English teachers ’ perceptions of the middle school English language curriculum

DOI: 10.31704/ijocis.2020.005 In this study, which utilized survey as the research design, it was aimed to find out the teachers’ perceptions of the middle school English language curriculum which was developed in 2012 and revised in 2016. Target population of this study included all teachers working in Turkish public middle schools in Ankara, while the sample was composed of 349 teachers selected through clustered sampling method. A questionnaire developed by the researchers was used as data collection instrument. Findings revealed that many problems with respect to the components of the curriculum developed in 2012 have been solved, while only a few but most crucial problems still exist. It was concluded that this curriculum cannot develop students’ autonomy, communicative competence, and their writing, listening, and speaking skills. More research was suggested to be conducted to find out whether this failure resulted from the design itself or implementation process. Article History: Received Revised Accepted Online 26 February 2020 07 May 2020 10 May 2020 8 June 2020


Introduction
Foreign language education has been gaining more and more importance and attention due to the fast changes and improvements experienced all around the world. "The trend towards internationalization has increased the importance of being competent in communicating with people of different cultural backgrounds" (Fritz, Möllenberg & Chen, 2002, p. 1). To this connection, there has been a growing focus on the teaching and learning of English in Turkey as well. When the close history of English language teaching policies of Turkey is examined, it is recognized that foreign language curriculum has been exposed to three curriculum reforms since 1997. The first one came into being in 1997, the second one followed in 2005, and third one was developed in 2012 and revised in 2016.
The curricular changes witnessed in 2012 resulted from Turkish education system's transition from the 8+4 schooling model to the 4+4+4 model. The first four, in this model, refer to primary education; the second four refer to middle school education and the third four refer to high school education period. The new system necessitated a new curriculum, because English instruction started to be provided from the 2nd grade onward as different from the previous system according to which foreign language education was provided from the 4th grade onward. Another change stipulated by this system was that the 5th graders who were accepted in the primary education in the past are in middle school education level now.
Any newly developed curriculum is put into practice due to the lacks and inefficiency of the previous curriculum, and the previous curriculum's inability to catch up with the changing and developing age and technology (Yaman, 2010). The middle school English language curriculum, which has been in implementation process since 2013, needs continuous evaluation in order to make it work better. To this connection, it was aimed to find out the teachers' perceptions of components of the middle school English language curriculum and the following research question and sub questions were formulated to find answers for this question: 1. What are the teachers' perceptions of the middle school English language curriculum? 1.1. What are the teachers' perceptions of the objectives of the middle school English language curriculum?
1.2. What are the teachers' perceptions of the content of the middle school English language curriculum?
1.3. What are the teachers' perceptions of the materials of the middle school English language curriculum?
1.4. What are the teachers' perceptions of the suggested activities of the middle school English language curriculum? 1.5. What are the teachers' perceptions of the suggested assessment methods and techniques of the middle school English language curriculum?
Aiming to analyze the teachers' perceptions of the middle school English language curriculum developed in 2012, the present study is significant in several ways as explained in the following paragraphs.
First and foremost, as curriculum development is a systematic process (Erdoğan, Kayır, Kaplan, Aşık-Ünal & Akpınar, 2015;Oliva, 1997;Ornstein & Hunkins, 2004), the findings of the present study conducted on the curriculum are expected to contribute greatly to the curriculum development process and English language teaching policy in Turkey.
When the evaluation studies conducted on the components of the previous curricula are examined, it is seen that majority of them have focused on one grade level (Çelik, 2009;Demirtaş & Erdem, 2015;Dinçer, 2013;Güneş, 2009;Ocak, Kızılkaya & Boyraz, 2013;Yörü, 2012) or two (Büyükduman, 2005;Er, 2006;Erdoğan, 2005;Erkan, 2009;Koydemir, 2001;Mersinligil, 2002;Tekin-Özel, 2011;Yaman, 2010) in the same study, while only a few of them have focused on three grade levels (Ersen-Yanık, 2007;Harman, 1999;Örmeci, 2009). The present study is unique in that it is expected to obtain valuable and various data about the operation of the latest curriculum in four grade levels (5th, 6th, 7th, and 8th) in a single study. To this connection, it gives a more holistic perspective on this four-year curriculum.

