Uygulamadaki Boşluğa, Öğretim Programı Penceresinden Bir Bakış: 2018 İlkokul ve Ortaokul İngilizce Öğretim Programının İncelenmesi

Abstract

Pek çok ülke, vatandaşlarını 21. yüzyılın gerektirdiği iletişim becerileri ile donatabilmek adına, küresel eğitim akımlarını izleyerek, İngilizce öğretim programlarında çeşitli güncelleme ya da düzenlemelere gitmektedir. Bu ülkelerden biri olarak Türkiye de, İngilizce öğretim programlarını, 2018 yılında Avrupa Birliği Ortak Dil Çerçevesi (ABODÇ) ilkeleri uyarınca güncellemiştir. Buna rağmen, güncellenen öğretim programının uygulanması aşamasında yaşanan sorunlar, Türkiye’deki İngilizce eğitiminde planlananlar ve gerçekleşenler arasında önemli uyumsuzlukların bulunduğuna işaret etmektedir. Bu farklılıklara sebep olabilecek öğretim programı kaynaklı sorunları ortaya dökebilmek amacıyla, bu çalışmada Posner’ın (1995) öğretim programı analiz çerçevesinden faydalanılmıştır. Araştırma sonucunda, hedeflere verilen öneme rağmen, bunlar arasında “İngilizceyi o dilin konuşucuları gibi konuşabilmek” gibi bazılarının, ülkesel koşullar açısından uygun ya da gerçekçi olmayabileceği görülmüştür. Ayrıca, programın daha kolay uygulanabilir hale gelebilmesi için, programın süreç boyutunun güçlendirilmesi gerektiği ifade edilmiştir. Son olarak, resmi ve gerçekleşen programlar arasındaki boşlukların giderilebilmesi için önceliğin, ulusal ihtiyaçlara cevap verebilecek, ortama duyarlı çözümlere imkân sağlayan, aşağıdan yukarıya yaklaşımlara verilmesi gerektiği savunulmuştur.

Keywords

• dil eğitim reformu
• uygulama boşluğu
• İngilizce öğretimi
• öğretim programı inceleme

A Curricular Perspective on the Implementation Gap: Analysis of the 2018 ELT Curriculum for Primary and Secondary Schools

Abstract

Following global educational trends, many countries have updated or redesigned their English language teaching (ELT) curricula to equip their citizens with the communication skills needed for the 21st century. Turkey is among those countries where the ELT curriculum for primary and secondary schools was updated in 2018 according to the principles of the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR). However, problems experienced during the implementation process of the new curriculum imply that some incongruences exist between the intentions and realisations in the Turkish ELT context. To shed some light on the curricular factors that might be hindering the successful implementation of the curriculum, Posner’s (1995) curriculum analysis framework has been applied in this study. It was seen that despite the attention given to objectives, some of these such as, “resembling native speakers” might not be appropriate or realistic for the Turkish context. It was further claimed that the process dimension needs to be strengthened to facilitate the implementation of the curriculum. Finally, it was argued that context-sensitive solutions to suit the local needs through bottom-up approaches should be the priority, if the gaps between formal and operational curricula are to be minimised.

Keywords

• language education reforms
• implementation gap
• English language teaching
• curriculum analysis

References

1. Acar, A. (2019). An investigation of Turkish cultures of learning within the framework of Turkish ELT curricula. Akdeniz Eğitim Araştırmaları Dergisi, 13(28), 126-144. https://doi.org/10.29329/mjer.2019.202.7
2. Acar, A. (2021). The methodological bases of Turkish ELT curricula for basic education from 1991 to 2018. International Journal of Progressive Education, 17(1), 111-128. https://doi.org/10.29329/ijpe.2021.329.8
3. Aksoy, E. (2020). Evaluation of the 2017 updated secondary school English curriculum of Turkey by means of theory-practice link. Turkish Journal of Education, 9(1), 1-21. https://doi.org/10.19128/turje.575392
4. Aoki, T. T. (2004). Signs of vitality in curriculum scholarship (1986/1991). In W. F. Pinar, & R. L. Erwin (Eds.), Curriculum in a new key: The collected works of Ted T. Aoki (pp. 229-234). New York and London: Routledge: Taylor and Francis Group.
5. Ariav, T. (1986). Curriculum analysis and curriculum evaluation: A contrast. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 12(2), 139-147. https://doi.org/10.1016/0191-491X(86)90003-9
6. Başaran, M., Can, M. S., & Özdemi̇r, O. İ. (2020). Evaluation of 8th Grade English Language Curriculum According to Context, Input, Process and Product (CIPP) Model. e-Uluslararası Eğitim Araştırmaları Dergisi, 11(3), Art. 3. https://doi.org/10.19160/ijer.767692
7. Bax, S. (2003). The end of CLT: A context approach to language teaching. ELT Journal, 57(3), 278-287. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/57.3.278
8. Carless, D. (2012). Innovation in language teaching and learning. In C. A. Chapelle (Ed.), The encyclopaedia of applied linguistics (pp. 1-4). Blackwell Publishing Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781405198431.wbeal0540

