___

• Akşit, H. N. (1998). A case study on teacher perception of quality of work life within the context of human resource management in an educational institution. In Yıldırım, A., & Şimşek, H. (2013). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri (9th ed). Ankara: Seçkin Yayıncılık.
• Alderson, J. C. (2007). The CEFR and the need for more research. The Modern Language Journal, 91, 659-663.
• Arslan, A. (2011). The application of the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages in the Turkish higher education in terms of curriculum development process. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Abant İzzet Baysal University, Bolu.
• Baltacı, A. (2017). Nitel veri analizinde Miles-Huberman Modeli. Ahi Evran Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi (AEÜSBED), 3(1), 1-15.
• Bayraktar, B. (2014). Evaluation of the English curriculum for second classes in primary schools according to teachers' opinions. (Unpublished master’s thesis), Uludağ University, Bursa.
• Bergil, A. S, & Sarıçoban, A. (2017). The use of EPOSTL to determine the self-efficacy of prospective EFL teachers: Raising awareness in English language teacher education . Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 13(1), 399-411.
• Byram, M., & Parmenter, L. (2012). The Common European Framework of Reference: The globalisation of language education policy. UK: Multilingual Matters.
• Council of Europe (CoE). (2001). Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, teaching, assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (2nd ed).Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage.
• Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage.
• Creswell, J. W., & Miller, D. L. (2000). Determining validity in qualitative inquiry. Theory into Practice, 39(3), 124-130.
• Çakır, A., & Balcikanli, C. (2012). The use of the EPOSTL to foster teacher autonomy: ELT student teachers’ and teacher trainers’ views. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 37(3), 1-16.
• Çelik, S. (2013). Plurilingualism, pluriculturalism, and the CEFR: Are Turkey’s foreign language objectives reflected in classroom instruction? Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 70, 1872-1879.
• Dağ, A. (2008). Assessment of Turkish students’ performance in English as a foreign language at secondary level within Common European Framework. (Unpublished master’s thesis), Çanakkale Onsekiz Mart University, Çanakkale, Turkey.
• Demirlier, H. (2010). Students’ and teachers’ attitudes towards the newly developed curriculum of primary schools. (Unpublished master’s thesis), Muğla University, Muğla.
• Denies, K., & Janssen, R. (2016). Country and gender differences in the functioning of CEFR-based can-do statements as a tool for self-assessing English proficiency. Language Assessment Quarterly, 13(3), 251-276.
• Doğan, Z. Y. (2007). Avrupa Birliği ortak dil çerçevesi programının Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı ilköğretim okullarında yabancı dil (İngilizce) dersi öğretiminde uygulanabilirliği. (Yayımlanmamış yüksek lisans tezi), Yıldız Teknik Üniversitesi, İstanbul.
• Dönmez, Ö. (2010). Implementation of the new eighth grade English language curriculum from the perspectives of teachers and students. (Unpublished master’s thesis), Middle East Technical University, Ankara.
• EAQUALS, (2008). Portfolio descriptor revision project. Retrieved September 9, 2017, from https://www.eaquals.org/
• Erlandson, D. A., Harris, E. L., Skipper, B. L., & Allen, S. D. (1993). Doing naturalistic inquiry: A guide to methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
• Girard, D., & Trim, J. L. M. (Eds.). (1998). Learning and teaching modern languages for communication: Final report of the project group (activities 1982/87). Strasbourg: Council of Europe.
• Given, L. M. (2015). 100 questions (and answers) about qualitative research. California: Sage.
• Güneş, T. (2009). Teachers’ opinions on the English language curriculum of the 5th grade of primary education. (Unpublished master’s thesis), Hacettepe University, Institute of Social Sciences, Ankara.
• Hulstijn, J. H. (2007). The shaky ground beneath the CEFR: Quantitative and qualitative dimensions of language proficiency. The Modern Language Journal 91, 663-667.
• Huy, N. V., & Hamid, M. O. (2015). Educational policy borrowing in a globalized world: A case study of Common European Framework of Reference for languages in a Vietnamese University. English Teaching: Practice & Critique, 14(1), 60-74.
• Ilc, G., & Stopar, A. (2015). Validating the Slovenian national alignment to CEFR: The case of the B2 reading comprehension examination in English. Language Testing, 32(4), 443 –462.
• Karcı, C. (2012). Evaluation of English curriculum in 9th grade of secondary schools through teachers’ views. (Unpublished master’s thesis), Adnan Menderes University, Aydın.
• Khalifa, H., & Ffrench, A. (2008). Aligning Cambridge ESOL examinations to the CEFR: Issues & Practice. Paper presented at the 34th Annual Conference of the International Association for Educational Assessment, Cambridge, England.
