İNGİLİZCE ÖĞRETİM PROGRAMLARININ SOLO ÇÖZÜMLEMESİ: TÜRKİYE ÖRNEĞİ

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.

THE SOLO ANALYSIS OF EFL TEACHING PROGRAMMES: EVIDENCE FROM TURKEY

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

PDF

___

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.
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.
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). Revising Bloom's taxonomy. Columbus, OH: Ohio State University.
Arı, A. (2013). 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
Biggs, J. B., & Collis, K. (1982). Evaluating the Quality of Learning: The SOLO Taxonomy. New York: Academic Press.
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
Biggs, J. B. (2003). Teaching for quality learning at university. Maidenhead: Open University Press.
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
Brand, M. (2009). Exhausted from educational reform. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 180, 87-92. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org.ezproxy.stthomas.edu/stable/40319322
Chan, C. C., Hong, J. H. & Chan, M. Y. C. (2001). Applying the Structure of the Observed Learning Outcomes (SOLO) taxonomy on student’s learning outcomes: A comparative review. Unpublished manuscript, Hong Kong, Hong Kong Polytechnic University.
Chan, C. C., Tsui, M. S., Chan, M. Y. C., & Hong, J. H. (2002). Applying the Structure of the Observed Learning Outcomes (SOLO) taxonomy on student's learning outcomes: An empirical study. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 27(6), 511-527. DOI: 10.1080/0260293022000020282
CoE. (2011). Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, teaching, assessment. Retrieved from https://www.eui.eu/Documents/ServicesAdmin/LanguageCentre/CEF.pdf
Courtney, T. D. (1986). The significance of the SOLO Taxonomy for Learning and Teaching in Geography. Geographical Education, 5(2), 47-50.
Çetin, B., Boran, A., & Yazıcı, N. (2014). Investigating of the prepared rubrics based on SOLO taxonomy on the measurement of success in physics education. Bartın Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 9(2), 32-71. Retrieved from: http://dergipark.gov.tr/download/article- file/147639.
Dettmer, P. (2006). New Blooms in established fields: Four domains of learning and doing. Roeper Review, 28(2), 70-78. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/02783190609554341.
Dinçer, B. & Saracaloğlu, A.S. (2018). Evaluation of 7th grade English language curriculum based on Stufflebeam's cipp (contextinput-process-product) model according to teachers' views. Turkish Studies- Educational Sciences, 13/19, 561-588. www.turkishstudies.net, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.7827/TurkishStudies.14139, ISSN: 1308-2140.
Dunn, W. 2013. The US labour market recovery following the great recession. OECD Economics Department Working Papers, No. 1015, OECD Publishing, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/5k4ddxp3xlvf-en
Fink, L. D. (2003). Creating significant learning experiences. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.
Forehand, M. (2010). Bloom's taxonomy. Emerging Perspectives on Learning, Teaching, and Technology, 41-47. https://www.d41.org/cms/lib/IL01904672/Centricity/Domain/422/BloomsTaxonomy.pdf
Gezer, M., & İlhan, M. (2016). An Evaluation of the assessment questions in the textbook and objectives of the 8 th grade curriculum citizenship and democracy education course according to SOLO Taxonomy. Doğu Coğrafya Dergisi, 9(32), 193-208. http://ecc.isc.gov.ir/showJournal/26557/55172/723417
Gezer, M., & İlhan, M. (2015). An analysis on the assessment questions in the textbook and objectives of the curriculum social sciences course according to the SOLO taxonomy. Sakarya University Journal of Faculty of Education, 29, 1-25. http://dergipark.ulakbim.gov.tr/sakaefd/article/view/5000078040
Gökler, Z. S. (2011). Evaluation of English Lesson Objectives Functions SBS Questions and Exam Questions in Primary School according to Revised Bloom Taxonomy. Unpublished MA Thesis. Eskişehir Osmangazi University.
Hook, P. (2012). Teaching and Learning: Tales from the ampersand. In L. Rowan & C. Bigum (Eds),Future Proofing Education: Transformative approaches to new technologies and student diversity in futures oriented classrooms. Springer.
Hook, P. & Cassé, B. (2013). SOLO taxonomy in the early years. Making connections for belonging, being and becoming. Essential Resources Educational Publishers Limited. New Zealand.
Hook, P. & Perry, C. (2016). SOLO Taxonomy in the Social Sciences. Strategies for social inquiry. Essential Resources Educational Publishers Limited. New Zealand.
Hook, P. & Van Schaijik, S. (2016). SOLO taxonomy and English language learners. Making second language learning visible. Essential Resources Educational Publishers Limited. New Zealand.
Hook, P., Booth, N., Fobister, L., & Price, A. (2018). SOLO taxonomy in music education. Growing high quality musicians through a reflective learning environment. Essential Resources Educational Publishers Limited. New Zealand (in press).
Horstschräer, J. & Sprietsma, M. (2010). The effects of the Bologna process on college enrolment and drop-out rates. ZEW - Centre for European Economic Research Discussion Paper No. 10-018. SSRN. Retrieved from: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1589543/ http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1589543
