SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Abant İzzet Baysal Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi / 2026 / Cilt: 24 Sayı: 3

An Analysis of the 2018 Life Study Curriculum Learning Outcomes and Textbook Assessment Questions in Türkiye

2018 Hayat Bilgisi Öğretim Programı Kazanımları ile Ders Kitabı Değerlendirme Sorularının Solo Taksonomisine Göre İncelenmesi

Samet Varlı(SAKARYA ÜNİVERSİTESİ, EĞİTİMİ BİLİMLERİ ENSTİTÜSÜ, TEMEL EĞİTİM ANABİLİM DALI, SINIF EĞİTİMİ PR. (DR))0000-0003-4372-1097
Fatih Selim Sellüm(ANADOLU ÜNİVERSİTESİ, EĞİTİM BİLİMLERİ ENSTİTÜSÜ, SINIF EĞİTİMİ (DR))0000-0002-4445-0324
Mustafa Bektaş(SAKARYA UNIVERSITY, FACULTY OF EDUCATION, DEPARTMENT OF BASIC EDUCATION)0000-0003-2992-1965
Pages
1540–1561
Publication Date
2024-09-15
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

The study concludes with recommendations for enhancing the cognitive alignment between textbook questions and curriculum learning outcomes.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This study evaluates the learning outcomes and assessment questions in the 2018 Life Study Course Curriculum (LSCC) through the lens of the Structure of the Observed Learning Outcomes (SOLO) taxonomy.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Employing a qualitative document analysis methodology, the research examined the curriculum's learning outcomes and corresponding questions in 1st, 2nd, and 3rd-grade life study textbooks.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The study concludes with recommendations for enhancing the cognitive alignment between textbook questions and curriculum learning outcomes.
🔬Design:İnceleme Makalesi
📍Scope:2018 Verileri
⚙️Variables:SOLO taksonomisi · Hayat bilgisi dersi · Öğretim programı

Abstract

This study evaluates the learning outcomes and assessment questions in the 2018 Life Study Course Curriculum (LSCC) through the lens of the Structure of the Observed Learning Outcomes (SOLO) taxonomy. Employing a qualitative document analysis methodology, the research examined the curriculum's learning outcomes and corresponding questions in 1st, 2nd, and 3rd-grade life study textbooks. These materials were sourced from the Education Information Network platform managed by the Ministry of National Education. In total, 138 learning outcomes and 270 assessment questions targeting cognitive skills were analyzed. Our analysis revealed a predominant focus on unistructural-level learning outcomes within the curriculum, while also identifying numerous learning outcomes at the multistructural and relational structure levels. Additionally, learning outcomes at the abstracted structure level were notably present in the 3rd-grade curriculum. Conversely, the textbooks contained a minimal number of multistructural and relational assessment questions and entirely lacked questions at the abstracted structure level. When considered in conjunction, these findings highlight a low level of consistency between the curriculum's learning outcomes and the assessment questions in terms of their alignment with the SOLO taxonomy. The study concludes with recommendations for enhancing the cognitive alignment between textbook questions and curriculum learning outcomes.

