TARİH DERSLERİNDE FARKLI BECERİLERE SAHİP ÖĞRENCİLERE AYNI DERS KİTAPLARINI SUNMAK NE DERECE ADİLDİR? : HEİNEMANN YAYINEVİ ÖRNEĞİ

Çağdaş eğitim yaklaşımları öğrencileri farklı becerilere sahip bireyler olarak görmektedir. Bu anlamda öğrencileri çalışkan-tembel olarak görmek yerine “daha az-daha çok yetenekli” olarak görmek öğrenci potansiyellerini anlama noktasında önemlidir. Bu çerçevede öğrencilerin kullandıkları ders kitapları da öğrenme sürecinde yeteneklerine göre farklılaştırılmalı mıdır? Bu çerçevede bu araştırmanın amacı farklı becerilere sahip öğrencilere farklı ders kitaplarını sunmak olanaklı mıdır sorusuna yanıt bulmaktır. Bu çerçevede Heinemann Yayınevi tarafından basılan ve farklı yetenek düzeylerine hitap eden tarih ders kitapları araştırmanın inceleme grubunu oluşturmaktadır. Nitel araştırma yöntemi çerçevesinde şekillenen bu araştırmada doküman incelemesi kullanılmıştır. Heinemann Yayınevi tarafından basılan normal gelişim gösteren öğrencilerin tarih ders kitapları “yoğun (core)”, görece daha az yetenekli öğrencilerinki ise “temel (foundation)” kitap olarak nitelenmiştir. Yapılan içerik analizi “temel” olarak adlandırılan ders kitaplarındaki metinlerde daha az sözcük, daha az tümce, tümcede daha az sözcük olduğunu göstermiştir. Yine metinlerde detaylardan arındırma yapıldığı ve daha az soyut kavram kullanıldığı ortaya çıkmıştır.Anahtar Kelimeler: Tarih Ders Kitapları, Daha Az/Çok Yetenekli Öğrenciler, Çoklu Zekâ TeorisiHOW FAIR IS TO PRESENT THE SAME HISTORY TEXTBOOKS TO PUPILS WITH DIFFERENT ABILITIES? HEINEMANN PUBLISHER EXAMPLEAbstract: Contemporary approaches in education view students as individuals with different abilities. Instead of classifying and labeling students lazy/hard working, modern educational theories prefer to appreciate them as “less able/more able” by taking into account their skills and motivations. Thus, the question “Do textbooks need to be differentiated for students with different abilities” comes to the mind. The existing situation is to provide the same textbooks to all students even they possess different abilities. Thus, the present study aims to examine and make comparisons basic features of the two different history textbooks called as “core” and “foundation” published by Heinemann Publisher for the same graders with different abilities. Case study among the qualitative research designs was adopted in this study and document analysis method was benefitted since the history textbooks were the study group of the research. Two “core” and two “foundation” history textbooks published by Heinemann were examined in order to determine their basic features and find out their differences. The results of analysis of two types of the history textbooks called as “core” and “foundation” editions revealed that the foundation editions include less number of words and less number sentences as compared to the core counterparts. Similarly, the average number of words in the sentences and the number of abstract concepts were found to be less in foundation history textbooks. Keywords: History Textbooks, Less/More Able Pupils, Multiple Intelligence Theory

Anahtar Kelimeler:

Tarih Ders Kitapları, Daha Az/Çok Yetenekli Öğrenciler, Çoklu

-

Contemporary approaches in education view students as individuals with different abilities. Instead of classifying and labeling students lazy/hard working, modern educational theories prefer to appreciate them as “less able/more able” by taking into account their skills and motivations. Thus, the question “Do textbooks need to be differentiated for students with different abilities” comes to the mind. The existing situation is to provide the same textbooks to all students even they possess different abilities. Thus, the present study aims to examine and make comparisons basic features of the two different history textbooks called as “core” and “foundation” published by Heinemann Publisher for the same graders with different abilities. Case study among the qualitative research designs was adopted in this study and document analysis method was benefitted since the history textbooks were the study group of the research. Two “core” and two “foundation” history textbooks published by Heinemann were examined in order to determine their basic features and find out their differences. The results of analysis of two types of the history textbooks called as “core” and “foundation” editions revealed that the foundation editions include less number of words and less number sentences as compared to the core counterparts. Similarly, the average number of words in the sentences and the number of abstract concepts were found to be less in foundation history textbooks