Hunt, A., Walton, F., Martin, S., Haigh, M., & Irving, E. (2015). Moving a school: Higher order thinking through SOLO and e-Learning. Teaching & Learning Research Initiative. Retrieved from: http://www.tlri.org.nz/sites/default/files/projects/TLRI_Hunt_Final%20report%20- %20web%20ready.pdf
Karadüz, A. (2010). Dil becerileri ve eleştirel düşünme [Language skills and the critical thinking]. Turkish Studies- Social Sciences: International Periodicals fort he Languages, Literature and History of Turkish or Turkic, 5(3), 1566-1593. www.turkishstudies.net. ISSN: 1308-2140.
Kelly, F. (2013). SOLOing on . Retrieved from: http://fkelly.co.uk/tag/solo-taxonomy/
Kennedy, D. Hyland, A. & Ryan, N. (2012). Writing and Using Learning Outcomes: a Practical Guide. Accessed at http://www.tcd.ie/teaching-learning/academic- development/assets/pdf/Kennedy_Writing_and_Using_Learning_Outcomes.pdf
Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of Bloom's taxonomy: An overview. Theory into Practice, 41 (4), 212-218. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4104_2
Kurt, A. (2016). Türkçe dersi öğretim programı 6, 7 ve 8. sınıf sözlü iletişim kazanımlarının SOLO taksonomisine göre incelenmesi [Investigation of communicative learning outcomes in Turkish teaching programmes for 6 th , 7 th and 8 th grades based on SOLO taxonomy]. Bitlis Eren University Journal of Social Sciences Institute, 5, 215-228. file:///C:/Users/user/Downloads/5000193959-5000449365-1-PB%20(2).pdf
Lee, Y. J., Kim, M. Jin, Q., Yoon, H. G., & Matsubara, K. (2017). Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy— the Swiss army knife in curriculum research. In East-Asian primary science curricula: An overview using revised Bloom's taxonomy. Springer.
Lemov D. (2010). Teach like a champion: 49 techniques that put students on the path to college. Jossey-Bass, An Imprint of Wiley.
Máté, D., Darabos, E. & Dajnoki, K. (2016). The impact of human capital on labour productivity regarding ‘et 2020’ targets. Network Intelligence Studies, 4(7), 61-67. https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=537554
McNeill, L. & Hook, P. (2012). SOLO taxonomy and making meaning. Book 2. Language features, structure and organisation. Essential Resources Educational Publishers Limited. New Zealand.
MoNE. (2017). İngilizce (2-8) Retrieved from: http://mufredat.meb.gov.tr/ProgramDetay.aspx?PID=327.
MoNE. (2017). İngilizce (9-12) Retrieved from: http://mufredat.meb.gov.tr/ProgramDetay.aspx?PID=342.
Milati, N., Sunardi, S., & Dyah, N. (2013). Analysis of question level on problem stories in textbook mathematics supporting SMK program expertise technology, health and agriculture class X issue of Erland based on SOLO Taxonomy. Pancaran Pendidikan, 2, 83-94.
Minogue, J. & Jones, G. (2009). Measuring the impact of haptic feedback using the SOLO taxonomy. International Journal of Science Education, 31(10), 1359–1378. DOI: 10.1080/09500690801992862
Payne, G. & Payne, J. (2004). Key concepts in social research. London: Sage Publications.
Scottish Qualifications Authority (SQA) (Report No. 10). Use of Taxonomies in Assessing Higher- Order Skills. Retrieved from https://www.sqa.org.uk/files_ccc/ResearchReport10_Taxonomies.pdf
Sjöholm, F. (2002). Educational reforms and challenges in Southeast Asia. Working Paper No. 152. https://swopec.hhs.se/eijswp/papers/eijswp0152.pdf
SOLO Taxonomy. Retrieved from http://solotaxonomy.weebly.com/key-features.html
SOLO Taxonomy. Retrieved from https://www.slideshare.net/sqjafery/solo-taxonomy-45353566
The Glossary of Education Reform. (2014). Retrieved from http://edglossary.org/blooms-taxonomy/
Tikhonova, E. & Kudinova, N. (2015). Sophisticated thinking: Lower order thinking skills. SGEM 2015 International Multidisciplinary Scientific Conferences on Social Sciences and Arts. https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/sophisticated-thinking-higher-order-thinking-skills
Unsal, S., & Korkmaz, F. (2017). Analysis of attainments and evaluation questions in sociology curriculum according to the solo taxonomy. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research (EJER), 69, 75-92. Retrieved from: http://ejer.com.tr/0DOWNLOAD/pdfler/tr/fahrttinserkan69.pdf.
Unsal, S. & Korkmaz, F. (2017). Felsefe dersi öğretim programındaki kazanımların farklı taksonomiler bağlamında incelenmesi. Abant İzzet Baysal Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 17 (2), 948-967. http://efdergi.ibu.edu.tr/index.php/efdergi/article/view/2433
Using SOLO Taxonomy to Develop Student Thinking and Learning (2013). Retrieved from https://classteaching.wordpress.com/2013/05/23/using-solo-taxonomy-to-develop-student- thinking-learning/
Wells, C. (2015). The Structure of Observed Learning Outcomes (SOLO), taxonomy model: How effective is it? Journal of Initial Teacher Inquiry, 1, 37-39. https://ir.canterbury.ac.nz/handle/10092/11446
Wong, C. S. P. (2007). Views on the adaptation and implementation of the SOLO taxonomy. In S. Frankland (Ed.), Enhancing teaching and learning through assessment: Deriving an appropriate model, (pp.4-15). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.