9. Clark, J. L. (1987). Curriculum renewal in school foreign language learning. Oxford University Press.
10. Çetin, E. (2018). Evaluation of 7 th grade English curriculum according to Eisner’s educational criticism model (Master thesis). Adnan Menderes University, Aydın, Turkey.
11. Dendrinos, B. (1992). The EFL textbook and ideology. N.C. Grivas Publications.
12. Dogancay-Aktuna, S. (1998). The spread of English in Turkey and its current sociolinguistic profile. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 19(1), 24-39. https://doi.org/10.1080/01434639808666340
13. Erarslan, A. (2019). Factors affecting the implementation of primary school English language teaching programs in Turkey. The Journal of Language Teaching and Learning, 9(2), 17. https://www.jltl.com.tr/index.php/jltl/article/view/168
14. European Council. (2018). Council recommendation of 22 May 2018 on key competences for lifelong learning: Text with EEA relevance. 13. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32018H0604(01)&rid=7
15. Fang, X., & Garland, P. (2014). Teacher orientations to ELT curriculum reform: An ethnographic study in a Chinese secondary school. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 23(2), 311-319. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-013-0106-9
16. Germain-Rutherford, A. (2021). Action-oriented approaches: Being at the heart of the action. In T. Beaven & F. Rosell-Aguilar (Ed.), Innovative language pedagogy report (1. bs, pp. 91-96). Research-publishing.net. https://doi.org/10.14705/rpnet.2021.50.124
17. Glatthorn, A. A., Boschee, F., Whitehead, B. M., & Boschee, B. F. (2018). Curriculum leadership: Strategies for development and implementation (Fifth Edition). SAGE.
18. Grabe, W. (1988). English, information access, and technology transfer: A rationale for English as an international language. World Englishes, 7(1), 63-72. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-971X.1988.tb00215.x
19. Graves, K. (2008). The language curriculum: A social contextual perspective. Language Teaching, 41(2), 147-181. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444807004867
20. Hargreaves, A., & Fink, D. (2006). Sustainable leadership. Jossey-Bass.
21. Hazar, E. (2021). The influence of the CEFR in Turkish national curriculum. African Educational Research Journal, 9(2), 551-561. https://doi.org/10.30918/AERJ.92.21.087
22. Kamhuber, P. (2010). Comparison of grammar in Austrian and Spanish English Language Teaching Textbooks (Magister der philosophie). Universitat Wien.
23. Kaya, S. (2020). Yabancı dil eğitimimizdeki temel sorun: Teori-uygulama uyumsuzluğu. In F. Tanhan & H.İ. Özok (Eds.), Eğitim ortamlarında nitelik (pp. 189-200). Anı.
24. Kerimoğlu, E. (2021). The evaluation of eighth grade 2018 English curriculum according to the CIPP Model: The case of İstanbul (Master thesis) Marmara University, Istanbul, Turkey.
25. Kirkgöz, Y. (2009). Globalization and English language policy in Turkey. Educational Policy, 23(5), 663-684. https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904808316319
26. Körhasanoğulları, N. (2020). Investigation in terms of communicative approach of primary English language teaching curriculum: A case study (Master thesis). Anadolu University, Eskişehir, Turkey.
27. Littlewood, W.T. (2013). Developing a context-sensitive pedagogy for communication-oriented language teaching. English Teaching, 68(3), 3-25. https://doi.org/10.15858/engtea.68.3.201309.3
28. Marsh, C. J. & Willis, G. (2007). Curriculum: Alternative approaches, ongoing issues. Pearson.
29. M.O.N.E. (1991). English language curriculum for secondary schools grades 1, 2, and 3.
30. M.O.N.E. (1997). Primary education English language curriculum for grades 4 and 5.
31. M.O.N.E. (2006). Primary education English language curriculum for grades 4,5,6,7 ve 8.
32. M.O.N.E. (2013). Primary and secondary schools English language curriculum for grades 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8.
33. M.O.N.E. (2018). Primary and secondary schools English language curriculum for grades 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8.
34. Nunan, D. (1988). The learner-centred curriculum: A study in second language teaching. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139524506
35. OECD. (2020a). Back to the future(s) of education: The OECD schooling scenarios revisited. OECD. https://doi.org/10.1787/178ef527-en
36. OECD. (2020b). Curriculum reform: A literature review to support effective implementation. OECD Education Working Papers, C. 239. https://doi.org/10.1787/efe8a48c-en
37. OECD. (n.d.). Future of education and skills 2030: Student voices on curriculum (re)design. https://www.oecd.org/education/2030-project/curriculum-analysis/Student-voices-on-curriculum-redesign.pdf
38. Ornstein, A. C., & Hunkins, F. P. (1993). Curriculum: Foundations, principles, and theory. Allyn and Bacon. Oxford, R. L. (1990). Language learning strategies: What every teacher should know. Heinle. USA.
39. Posner, G. J. (1995). Analyzing the curriculum. McGraw-Hill.
40. Richards, J. C. (2013). Curriculum approaches in language teaching: Forward, central, and backward design. RELC Journal, 44(1), 5-33. https://doi.org/10.1177/0033688212473293
41. Roche, K., & Cummings, J. (1993). Measuring up: A guide to developing integrated learning programs for vocational-technical students. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED413448.pdf
42. Salma, C. (2020). Evaluation of the seating arrangements in English language classrooms through multiple perspectives (Master thesis). Pamukkale University, Denizli, Turkey.
43. Saylor, J. G., Alexander, W. M., & Lewis, A. J. (1981). Curriculum planning for better teaching and learning. Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
44. Viennet, R., & Pont, B. (2017). Education policy implementation: A literature review and proposed framework. OECD. https://doi.org/10.1787/fc467a64-en
45. Wang, H., & Tan, B. L. (2019). Applying the Posner framework for curriculum analysis: The case of a national level professional course in the hospital setting. Asia Pacific Journal of Contemporary Education and Communication Technology, 5(1), 70-79. https://apiar.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/7_APJCECT_2019_Edu_v5i1_pp.-70-80.pdf
46. Wette, R. (2011). Product–process distinctions in ELT curriculum theory and practice. ELT Journal, 65(2), 136-144. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccq022
47. White, R. V. (1988). The ELT curriculum: Design, innovation and management. Wiley. Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
48. Yildirim, A. & Şimşek, H. (2016). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri. Seçkin. Ankara.