Research Design
The research design for this study is a survey which "gather[s] data at a particular point in time with the intention of describing the nature of existing conditions" (Cohen, Manion, & Morrison, 2007, p. 205). Surveys "may vary in their levels of complexity from those that provide simple frequency counts to those that present relational analysis" (Cohen et al., 2007, p. 205). The survey in this study was used to describe the nature of existing conditions without any manipulation by providing frequency counts gathered. Another characteristic of the surveys is that they can "be differentiated in terms of their scope. A study of contemporary developments in post-secondary education, for example, might encompass the whole of western Europe; a study of subject choice, on the other hand, might be confined to one secondary school" (Cohen et al., 2007, p. 205). To this connection, this study is confined to the teachers working in a city, Ankara, and the findings of this study can be generalized to the perceptions of the teachers working in Ankara.

Population and Sample
The target population of this study was composed of all the teachers working in Turkish public schools in Ankara, while the participants of the study included teachers who were selected through cluster sampling method from 25 districts in Ankara. The population of the teachers teaching at the 5th, 6th, 7th and 8th grade levels in Ankara consisted of 1943 teachers according to the data obtained from MEIS module at www.mebbis.meb.gov.tr on 12.12.2016. Sample size is important for generalizability of the research (Gall, Gall, & Borg, 2003). At least 100 participants are enough for descriptive studies and the researchers can reach as big sample as they can depending on the time and energy they have (Fraenkel, Hyun & Wallen, 2012), the reliability of the research increases in this way as well (Cohen et al., 2007).
The sample size and all the other information are presented in Table 1. As cluster sampling method was used, all the teachers present in each school were invited to participate in the study, as a result in some districts more teachers participated than expected and they were included in the sample as presented in the table.

Teachers' Demographic Characteristics
The demographic characteristics of the teachers are summarized in Table 2. As seen in the table, the sample was composed of 280 female (80.20%) and 69 male participants (19.80%). The participants' average age was found to be 36.5. Regarding education level, 326 teachers (93.40%) had a bachelor's degree, 22 teachers (6.30%) had Master's degree, and 1 teacher (.30%) had a PhD degree. Regarding faculty type, 207 teachers (57.30%) graduated from Faculty of Education, while 142 teachers (42.70%) were graduates of other departments. To illustrate, 110 teachers (31.50%) graduated from Faculty of Arts and Science, 17 teachers (6.30%) graduated from Faculty of Language, History and Geography, and 15 teachers (4.90%) graduated from some other faculties. Regarding type of department, 195 teachers (55.90%) graduated from Foreign Language Education Department, 86 teachers (24.70%) graduated from English Language and Literature Department, 16 teachers (4.60%) graduated from Linguistics Department, 7 teachers (2.00%) graduated from American Culture and Literature Department, 1 teacher (.30%) graduated from Translation and Interpreting Department, and 44 teachers (12.80%) graduated from other departments. With respect to exam participation, 340 teachers (97.40%) haven't participated in TOEFL exam, while only 9 teachers (2.60%) have participated in this exam. Likewise, of 349 teachers, 347 teachers (99.40%) haven't participated in IELTS exam, while only 2 teachers (.60%) have. Lastly, 150 teachers (43.00%) haven't participated in YDS exam, while 199 teachers (57.00%) have participated in this exam, and the average score of the YDS exam results was found to be 84.5. Regarding the participants' experience in the profession, 76 teachers (21.80%) had 1-5 years of experience, 92 teachers (26.40%) had 6-10 years, the remaining 50 teachers (14.30%) had 20 or more years of experience. The biggest proportion of the teachers had an experience of 6-10 years (26.40%). Regarding experiences abroad, and participation in conferences in their area, 142 teachers (40.70%) have been abroad, while 207 teachers (59.3%) have never been abroad; and 190 teachers (54.4%) have participated in conferences, while 159 teachers (45.60%) have not. With respect to the grades that the participants taught, all teachers (100%) taught in all grades including 5th, 6th, 7th and 8th grade levels. Regarding participation in the in-service training about the curriculum developed in 2012, 143 teachers (41.00%) have received in-service training, while 206 teachers (59.00%) have not. Of 143 teachers who received in-service training (41.00%), 13 teachers (9.00%) found the training satisfactory enough, 64 teachers (44.80%) found the training partly satisfactory, while 66 teachers (46.20%) found the training unsatisfactory. 206 teachers who did not receive any in-service training about the curriculum and 47 teachers who received in-service training learnt further about the curriculum in different ways.

