Journals / Turkish Studies (Elektronik) / 2018 / Cilt: 13 - Sayı: 27

THE SOLO ANALYSIS OF EFL TEACHING PROGRAMMES: EVIDENCE FROM TURKEY

İNGİLİZCE ÖĞRETİM PROGRAMLARININ SOLO ÇÖZÜMLEMESİ: TÜRKİYE ÖRNEĞİ

Pages
1–18
Publication Date
2022-11-05
DOI
—
🏛️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)

Accordingly, thestudy suggests a couple of practical implications on EFL curriculumdesign, and concludes with a few suggestions for further directions

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The current research was projected to scrutinize the newly revisedteaching programmes for the English as a foreign language (EFL) course(2017) that is offered as the compulsory parts of primary and secondaryeducation in Turkey.
📊
Key Findings & Data:It exclusively compared the two programmesthrough an analysis of the intended learning outcomes (ILOs) based onSOLO taxonomy to see whether they correspond to lower or higher orderskills in primary and secondary education, and to see whether theprogrammes significantly differ in this concern.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Accordingly, thestudy suggests a couple of practical implications on EFL curriculumdesign, and concludes with a few suggestions for further directions
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:2017 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

The current research was projected to scrutinize the newly revisedteaching programmes for the English as a foreign language (EFL) course(2017) that is offered as the compulsory parts of primary and secondaryeducation in Turkey. It exclusively compared the two programmesthrough an analysis of the intended learning outcomes (ILOs) based onSOLO taxonomy to see whether they correspond to lower or higher orderskills in primary and secondary education, and to see whether theprogrammes significantly differ in this concern. The ILOs in EFLcurricula for 4 th to 8 th grades in primary education, and from 9 th to 12 thgrades in secondary education were analysed through documentanalysis method, and categorised into four levels of the taxonomy: (i)uni-structural, (ii) multi-structural, (iii) relational, and (iv) extendedabstract. The findings displayed that the ILOs were prepared mostly atuni-structural and multi-structural levels especially in primary EFLeducation, and that they began to be replaced by multi-structural andrelational ILOs, respectively in secondary education. Apparently, theywere extensively designed to address students’ lower- rather thanhigher-order cognitive skills. The findings, by and large, indicated thatthe primary EFL ILOs comply with the general objective of the teachingprogramme (A2 proficiency level in English), and core competenciesidentified for each grade whereas a clear mismatch was found betweenthe objective of secondary EFL teaching programme (B2 proficiency levelin English) and the ILOs identified in the programme. Accordingly, thestudy suggests a couple of practical implications on EFL curriculumdesign, and concludes with a few suggestions for further directions

Özet

Bu çalışmada 2017 yılında yeniden düzenlenen Türkiye’de ilk ve ortaöğretimde zorunlu yabancı dil dersi olarak okutulan İngilizce dersi öğretim programlarının incelenmesi ön görülmüştür. Öğrenme kazanımlarının daha çok hangi bilişsel düzeye göre hazırlandığını (alt basamak/ üst basamak) ve ilgili programların bu anlamda önemli ölçüde farklılaşıp farklılaşmadığını ortaya çıkarmak için bu kazanımları çözümlemek suretiyle iki öğretim programı karşılaştırılmıştır. İlköğretim kademesinde 4.-8. sınıf öğretim programları ile ortaöğretim kademesinde 9.-12. sınıf öğretim programlarında yer alan öğrenme kazanımları doküman incelemesi yöntemiyle SOLO sınıflandırmasında esas olan dört düzeye ayrılmıştır: (i) tekli yapısal, (ii) çoklu yapısal, (iii) ilişkisel yapı ve (iv) soyut yapı. Bulgular, özellikle ilköğretim programında yer alan kazanımların çoğunun tekli yapısal ve çoklu yapısal düzeyde hazırlandığını ve bunların ortaöğretim programında yerlerini, sırasıyla çoklu yapısal ve ilişkisel yapı düzeyinde hazırlanmış kazanımlara bıraktığını ortaya çıkarmıştır. Bu bağlamda kazanımların öğrencilerin üst basamaktan çok alt basamak becerilerine uygun olarak hazırlandığı anlaşılmaktadır. Çalışma bulguları genel olarak, ilköğretim programında yer alan kazanımların ilgili programın temel amacına ve her sınıf düzeyinde belirtilen ortak yeti açıklamalarına uygun olarak oluşturulduğunu fakat ortaöğretim programında yer alan kazanımların programın genel amacından uzak kaldığını göstermektedir. Çalışmada söz konusu sonuçlar ile ilgili olarak, İngilizce dersi öğretim programı tasarımı konusunda uygulama önerileri ile çalışmanın sınırlılıklarına istinaden ileride yapılabilecek çalışmalara ilişkin önerilerde bulunulmuştur.

