Grammar teaching in Turkish as a foreign language textbooks

In this study, grammar topics in textbooks used for teaching Turkish as a foreign language were examined in order to determine the order of teaching followed from A1 to C1 level. In addition, teacher opinions were taken to strengthen the accuracy of the determined teaching order of these topics. Thus, the aim was to determine what grammar topics should be taught at each level of proficiency in teaching Turkish as a foreign language. In order to arrange the order of grammar topics used in teaching, content analysis was done of textbooks and teacher opinions were taken in order to compare both analyses' results and determine a commonly agreed upon order of those topics. In this research, an attempt was made to develop a theory to present an order of grammar topics to be used in teaching Turkish as a foreign language. In order to collect data for the research, document analysis technique was used. In this study, the purposive sampling technique was used to select the textbooks prepared for teaching Turkish as a foreign language. In order to determine what grammar topics are taught at each proficiency level, an instrument called, "Grammar Topics Determination Table" was prepared, having consulted three field experts, and in order to determine the level at which those subjects could be taught, the opinions of seven field teachers were sought. While comparing the topics in different textbooks, for the frequency of the repetition of the topics (f), for teaching priority both the frequency of the repetition of the topics and teacher agreements were sought. At the end of the analysis of the textbooks published by the three publishing houses, the following results were obtained: 1)Phonology: No coherence was found among the textbooks of the IUY and YIY prepared for the levels of B1, B2 and C1 in the three publishing houses; howewer, there was no coherence among YHY and other publishing houses. In addition, there was no coherence in none of the textbooks prepared for A1 and A2 levels. 2)Word types: There was coherence in all books at A2, B1 and B2 levels in terms of nouns. Howewer, there was no coherence among the books prapered for A1. There was coherence for the level of C1 in the text books of IUY and YIY. There was no coherence among YHY and other publishing houses. There was coherence in all books at the levels of B1 and B2 levels in terms of adjectives. But, there was no coherence in all textbooks prapered for A1 and A2 levels. There was coherence in the textbooks of IUY and YIY prapered for C1 level, there was no coherence among YHY and other publishing houses. There was no coherence in all books at A1 and B1 levels in terms of pronouns. There was coherence in the textbooks of YIY and YHY at the levels of A2 and B2. There was no coherence among YHY and other publishing houses. There was no coherence in the textbooks of IUY and YIY prapered for C1 level, there was no coherence among YHY and other publishing houses. There was coherence in all books pra-pered for B2 level in terms of adverbs. Yet, there was no coherence in all books prapered for A2 level. There was coherence in the textbooks of YIY and YHY at the level of A1, there was no coherence among IUY and other publishing houses. There was coherence in the textbooks of IUY YIY at the levels of B1 and C1, there was no coherence among YHY and other publishing houses. There was no coherence in all books at A1, A2, B1 and B2 levels in terms of prepositions. But, there was coherence in the textbooks of YIY and YHY at the level of C1, there was no coherence among IUY and other publishing houses. There was coherence in the textbooks of IUY and YIY prapered for the levels of A1 and B1 in terms of conjunctions. There was no coherence among YHY and other publishing houses. There was no coherence in all books at A2, B2 ve C1 levels. There was coherence in all textbooks prepared for the levels A1, A2, B1, B2 and C1 for the exclamations. 3)Syntax: There was coherence in all textbooks prepared for level B1 in terms of simple tenses. Howewer, there was no coherence in the textbooks prepared for A1 and A2 levels. There was coherence in the textbooks of IUY and YIY prepared for B2 and C1 levels, there was no coherence among YHY and other publishing houses. There was coherence in the textbooks of IUY and YIY for the levels of A1 and A2 in terms of other tenses, there was no coherence among YHY and other publishing houses. Coherence was found among the textbooks of YIY and YHY at the level of C1. There was no coherence among IUY and other publishing houses. There was no coherence prepared for B1 and B2 levels. There was coherence in all textbooks prepared for A1 and A2 levels in terms of "to be" verb with various structures. There was coherence in the textbooks of IUY and YIY prepared for B1 and B2 levels, there was no coherence among YHY and other publishing houses. There was no coherence in the textbo-oks prepared for C1 level. Regarding sentence elements, there was cohe-rence in all lectures prepared for A1, A2, B1, B2 and C1 levels. There was coherence in all textbooks prepared for A1 and C1 levels in terms of sentences in indirect speech. Yet, there was no coherence in the textbooks prepared for A2 and B1 levels. There was coherence in the textbooks of IUY and YIY prepared for B2 level, there was no coherence among YHY and other publishing houses. 