Data Collection Tools
A questionnaire was used to collect data so as to answer the research question, which sought to examine teachers' perceptions of the middle school English language curriculum in terms of its theoretical soundness. In other words, it was aimed to find out whether the curriculum design was theoretically appropriate which refers to the merit of the curriculum. During development process, the latest curriculum developed by Ministry of National Education [MoNE] in 2012 and the related literature (Çelik, 2009;Er, 2006;Güneş, 2009;Mersinligil, 2002;Oliva, 1997;Ornstein & Hunkins, 2004;Seçkin, 2010) were investigated in detail. 78 items from the related literature were collected in a pool, and then the appropriate ones were selected for the present study. 69 items were selected at the beginning and they were sent to experts in order to take their opinions for the questionnaire's content and face validity. Opinions were taken from three professors from Curriculum and Instruction Department and one professor from English Language Teaching Department. Based on feedback from these experts, necessary changes were applied to the questionnaire in terms of its shape and items. To illustrate, the first draft of the questionnaire was composed of 69 items, and some items were deleted or reworded by combining some items based on expert opinions. In addition, the format of the questionnaire was changed and some instructions were reworded based on these opinions. To illustrate, instead of writing the components of the curriculum and writing differing sentences, the name of the component was written followed by three dots to be completed with the items as will be seen in the tables. After expert opinions, the questionnaire was examined by five English teachers in order to find out whether the items in the questionnaire were understood as intended referring to face-related validity, which resulted in a negligible revision about wording of a few items. To illustrate, they had difficulty in understanding the meaning of "learner autonomy", so it was reworded to be understood easier.
Last of all, the questionnaire was administered to 65 teachers to check its reliability through Cronbach's alpha; however, 56 teachers returned the questionnaires. To this connection, the return rate was 86.00%. The Cronbach's alpha values for the five subsections of the questionnaire were found to be .95, .93, .91, .95 and .91 for objectives, content, materials, activities, and assessment methods and techniques, respectively.
As a result of these procedures, the questionnaire was composed of two sections; the first section included items about teachers' demographic characteristics, and the second section had items about curriculum components which was expected to provide information about the teachers' perceptions of the curriculum. This second part of the questionnaire had five subsections and 56 items. The first subsection included 17 items about objectives, the second subsection covered 12 items about content, the third subsection consisted of six items about materials, the fourth subsection included 14 items about activities, and the final part covered seven items about assessment methods and techniques. The questionnaire was modelled on a five-point Likert scale, in which the teachers were asked to rate their level of agreement or disagreement by rating each item on this five-point scale such as 1-strongly disagree, 2-disagree, 3-neither agree nor disagree, 4-agree, and 5-strongly agree.