Özet

Bu çalışmanın amacı 2018 Hayat Bilgisi Dersi Öğretim Programı kazanımları ile ders kitaplarındaki değerlendirme sorularının SOLO taksonomisine göre incelenmesidir. Çalışma nitel araştırma yaklaşımlarından biri olan doküman analizi yoluyla gerçekleştirilmiştir. Çalışmanın veri kaynağını 2018 Hayat Bilgisi Dersi Öğretim Programı kazanımları ve Millî Eğitim Bakanlığının Eğitim Bilişim Ağı platformunda yayımlanan 1, 2 ve 3. sınıf hayat bilgisi ders kitaplarında yer alan değerlendirme soruları oluşturmaktadır. Bilişsel alanda olan 138 kazanım ve 270 değerlendirme sorusu incelenmiş ve değerlendirilmeye tabi tutulmuştur. Bu analiz sonrasında 2018 Hayat Bilgisi Dersi Öğretim Programında ağırlıklı olarak tek yönlü yapı düzeyinde kazanımların bulunduğu tespit edilmiştir. Çok yönlü ve ilişkisel yapı düzeyinde de çok sayıda kazanımın bulunduğu, az sayıda bulunan soyutlanmış yapı düzeyindeki kazanımların da 3. sınıf seviyesine ait olduğu belirlenmiştir. Buna karşın ders kitaplarında çok az sayıda çok yönlü ve ilişkisel yapıda değerlendirme sorusuna yer verildiği ve soyutlanmış yapıda herhangi bir değerlendirme sorusuna yer verilmediği görülmüştür. Birlikte değerlendirildiğinde ise kazanımlar ile değerlendirme sorularının SOLO taksonomisinin düzeyleri açısından tutarlılığın düşük olduğu sonucuna ulaşılmıştır. Ders kitaplarındaki soruların bilişsel düzey açısından öğretim programıyla daha uyumlu hale gelmesi için önerilerde bulunulmuştur.

🔖

Cite This Article

Varlı, S., Sellüm, F. S., Bektaş, M. (2024). An Analysis of the 2018 Life Study Curriculum Learning Outcomes and Textbook Assessment Questions in Türkiye. Abant İzzet Baysal Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, Cilt: 24 Sayı: 3, 1540–1561. https://doi.org/10.17240/aibuefd.2024..-1420485

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (44)