• Kondakçı, N. (2014). A comparative analysis of national and international English language curricula for high schools in Turkey. (Unpublished master’s thesis), Bilkent University, Ankara.
• Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. (2nd ed). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
• Ministry of National Education (MoNE) (2018). English language teaching curriculum of secondary education. Retrieved January 25, 2018, from http://mufredat.meb.gov.tr/ProgramDetay.aspx?PID=342
• Mirici, İ. H. (2014). The Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR) and the European Language Portfolio (ELP). In S. Çelik (Eds.). Approaches and Principles in English as a Foreign Language (EFL) Education (381-396). Ankara: Eğiten.
• Mirici, İ. H. (2015). European policy and practices in training foreign language teachers. H. U. Journal of Education, 30(4), 42-51.
• Moustakas, C. (1994). Phenomenological research methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
• Nakatani, Y. (2012). Exploring the implementation of the CEFR in Asian contexts: Focus on communication strategies. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 46, 771 – 775.
• North, B. (2014). The CEFR in practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Örmeci, D. N. (2009). An evaluation of English language curricula implemented at the 4th, 5th, and 6th grades in respect of teachers’ opinions. (Unpublished master’s thesis), Trakya University, Edirne.
• Özel, R. T. (2011). Determination of challenges encountered in the implementation of English curricula for primary schools (the sample of Ankara). (Unpublished master’s thesis), Ankara University, Ankara.
• Özer, Ö. (2012). Comparative analysis of secondary school 3rd grade English language curriculum in parallel with the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages. (Unpublished master’s thesis), University of Bülent Ecevit, Zonguldak.
• Öztürk, A. R. (2006). An analysis of ELT teachers’ perceptions of some problems concerning the implementation of English language teaching curricula in elementary schools. (Unpublished master’s thesis), University of Gaziantep, Gaziantep.
• Palmer, C., & Bolderston, A. (2006).A brief introduction to qualitative research. The Canadian Journal of Medical Radiation Technology, 37(1), 16-19.
• Patton, M. Q. (2002)(3rd ed). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. London: Sage.
• Runnels, J. (2016). Self-assessment accuracy: Correlations between Japanese English learners’ self-assessment on the CEFR-Japan’s can do statements and scores on the TOEIC. Taiwan Journal of TESOL, 13(1), 105-137.
• Sak, Ö. (2013). A comparative analysis of English language curriculum for primary education in Turkey and Finland according to common European framework for languages. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation), Abant İzzet Baysal University, Bolu.
• Sarıca, Ö. K. (2009). An analysis of the language levels of the eighth (8th) graders in state primary schools in Turkey according to Common European Framework criteria and content. (Unpublished master’s thesis), Pamukkale University, Denizli.
• Seitova, M. (2017). The European Portfolio for Student Teachers of Languages (EPOSTL) promotes professional development: ELT in-service teachers’ views. International Online Journal of Education and Teaching (IOJET), 4(4), 541-550.
• Shaarawy, H. Y., & Lotfy, N. E. (2013). Teaching writing within the Common European Framework of Reference (CEFR): A Supplement asynchronous blended learning approach in an EFL undergraduate course in Egypt. Higher Education Studies, 3(1), 123-135.
• Şentürk, B., & Mirici, İ. H. (2019). Does the ELP Promote Learning English as a Foreign Language at Tertiary Level?. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 15(2), 695-718.
• Wolcott, H. F. (1994). Transforming qualitative data: Description, analysis, and interpretation. New Delhi: Sage.
• Yaman, S. (2010). Assessment of English curriculum for primary schools’ 4th and 5th grades according to teachers’ opinions: (A Case study in Gaziantep). (Unpublished master’s thesis), Fırat University, Elazığ.
• Yıldırım, A., & Şimşek, H. (2013). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri (9th ed). Ankara: Seçkin Yayıncılık.
• Yörü, B. (2012). İlköğretim sekizinci sınıf İngilizce öğretim programına ilişkin öğretmen görüşleri (Eskişehir örneği). (Yayımlanmamış yüksek lisans tezi), Eskişehir Osmangazi Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Eskişehir.
• Yüce, E. (2019). EPOSTL: Revisiting the roles of language teachers at a recently established ELT department. International Online Journal of Education and Teaching (IOJET), 6(1). 1272-1281.
• Zorba, M. G. (2012). An evaluation of Anatolian high schools’ 9th grade EFL curriculum and course materials through the principles of the common European framework of reference for languages. (Unpublished master’s thesis), Akdeniz University, Antalya.