Data Collection Process
Before collection of data, necessary permissions were taken. First of all, data collection instruments were sent to the Human Research Ethical Committee (HREC) at Middle East Technical University, Ankara, Turkey, for review. After the permission was taken from HREC in 02.01.2017, official permission of Ankara Provincial National Education Directorate was applied to conduct the study. After approval of Ankara Provincial National Education Directorate obtained in 18.04.2017, data were collected for the main study as presented in the following paragraphs.
Data were collected by one of the researchers by visiting the selected schools. Upon the visit, the researcher introduced himself to all school administrators, and they were informed about the purpose of the study. Then, the approval from Ankara Provincial National Education Directorate was either shown to them or a copy of it was left for them. The teachers completed the questionnaire either while the researcher was there or they wanted the researcher to come back another day. To this connection, the researcher had to visit some schools two or even three times. Majority of the teachers could finish completing the questionnaire in the break time which lasted for 10 minutes, while some of them could not finish it in the break time and finished it in another break time.

Data Analysis
Data were analyzed through descriptive statistics procedures including means, frequencies and percentages. Depending on the data, either mean was used or frequencies and percentages were utilized to report the findings.

Results
Findings regarding the perceptions of English teachers about the components of the middle school English curriculum prepared for the 5th, 6th, 7th and 8th grades are presented under different subheadings in this section.

Teachers' Perceptions of the Objectives of the Middle School English Language Curriculum
The findings related to teachers' perceptions of the objectives of the curriculum are summarized in Table 3. The number and percentage of the participants who agreed or strongly agreed were summed up, likewise the number and percentage of the participants who disagreed or strongly disagreed were summed up while reporting the findings.  Table 3 indicated that about 42.00% (n=147) to 56.00% (n=195) of the teachers agreed or strongly agreed that the objectives are congruent with the general purposes of English language curriculum (54.10%), they are attainable (53.90%),they are observable and measurable (53.60%), they can be used by the students in their daily life (42.40%), they have a coherent arrangement (41.60%), they can be achieved in the planned time of the units (54.20%), they can develop reading skills (55.60%), they are sufficient in quantity to develop reading skills (51.00%), and they are appropriate for students' level of development (45.80%).
On the other hand, about 13.00% (n=45) to 31.00% (n=108) of the teachers disagreed or strongly disagreed on the mentioned aspects of the objectives, and about 18.00% (n=62) to 33.00% (n=115) of the teachers neither agreed nor disagreed on the mentioned aspects of the objectives.
Further examination of Table 3 indicated that about 38.00% (n=133) to 60.00% (n=209) of the teachers disagreed or strongly disagreed that the objectives can improve communicative competence (39.00%), can develop learner autonomy (60.20%), can develop listening skills (39.60%), they are sufficient in quantity to develop listening skills (49.60%), can develop speaking skills (51.50%), are sufficient in quantity to develop speaking skills (53.90%), can develop writing skills (37.50%), are sufficient in quantity to develop writing skills (42.40%).
On the other hand, about 15.00% (n=52) to 35.00% (n=122) of the teachers agreed or strongly agreed on the mentioned aspects of the objectives. Lastly, about 24.00% (n=84) to 35.00% (n=122) of the teachers neither agreed nor disagreed on the mentioned aspects of the objectives.

Teachers' Perceptions of the Content of the Middle School English Language Curriculum
The findings related to teachers' perceptions of the content of the curriculum are summarized in Table 4. As seen in the table, about 37.00% (n=147) to 59.00% (n=195) of the teachers agreed or strongly agreed that the content is coherent with the objectives (59.30%), appropriate for students' needs and interests (39.60%), appropriate for students' level of development (46.90%), can ensure active participation of the students (38.40), can ensure the achievement of the objectives (45.00%), contains information that students can use in their life (46.40%), coherent in itself (50.50%), can help develop reading skills (52.10%), and it can be finished in the planned time (48.50%). On the other hand, about 16.00% (n=56) to 29.00% (n=101) of the teachers disagreed or strongly disagreed on the mentioned aspects of the content, and about 23.00% (n=80) to 37.00% (n=129) of the teachers neither agreed nor disagreed on the above mentioned aspects of the content.
In addition, about 33.00% (n=115) to 38.00% (n=133) of the teachers disagreed or strongly disagreed with some of the characteristics of the curriculum content. To illustrate, the participants reported that the content cannot help develop writing skills (32.60%), cannot help develop listening skills (37.50%), and cannot help develop speaking skills (35.80%). On the other hand, about 26.00% (n=91) to 36.00% (n=126) of the teachers agreed or strongly agreed on the mentioned aspects of the content, and about 26.00% (n=91) to 30.00% (n=105) of the teachers neither agreed nor disagreed on the above mentioned aspects of the content.