  1. Ağçam, R., & Babanoğlu, M. P. (2018). The SOLO analysis of EFL teaching programmes: Evidence from Turkey. Electronic Turkish Studies, 13(27), 1-18.
  2. Aktı Aslan, S. (2023). Analysis of the learning outcomes in the Turkish course currıculum (from 5th grade to 8th grade) in terms of the solo taxonomy. Trakya Education Journal, 13 (1), 682-694. https://doi.org/10.24315/tred.1084426
  3. Arı, A. (2013). Revised Bloom, Solo, Fink, Dettmer taxonomies in cognitive domain classification and their international recognition. Usak University Journal of Social Sciences, 6(2) 259-290. https://doi.org/10.12780/UUSBD164
  4. Bektaş, M. (2007). The effect of informing families about multiple intelligences theory in life science course on students' project achievement and attitudes. Journal of Values Education, 5(14), 9-28. Bektaş, M. (2012). Life and life study teaching. Öğülmüş (Edt.), Life study teaching and teacher handbook p. (2-11). Pegem Publishing.
  5. Bektaş, M., Sellüm, F. S., & Polat, D. (2019). An examination of 2018 life study lesson curriculum in terms of 21st century learning and innovation skills. Sakarya University Journal of Education - Vol.9-1 - pp.129-147. https://doi.org/10.19126/suje.537104
  6. Biggs, J. B. and Tang,C. (2011). Teaching for quality learning at university. Maidenhead: Open University Press.
  7. Biggs, J. B. ve Collis, K. (1982). Evaluating the quality of learning: the SOLO taxonomy. New York: Academic Pres.
  8. Binbaşıoğlu, C. (2003). Life study teaching (1st Edition). Nobel Publishing, Ankara.
  9. Bümen, N. T. (2006). A turning point in curriculum development: the revised Bloom's taxonomy. Education and Science, 31(142), 3-14. Retrieved from http://egitimvebilim.ted.org.tr/index.php/EB/article/view/837
  10. Burnett, P. C. (1999). Assessing the structure of learning outcoma from counselling using the SOLO taxsonomy: An exploratory study. British Journal of Guidance & Counselling, 27(4), 567-580.
  11. Bursa, S. (2022). Examination of 2018 social studies curricula according to SOLO taxonomy. Inonu University Journal of the Faculty of Education, 23(2), 1015-1032. https://doi.org/10.17679/inuefd.1024442
  12. Çelik, Ö. (2022). Analysis of 2018 Life Science Curriculum and teachers' views on the applicability of the curriculum. Kocaeli University Journal of Education, 5(2), 588-608. https://doi.org/10.33400/kuje.1146718
  13. Çerçi, A. (2018). Examination of 2018 Turkish lesson teaching program outcomes (5th, 6th, 7th, 8th grade) according to the renewed bloom's taxonomy. Literacy Education Research, 6(2), 70-81. Çetin, B., & İlhan, M. (2016). SOLO taxonomy. Bingölbali, E., Arslan, S., & Zembat, İ. Ö. (Ed.) In theories in mathematics education (p. 861–879). Pegem Publishing.
  14. Demirel, Ö. (2017). Program development in education from theory to practice. Pegem Publishing.
  15. Doğan, A. (2020). Investigation of outcomes in primary school mathematics curriculum sccording to SOLO classification. Journal of Human and Social Sciences Research, 9(3), 2305-2325. https://doi.org/10.15869/itobiad.768583
  16. Dönmez, H. & Zorluoğlu, S. L. (2020). Analysis of the 6th, 7th and 8th grade achievements of the science curriculum according to the solo taxonomy. Manisa Celal Bayar University Journal of Social Sciences, 18 (1), 85-95. https://doi.org/10.18026/cbayarsos.547938
  17. Eğitim Bilişim Ağı (2018).
  18. Eker, C., Bilgin, A. Ç. &, Baykan E. (2019). Analysis of the learning outcomes in the life study curriculum according to the structured Bloom's Taxonomy. International Learning Teaching and Educational Research Congress (ILTER 2019)
  19. Ekmen, M. & Demir, M. K. (2019). Investigation of life study curriculum outcomes according to teachers' opinions. Jass Studies- The Journal of Academic Social Science Studies, Number: 77, Winter, 35-57. Retrieved from https://jasstudies.com/?mod=makale_tr_ozet&makale_id=39581#
  20. Emlik, I. (2023). An investigation of evaluation questions and course outcomes in the 2nd grade life sciences textbook according to the revised Bloom's Taxonomy. Unpublished Master Thesis. Karatekin University, Çankırı.
  21. Erbaş, İ. (2021). An examining the objectives of secondary school mathematics curriculum and mathematics textbook evaluation questions within the framework of solo taxonomy. Necmettin Erbakan University, Konya.
  22. Filiz, S. B., & Yıldırım, N. (2019). Secondary school Turkish curriculum analysis of acquisitions according to Revised Bloom's Taxonomy. Elementary Education Online, 18(4), 1550-1573. https://doi.org/10.17051/ilkonline.2019.632521
  23. Gezer, M. & İlhan, M. (2014). An analysis of primary education citizenchip and democracy education course (8th grade) learning outcomes and evaluation questions according to SOLO taxonomy. Journal of Eastern Geography, 19 (32), 193-208. https://doi.org/10.17295/dcd.88376