Keywords:

History Textbooks, Less/More Able Pupils, Multiple Intelligence Theory,

PDF

___

Bourdillon, H. (1992). (editör) History and Social Studies: Methodologies of Textbook Analyses, Swets and Zetlinger, Amsterdam.
Boztemur, R. (2004). “History Textbooks and Human Rights”, Human Rights Issues in Textbooks: The Turkish Case (edited by D. T. Ceylan, G. Irzık), İstanbul: The History Foundation of Turkey.
Carretero, M, Jacott, L. (1994). "Historical Knowledge: Cognitive and Instructional Implications", Cognitive and Instructional Processes in History and Social Sciences, (editör: M. Carretero, J.F. Voss), Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale.
Ceram, C. W. (2003). Tarihin Kötüye Kullanımı, İstanbul: Tarih Vakfı Yurt Yayınları.
Dimitrova, S., Kaytchev, N. (1998) "Bulgarian nationalism, articulated by the textbooks in modern Bulgarian history 1878-1996, Internationale Schulbuchforschung, 20, 51-70.
Ferro, M. (1984). The Use and Abuse of History, or, How the Past is Taught, London: Routledge.
Gardner. H. (1999). Çoklu Zeka: Görüşmeler ve Makaleler. İstanbul: Enka Okulları.
Johnsen, E. B. (1993) Textbooks in Kaleidoscope, Scandinavian University Press, Oxford.
Kabapınar, Y. (1991). Müfredat Programı ve Ders Kitapları Açısından Ortaöğretim'de (Lİse) Tarih Kitapları, Basılmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Dokuzeylül Üniversitesi, İzmir.
Kabapınar, Y. (1992). "Bir İdeolojik Mücadele Alanı Olarak Lise Tarih Kitapları I", Tarih ve Toplum, 106, 36-41.
Kabapınar, Y. (1998). A Comparison Between Turkish and English History Textbooks: Design, Construction and Usability Issues, Unpublished Doctorate Thesis, Leeds: University of Leeds.
Kabapınar, Y. (2007). The Image of “Others” and Tolerance in Turkish History and Social Studies Textbooks: “Not Us”, “The Other is to Blame. Teaching for Tolerance in Muslim Majority Societies. DEM Press, İstanbul, 33-50.
Kabapınar, Y. (2009). “Prospective Teachers’ Ideas about the Methodology of Social Sciences/History and Purpose of Social Studies Teaching: Evaluation of “Us” Through “Others". International Journal of Historical Learning Teaching and Research. 1 (8), 108-120.
Kabapınar, Y. (2014). Kuramdan Uygulamaya Sosyal Bilgiler Öğretimi, Ankara, PegemA.
Kaya, H., Kahyaoğlu, D., Çetiner, A., Öztürk, M. & Eren, N. (2002). “National Report: Turkey”, Improvement of Balkan History Textbooks Project Reports, İstanbul: The History Foundation of Turkey.
Kreiser, K. (1987). "Zur Schulbuchpolitik der Republik Turkei", Turkisch als Muttersprache in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland Schulbucher und Unterrichtskonepte zwichen zwei Kulturen (editör: Klaus Kreiser, Falk Pingel) Georg-Eckert Enstitüsü Almanya.
Lee, P. (1991) “Historical Knowledge and the National Curriculum”, Teaching History (editör, Hilary Bourdillon) University of London.
Lowenthal, D. (1995) The Past is a Foreign Country, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Pesmazoğlu, S. (1998). “Ötekilik” Üzerine Bazı Yöntemsel Yorumlar”, Tarih Eğitimi ve Tarihte “Öteki” Sorunu, İstanbul: Tarih Vakfı Yurt Yayınları.
Slater, J. (1995). Teaching History in the New Europe, Cassell Council of Europe Series, London.
Tekeli, İ. (1998). “Tarihyazıcılığı ve Öteki Kavramı Üzerine Düşünceler”, Tarih Eğitimi ve Tarihte “Öteki” Sorunu, İstanbul: Tarih Vakfı Yurt Yayınları.
Tulviste, P., Wertsch, J.V. (1994). The Official and Unofficial Histories: The Case of Estonia, Journal of Narrative and Life History, 4 (4), 311-329.