Teachers' Perceptions of the Materials Suggested in the Curriculum
The findings related to the teachers' perceptions of the materials of the curriculum are summarized in Table 5. As seen in the table, about 35.00% (n=122) to 54.00% (n=189) of the teachers agreed or strongly agreed that the materials can support the attainment of the objectives (42.40%), can increase active participation of the students (38.90%), can increase students' interest in the lesson (34.60%), can be reached easily (51.80%), can consolidate students' learning (43.50%), and are appropriate for students' age level (54.10%). On the other hand, about 19.00% (n=66) to 31.00% (n=108) of the teachers disagreed or strongly disagreed on the mentioned aspects of the materials, and about 25.00% (n=87) to 34.00% (n=118) of the teachers neither agreed nor disagreed on the mentioned aspects of the materials.

Teachers' Perceptions of the Activities Suggested in the Curriculum
The findings related to teachers' perceptions of the activities suggested in the curriculum are presented in Table 6. As seen in the table, about 36.00% (n=126) to 51.00% (n=178) of the teachers agreed or strongly agreed that the activities can help students develop positive attitudes towards English (36.10%), can increase active participation of the students (37.60%), they can ensure the attainment of the objectives (45.20%), are appropriate for students' level of development (48.90%), are in parallel to students' life (46.40%), can develop students' reading skills (50.70%), are applicable in the class (49.90%), and they are student-centered (49.30%). On the other hand, about 20.00% (n=69) to 29.00% (n=101) of the teachers disagreed or strongly disagreed on the mentioned characteristics of the activities, and about 27.00% (n=94) to 36.00% (n=125) of the teachers neither agreed nor disagreed on the mentioned aspects of the activities. What is to add, about 36.00% (n=126) to 53.00% (n=185) of the teachers disagreed or strongly disagreed on six characteristics of the suggested activities. These findings indicated that the activities cannot develop communicative competence (38.40%), cannot develop students' listening skills (37.20%), cannot develop students' writing skills (36.10%), cannot develop students' speaking skills (42.90%), cannot develop learner autonomy (40.10%), and they are not appropriate for the students' individual differences (53.30%). On the other hand, Table 6 indicated that about 16.00% (n=55) to 35.00% (n=122) of the teachers agreed or strongly agreed on the mentioned aspects of the activities. What is to add, about 26.00% (n=91) to 36.00% (n=125) of the teachers neither agreed nor disagreed on the above-mentioned aspects of the activities.

Teachers' Perceptions of the Assessment Methods and Techniques of the Middle School English Language Curriculum
The findings related to teachers' perceptions of the assessment methods and techniques suggested in the curriculum are summarized in Table 7. As seen in the table, about 40.00% (n=140) to 60.00% (n=209) of the teachers agreed or strongly agreed that the suggested assessment methods and techniques are applicable (53.30%), are congruent with the objectives (60.20%), take students' level of development into account (45.60%), can measure students' reading skills (52.00%), and they can measure students' writing skills (39.60%). On the other hand, about 15.00% (n=52) to 31.00% (n=108) of the teachers disagreed or strongly disagreed on the mentioned aspects of the suggested assessment methods and techniques, and about 24.00% (n=84) to 31.00% (n=108) of the teachers neither agreed nor disagreed on the above mentioned characteristics of the suggested assessment methods and techniques. In addition, about 36.00% (n=126) to 53.00% (n=185) of the teachers disagreed or strongly disagreed with the items which state that the suggested assessment methods and techniques can measure listening skills (39.20%), and can measure students' speaking skills (41.30%). On the other hand, about 25.00% (n=87) to 29.00% (n=101) of the teachers agreed or strongly agreed on the mentioned characteristics of the suggested assessment methods and techniques, and about 30.00% (n=104) to 33.00% (n=115) of the teachers neither agreed nor disagreed on the mentioned aspects of the suggested assessment methods and techniques.