  24. Gezer, M. & İlhan, M. (2015). Analysis of social studies curriculum outcomes and textbook evaluation questions according to SOLO taxonomy. Sakarya University Journal of Faculty of Education, 0(29), 1-25. Gövercin, A. & Filiz, S. (2023). Cognitive levels of assessment and evaluation questions in history textbooks according to SOLO taxonomy. Turkish Journal of Educational Sciences, 21 (1), 524-539. https://doi.org/10.37217/tebd.1134552
  25. Hattie, J. A., & Purdie, N. (1998). The SOLO method and item construction. In G. BoultonLewis & B. Dart (Eds.), Learning in Higher Education. Hawthorn, Australia: ACER.
  26. İlhan, M., & Gezer, M. (2017). A comparison of the reliability of the Solo- and revised Bloom's Taxonomy-based classifications in the analysis of the cognitive levels of assessment questions. Pegem Journal of Education, 7(4), 637-662. https://doi.org/10.14527/pegegog.2017.023
  27. Kabaran, G. G., Altıntaş, S. & Kabaran, H. (2018). Analysis of life study curriculum learning outcomes according to solo taxonomy. 17th International Classroom Teaching Symposium. (Taken from the abstract of the paper.)
  28. Karacaoğlu, Ö. C. (2020). Analysis 2nd grade life science objectives according to the criteria in the literature and determining their levels. Ahi Evran University Journal of Kırşehir Faculty of Education, 21(1), 34-62. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. (2nd edition). SAGE Publications.
  29. Ministry of National Education (2018). Life study course curriculums (Primary school 1st, 2nd and 3rd grades). Ministry of National Education Publishing.
  30. Özdemir, M. (1998). Life study learning and learning activities. Pegem Publishing, Ankara.
  31. Polat, M., Bilen,E. & Kayacan K.(2022). Analysis of 8th grade "DNA and Genetic Code" unit outcomes and assessment questions according to SOLO taxonomy. Journal of Buca Faculty of Education, 0(53), 194 - 211. https://doi.org/10.53444/deubefd.1020909
  32. Sönmez, V. (2020). Teacher's handbook on curriculum development. Pegem Publishing, Ankara.
  33. TTKB. (2018). Retrieved from http://mufredat.meb.gov.tr/ProgramDetay.aspx?PID=326 on 10.09.2023.
  34. Ütkür Güllühan, N. & Bekiroğlu, D. (2022). Analyzing of 2018 life study curriculum in terms of cognitive, affective and cognitive domain. International Primary Education Research Journal, 6 (1), 24-36. Yağan, S. A. (2022). Fink's meaningful learning approach and classification of life study curriculum objectives according to fink's taxonomy. Journal of Atatürk University Kazım Karabekir Faculty of Education, (44), 42-53. https://doi.org/10.33418/ataunikkefd.824505
  35. Yıldırım, A. & Şimşek, H. (2018). Qualitative Research Methods, Seçkin Publishing.
  36. Yıldırım, G. (2022). 2015 and 2018 taxonomical analysis of life study curriculum objectives. Journal of National Education, 51(233), 665-687. https://doi.org/10.37669/milliegitim.793390
  37. Aktı Aslan, S. (2023). Analysis of the learning outcomes in the Turkish course currıculum (from 5th grade to 8th grade) in terms of the solo taxonomy. Trakya Education Journal, 13 (1), 682-694. https://doi.org/10.24315/tred.1084426
  38. Bektaş, M. (2007). The effect of informing families about multiple intelligences theory in life science course on students' project achievement and attitudes. Journal of Values Education, 5(14), 9-28.
  39. Çerçi, A. (2018). Examination of 2018 Turkish lesson teaching program outcomes (5th, 6th, 7th, 8th grade) according to the renewed bloom's taxonomy. Literacy Education Research, 6(2), 70-81.
  40. Dönmez, H. & Zorluoğlu, S. L. (2020). Analysis of the 6th, 7th and 8th grade achievements of the science curriculum according to the solo taxonomy. Manisa Celal Bayar University Journal of Social Sciences, 18 (1), 85-95. https://doi.org/10.18026/cbayarsos.547938
  41. Gezer, M. & İlhan, M. (2015). Analysis of social studies curriculum outcomes and textbook evaluation questions according to SOLO taxonomy. Sakarya University Journal of Faculty of Education, 0(29), 1-25.
  42. Gövercin, A. & Filiz, S. (2023). Cognitive levels of assessment and evaluation questions in history textbooks according to SOLO taxonomy. Turkish Journal of Educational Sciences, 21 (1), 524-539. https://doi.org/10.37217/tebd.1134552
  43. Karacaoğlu, Ö. C. (2020). Analysis 2nd grade life science objectives according to the criteria in the literature and determining their levels. Ahi Evran University Journal of Kırşehir Faculty of Education, 21(1), 34-62.
  44. Ütkür Güllühan, N. & Bekiroğlu, D. (2022). Analyzing of 2018 life study curriculum in terms of cognitive, affective and cognitive domain. International Primary Education Research Journal, 6 (1), 24-36.