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

Year 2024, , 1540 - 1561, 15.09.2024

Samet Varlı , Fatih Selim Sellüm , Mustafa Bektaş

https://doi.org/10.17240/aibuefd.2024..-1420485

Abstract

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.

Keywords

SOLO taksonomisi, Hayat bilgisi dersi, Öğretim programı, Ders kitabı, Değerlendirme soruları.

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

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.

Keywords

SOLO taxonomy, Life study course, Curriculum, Textbook, Evaluation questions.

References

• Ağçam, R., & Babanoğlu, M. P. (2018). The SOLO analysis of EFL teaching programmes: Evidence from Turkey. Electronic Turkish Studies, 13(27), 1-18.
• 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
• 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
• 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. Retrieved from https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/ded/issue/29187/312512
• Bektaş, M. (2012). Life and life study teaching. Öğülmüş (Edt.), Life study teaching and teacher handbook p. (2-11). Pegem Publishing.
• 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
• Biggs, J. B. and Tang,C. (2011). Teaching for quality learning at university. Maidenhead: Open University Press.
• Biggs, J. B. ve Collis, K. (1982). Evaluating the quality of learning: the SOLO taxonomy. New York: Academic Pres.
• Binbaşıoğlu, C. (2003). Life study teaching (1st Edition). Nobel Publishing, Ankara.
• 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
• 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.
• 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
• 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
• 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. Retrieved from https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/oyea/issue/42065/487733
• 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.
• Demirel, Ö. (2017). Program development in education from theory to practice. Pegem Publishing.
• 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
• 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
• Eğitim Bilişim Ağı (2018).
• 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)
• 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#
• 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.
• 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.
• 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
• 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
• 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. Retrieved from https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/sakaefd/issue/11234/134216
• 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
• 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.
• 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
• 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.)
• 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. Retrieved from https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/kefad/issue/57218/808075
• Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. (2nd edition). SAGE Publications.
• Ministry of National Education (2018). Life study course curriculums (Primary school 1st, 2nd and 3rd grades). Ministry of National Education Publishing.
• Özdemir, M. (1998). Life study learning and learning activities. Pegem Publishing, Ankara.
• 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
• Sönmez, V. (2020). Teacher's handbook on curriculum development. Pegem Publishing, Ankara.
• TTKB. (2018). Retrieved from http://mufredat.meb.gov.tr/ProgramDetay.aspx?PID=326 on 10.09.2023.
• 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. Retrieved from https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/iperj/issue/69143/1036619
• 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
• Yıldırım, A. & Şimşek, H. (2018). Qualitative Research Methods, Seçkin Publishing.
• 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