Discussion, Conclusion and Implications
The research question was asked to find out the perceptions of English language teachers about the middle school English language curriculum. A questionnaire composed of two parts was used to answer this research question. The first part included items about teachers' demographic characteristics, and the second part was composed of items about curriculum components.
To start with the results related to the demographic characteristics of the participants, there were more female than male participants, almost all of the teachers had a bachelor's degree, about threefifth of them graduated from foreign language education department, about three-fifth of them participated in YDS exam, but there was almost no participation in TOEFL and IELTS; two-fifth of them have been abroad; more than three-fifth of them did not follow any publication about their profession; the participation in conference about their profession was almost equal, and all of them were teaching in 4 grade levels. Regarding their source of knowledge about the middle school English language curriculum, only two-fifth of them have participated in in-service training, and among those who participated, only one-tenth of them found the in-service training satisfactory enough, so they mainly learnt about the curriculum in colleague meetings or through personal search.
As the demographic characteristics showed most of the teachers were graduates of foreign language department as expected. However, their participation in exams showed that they are good at reading comprehension which is measured by YDS exam, while their proficiency in listening, speaking, and writing skills is not known as almost none of them have participated in TOEFL and IELTS. The other important point is that the teachers did not develop themselves in parallel to the recent developments in this area. Similar to the results found by Yaman (2010) and Tekin-Özel (2011), this result indicated that the majority of the teachers have not participated in any in-service training about the middle school English language curriculum, so their knowledge about the curriculum was limited to their personal search and the colleague meetings. Therefore, it can be put forward that the curriculum developed in 2012 cannot be expected to cause any change in teachers' way of implementation.
When the findings about the teachers' perceptions of the components of the curriculum are examined, it is seen that they have both negative and positive perceptions of the curriculum components. To start with their positive perceptions of the objectives, as suggested in the study of Güneş (2009), the objectives were found to be congruent with the general purposes of English language curriculum in the present study. Consistent with the studies of Er (2006), and Güneş (2009), they were reported to be consistent with each other. In contrast to the studies conducted by Örmeci (2009), Tekin-Özel (2011), and Yaman (2010) which indicated that the objectives were above students' level, the present study and the studies conducted by Büyükduman (2005) and Güneş (2009) showed that they were appropriate for the students' level of development. Furthermore, they were found to be attainable, observable and measurable, helpful in developing students' reading skills, and sufficient in quantity to develop the students' reading skills.
On the other hand, as the studies conducted by Örmeci (2009) and Tekin-Özel (2011) suggested, the findings of the present study indicated that this curriculum cannot develop learner autonomy. In addition, it was found that the objectives cannot develop students' communicative competence. The findings also indicated that the objectives were not very helpful in developing the students' listening, speaking, and writing skills, and they were found to be insufficient in quantity to develop those skills. This finding is consistent with the studies of Büyükduman (2005), Güneş (2009), Yaman (2010, and Yörü (2012) which concluded that objectives related to reading skills were attainable, while the ones related to listening, writing and speaking skills were not possible to be attained.
The findings related to the content of the curriculum indicated that the teachers had more positive perceptions than the negative ones. To illustrate, in contrast to Büyükduman (2005) who found that the content was not consistent with the objectives, the present study reported the opposite consistent with the studies conducted by Er (2006), Güneş (2009), andMersinligil (2002). Consistent with the studies of Er (2006) and Güneş (2009), the present study showed that the content was appropriate for the needs and interests of the students. As suggested in the studies of Güneş (2009), andMersinligil (2002), the content was found to be appropriate for the students' level of development in the present study which is in direct contrast to the study