🔖

Cite This Article

AĞÇAM, R., BABANOĞLU, M. P. (2022). THE SOLO ANALYSIS OF EFL TEACHING PROGRAMMES: EVIDENCE FROM TURKEY. Turkish Studies (Elektronik), Cilt: 13 - Sayı: 27, 1–18. https://ajindex.com/articles/617396

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (10)

  1. A primer on Learning Outcomes and the SOLO Taxonomy. (2012). Retrieved from: http://www1.uwindsor.ca/ctl/system/files/PRIMER-on-Learning-Outcomes.pdf About Solo Taxonomy. Retrieved from: http://classes.stac.school.nz/pluginfile.php/27846/mod_resource/content/1/SOLO%20Flyer%2 0%283%29.pdf. Adam, S. (2004). Using learning outcomes: A consideration of the nature, role, application and implications for European education of employing ‘learning outcomes’ at the local, national and international levels. United Kingdom Bologna Seminar, Heriot-Watt University Edinburgh. Scotland. 1-2 July 2004. Retrieved from: http://www.aic.lv/bolona/Bologna/Bol_semin/Edinburgh/S_ADam_back_pap.pdf.
  2. Aladağ, C. (2018). Comparison of Turkey’s and Turkmenistan’s geography curricula. Turkish Studies Eductaional Sciences, 13/19, 77-99. www.turkishstudies.net, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.7827/TurkishStudies, ISSN: 1308-2140.
  3. Anderson, L.W. (Ed.), Krathwohl, D.R. (Ed.), Airasian, P.W., Cruikshank, K.A., Mayer, R.E., Pintrich, P.R., Raths, J., & Wittrock, M.C. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives (Complete edition). New York: Longman. Anderson, L. (2002).
  4. Revising Bloom's taxonomy. Columbus, OH: Ohio State University. Arı, A. (2013).
  5. Revised Bloom, SOLO, Fink, Dettmer taxonomies in cognitive area classification and their international recognition cases. Uşak University Journal of Social Sciences, 6(2), 259- 290. Baş, G., & Beyhan, Ö. (2012). Evaluation of English questions in level determination examination according to Cognitive Domain taxonomy. Akademik Bakış Dergisi, 31, 1-18. https://www.akademikbakis.org/eskisite/31/12.pdf
  6. Biggs, J. B., & Collis, K. (1982). Evaluating the Quality of Learning: The SOLO Taxonomy. New York: Academic Press.
  7. Biggs, J. (1995). Assessing for learning: Some dimensions underlying new approaches to educational assessment. The Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 41, 1–17. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ502051
  8. Biggs, J. B. (2003). Teaching for quality learning at university. Maidenhead: Open University Press.
  9. Bloom, B. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives. N.Y.: Longmans, Green. Brabrand, C., & Dahl, B. (2009). Using the SOLO taxonomy to analyze competence progression of university science curricula. Higher Education, 58, 531–549. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734- 009-9210-4
  10. Brand, M. (2009). Exhausted from educational reform. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education,