given.

NEW LANGUAGE LEARNING FRAMEWORK FOR THE 21ST CENTURY This presentation will discuss the need of developing a new Language Learning Framework for Turkish. Between 1993-1995 a committee consisting of five teachers met to develop a Language learning Framework for Turkish, supported by ACTFL. This framework discussed the effect of existing textbooks for language classes, teaching methods, formulation of objectives for teaching, the need for new materials, basic principles for a nationwide curriculum, guidelines for teachers and learners, testing and Assessment, selection of content for teaching, the place of grammar, culture, and literature in teaching. More than 20 years have passed since the completion of this framework and some of the approaches to and the conditions have changed. This presentation will discuss theoretical and practical changes that need to be integrated into LLF since the completion of the Framework and a need to work on the practical an theoretical basis for a new Framework in the twenty-first century that would aid the language learners to operate in an environment permeated with digital technologies and new ways of meaning making necessities. It will also include a discussion of the importance of new literacies into the curriculum, and integration of the the standards for foreign language learning.

Aligning ACTFL and CEFR Can-Do Descriptors with Reference to Turkish: Standards and Assessments ACTFL (American Council of Teaching of Foreign Languages) guidelines and CEFR (Common European Framework of Reference) are two independent frameworks that define “can-do” statements for second language users at various proficiency levels. These two frameworks, with implications to curriculum, assessment, materials design as well as policies, have widely been used for a number of second languages, including Turkish. An immediate question that arises after considering both systems is whether we can link these two in terms of their underlying assumptions about language and its use, teaching, learning and testing, and, of course, whether these two frameworks are alignable at all. Lowe (2012) advises that a number of questions must be answered before ACTFL guidelines and CEFR can be aligned, some of which have direct implications for teaching Turkish in the US and in Europe: “For what purpose are we using these two frameworks?” “Can one use their results interchangeably?” “When are “can’t-do” statements necessary?” Green (2012) maintains that a comparison of these two systems empirically has the potential to prove useful for a better understanding of each if not for reaching a complete alignment in the format of a single system. Since both systems have been criticized in various ways, for instance in terms of proficiency testing (e.g. Fulcher, Weir 2005), comparing these two has the benefit of seeing the strengths and drawbacks of each. The goal of this presentation is thus two-fold: (i) to compare and contrast ACTFL standards to CEFR in reference to Turkish, and (ii) to consider issues regarding the alignability of these two frameworks with respect to their descriptor scales against their prescriptive nature. Fulcher, G. (1996). Invalidating validity claims for the ACTFL oral rating scale. System, 24(2), 163-172. Green, A.B. (2012) 'CEFR and ACTFL Crosswalk: A text based approach' in Tschirner, E. (ed.) Aligning Frameworks of Reference in Language Testing: The ACTFL Proficiency Guidelines and CEFR for Languages. Tubingen: Stauffenburg Verlag Lowe, P., Jr. (2012) 'Understanding “Hidden Features” of the ACTFL Speaking Guidelines as an Intermediate Step to Comparing the ACTFL Guidelines and the CEFR for Speaking Assessment ' in Tschirner, E. (ed.) Aligning Frameworks of Reference in Language Testing: The ACTFL Proficiency Guidelines and CEFR for Languages. Tubingen: Stauffenburg Verlag. Weir, C. J. (2005). Limitations of the Common European Framework for developing comparable examinations and tests. Language Testing, 22(3), 281-300.

Good language teaching and learning are founded on intellectual and linguistic interaction, negotiation, and exchange. In order to accomplish this, language instructors need clear goals and objectives that give a course a shape and structure as well as models, instruments and tools in order to plan and teach their classes. Curriculum, indeed, provides a general framework of what is to be taught and learned in a course. To foster the comprehension and performance in the target language, curriculum should particularly utilize two goals. The first one is to establish organic, interactive, innovative, and mostly authentic materials with the support of multimedia. The second one is to provide meaningful and appealing topics, implementing them through both deductive and inductive learning approaches and activities. Teaching a language is based on making choices. Conceptualizing, in that respect is the process in the curriculum design that focuses on which aspects of language and language learning are chosen and integrated in the course. The organizing principle reflects a multi-skill syllabus and goal of communicative competence that utilizes all aspects of the language in order to train learners to perform the language in an unrehearsed way and help them to “reach their fullest potential” (Brown, 2007). Teaching a language cannot be static or deterministic, but stimulating and facilitating. That being said, in this presentation I will focus on a dynamic image of a syllabus of a Turkish course that encompasses curricular and co-curricular tasks.

A New Turkish Course focusing on Graduate Students Graduate students in the US who are enrolled in Turkish Studies in various fields need to and are required by their departments to reach the Distinguished or Superior Reading proficiency levels defined by ACTFL to be able to conduct research in Turkish or Ottoman Turkish on their preferred subjects. However, to attain that level of reading proficiency in Turkish, through four-skill modern language courses that are usually offered for three years in North American universities where the emphasis is on oral comprehension and speaking, might take as long as the duration of the graduate program itself, and therefore not leave enough time for graduate students to carry out research in the target language necessary for their degree. In order to accelerate the process of attaining high level of reading proficiency and to enable graduate students to concentrate solely on reading, I designed a reading course with the input of faculty and graduate students to develop reading competence in Turkish exclusively for graduate students with no prior knowledge of Turkish. In this presentation I will raise the possibility of having different curricula for undergraduate and graduate students, and discuss the need for a possible alternative curriculum for Turkish language instruction targeting mainly graduate students. I will then demonstrate how, in order the respond to this need, I brought together a modified version of the outdated Grammar-Translation or the Classical method (at the expense of communication and writing skills), ACTFL proficiency guidelines and student input to design a new course. The principal aim of this course is to ensure that students use the target language as a research tool, i.e., it aims to enable students to read Turkish at an advanced level in one year / three quarters. I will illustrate the advantages (i.e. reaching advanced levels of reading proficiency in a relatively short amount of time, individualized vocabulary formation, etc.), the challenges (lack of communication and writing skills) of the reading Turkish course as well as vocabulary building and reading assessment techniques I implement in the course.