4)Moods: There was coherence in all textbooks prepared for level B1 and C1 in terms of probability-competency mood. Howewer, there was no coherence in the textbooks prepared for A2 level. There was coherence prepared for level A1 level in the textbooks of YIY and YHY textbooks, there was no coherence among IUY and other publishing houses. There was coherence in the textbooks of IUY and YIY at the level of B2. There was no coherence among YHY and other publishing houses. There was coherence in all textbooks prepared for B1 and C1 levels in terms of imperative mood. But, there was no coherence in the textbooks prepared for the level A1. There was coherence in the textbooks of YIY and YHY prepared for A2 level, there was no coherence among IUY and other publishing houses. There was coherence in the textbooks of IUY and YIY prepared for B2 level, there was no coherence among YHY and other publishing houses. There was coherence in all textbooks prepared for B1, B2 and C1 levels in terms of optative mood. There was coherence in the textbooks of IUY and YIY prepared for A1 level, there was no coherence among YHY and other publishing houses. There was coherence in the textbooks of YIY and YHY prepared for A2 level for that mood, there was no coherence among IUY and other publishing houses. There was coherence in all textbooks prepared for A1, A2, B2 and C1 levels in terms of desiderative mood. But, there was no coherence in the textbooks prepared for B1 level. There was coherence in the textbooks prepared for A1, A2 and B2 levels in terms of ne-cessitative mood. Howewer, there was no coherence in the textbooks pre-pared for B1 level. There was coherence in the textbooks of YIY and YHY for the level of C1, there was no coherence among IUY and other publishing houses. There was coherence in all the textbooks prepared for A1 and A2 levels in terms of contitional mood. Yet, there was no cohe-rence in the textbooks prepared for B1 level in that mood. There was coherence in the textbooks of IUY and YIY for the level B2, there was no coherence among YHY and other publishing houses. There was coherence in the textbooks of YIY and YHY, there was no coherence among IUY and other publishing houses. 5)Verbs: There was coherence in all textbooks prepared for A1 and A2 levels in terms of voice concepts. Howewer there was no coherence in the textbooks prepared for B1 and B2 levels. There was coherence in the textbooks of IUY and YIY for the level of C1, there was no coherence among YHY and other publishing houses. There was no coherence in the textbooks for the levels A1, A2, B1, B2 and C1 in terms of gerunds. There was coherence in the textbooks of IUY and YIY for the level of A1 in terms of verbs and structures that use verbs with other structural verbs such as modals, there was no coherence among YHY and other publishing houses. There was coherence in the textbooks of IUY and YHY for the level of B1, there was no coherence among YIY and other publishing houses. There was no coherence in the textbooks for the levels A2 and B2. There was coherence in the textbooks of YIY and YHY for the level of C1, there was no coherence among IUY and other publishing houses. These data indicate that currently there is no coherence in teaching grammar topics in the textbooks prepared for teaching Turkish as a foreign language. In addition, there is no coherence in terms of quality and repetition of the teaching activities in the books. There is also no coherence among the opinions of the teachers on the teaching of the topics. Thus, it may be stated that both the publishing houses and the teachers do not have a common point of view regarding the order of grammar topics to be taught at different levels in teaching Turkish as a foreign language. This means that the teaching of grammar topics is at the discretion of publishing houses and teachers working in the field. Based on the findings, there is a need for both the curriculum and textbooks containing qualified teaching activities. Keywords: Teaching Turkish as a Foreign Language (TTFL), Grammar, Teaching of Turkish grammar, Turkish Teaching Textbooks.