conducted by Harman (1999). Consistent with the study of Güneş (2009), the content was found to be coherent in itself, and it included information that students could use in their daily life. In contrast to the studies conducted by Büyükduman (2005) (2012), which concluded that the time allocated for the implementation of the curriculum was inadequate, this study signified that the content can be finished in the planned time. Some of these results of the present study are in direct contrast to the study conducted by Harman (1999) who found that the content could not be applied in real life, and it was not appropriate for students' age and level. What is more, it was found that the content can ensure active participation of the students, ensure the achievement of the objectives, and develop the students' reading skills. On the other hand, like the findings with respect to the objectives, it was found out that the content cannot develop the students' listening, speaking, and writing skills.
The results with respect to the materials of the curriculum showed that the teachers had positive perceptions of the materials. To illustrate, the results indicated that the suggested materials could support the attainment of the objectives, increase active participation of the students, increase the students' interest in the lesson, be reached easily as found by Güneş (2009). They were also reported to be appropriate for students' age level in the present study as suggested in the study of Güneş (2009). To this connection, it can be put forward that there are no problems with the suggested materials.
The results regarding the activities suggested in the curriculum indicated more positive characteristics than the negative ones. To begin with the positive aspects, the results indicated that the activities can help the students develop positive attitudes towards English, increase active participation of the students as suggested in the study of Güneş (2009). Inconsistent with the study of Er (2006) which concluded that the activities were not consistent with objectives, they were found to ensure the attainment of the objectives in the present study. In contrast to the study of Erkan (2009), the present study signified that the activities were applicable in the classroom consistent with the study of Güneş (2009). As reported in the studies conducted by Büyükduman (2005) and Güneş (2009), they were found to be student-centered in the present study. What is to add, they were found to be appropriate for the students' level of development, in parallel to the students' daily life. In contrast to these positive characteristics, the results also indicated that the activities cannot develop the students' communicative competence, listening, speaking and writing skills, while only students' reading skills can be developed.
Lastly, the results related to teachers' perceptions of the assessment methods and techniques suggested in the curriculum indicated that they are applicable, and congruent with the objectives as suggested in the study of Güneş (2009). In addition, the results revealed that they take the students' level of development into account, and they can be used to measure the students' reading and writing skills. On the other hand, it was found that the suggested assessment methods and techniques cannot be used to measure the students' listening and speaking skills.
Compared the evaluation studies conducted on English language curricula up to now, the findings of the present study indicated that many problems with respect to the components of the curriculum developed in 2012 have been solved, while only a few but most crucial problems still existed. The most important problem in this respect is that like the other curricula developed since 1997, this curriculum cannot develop students' autonomy, communicative competence, and their writing, listening, and speaking skills. Although this curriculum has been designed to develop learners' communicative competence (MoNE, 2013) either through writing or speaking, these findings revealed that this curriculum cannot develop learners' writing, listening, and speaking skills. To these connections, more research is needed to examine the reasons behind this failure in order to find out whether the failure results from the curriculum itself or the implementation of the curriculum which can be influenced by many variables. In addition, this study can be replicated in other cities of Turkey so as to compare the findings.

Acknowledgement
This study was produced from the corresponding author's PhD Dissertation titled 'Evaluation of middle school English language curriculum developed in 2012 utilizing Stake's countenance evaluation model' submitted to Middle East Technical University.
A part of this study was also presented as oral presentation in the 6th International Conference on Curriculum and Instruction, 11-13 October, 2018, Kars, Turkey.