Türkiye’de İngilizce Dersi Öğretim Programlarındaki Değişim Üzerine Araştırmalar: Bir Meta-Sentez Çalışması

Öz

Bu çalışmanın amacı, Türkiye’de İngilizce dersi öğretim programlarında yapılan değişiklikleri ele alan nitel araştırmaların bulgularını sentezleyerek programda gerçekleştirilen değişikliklerin araştırmalarda hangi boyutlarıyla ele alındığını ortaya koymaktır. Meta-sentez yöntemiyle gerçekleştirilen çalışmada Noblit ve Hare (1999) tarafından ortaya konulan meta-sentez süreci izlenmiştir. Ulusal ve uluslararası veri tabanlarından, çeşitli anahtar kelimeler kullanılarak belirli dahil etme-hariç tutma ölçütleri doğrultusunda elde edilen 10 nitel araştırma sistematik olarak incelenmiştir. Çalışma sonucunda öğretim programlarında yapılan değişikliklere odaklanan araştırmaların üç boyutu ele aldığı ortaya konulmuştur. Değişen öğretim programını uygulama boyutunda öğretmenlerin aktarıcı, yorumlayıcı ve eklektik öğretmen profili sergilediği görülmüştür. Değişen öğretim programlarını uygulamayı etkileyen faktörler boyutunda araştırmaların öğretmen, öğrenci, öğretim programı, kaynaklar, okul-sınıf olanakları ve ders saati gibi diğer faktörlere odaklandığı görülmüştür. Son olarak bazı araştırmaların önceki öğretim programı ile yenilenen öğretim programını karşılaştırdığı görülmüştür. Araştırma sonuçlarının öğretim programlarındaki değişim sürecini daha iyi anlayabilmek için ihtiyaç duyulabilecek çalışma alanları konusunda yol gösterici olması beklenmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• İngilizce dersi öğretim programı
• meta-sentez
• öğretim programının değişimi
• yenilenen öğretim programı

Research on English Language Curriculum Change in Turkey: A Meta-Synthesis Study

Abstract

The purpose of the current study was to synthesize qualitative research findings on English language curriculum change in Turkey and find out which dimensions of curriculum change were addressed. Meta-synthesis process proposed by Noblit and Hare (1999) was followed in the study. 10 qualitative research obtained from national and international databases based on certain inclusion-exclusion criteria were systematically examined in the study. The results showed that qualitative research on English language curriculum change addressed three dimensions. In the dimension of curriculum implementation, teachers were found to have transmission-oriented, interpretive, and eclectic profiles. In the dimension of factors affecting implementation, the research was found to focus on factors related to teacher, student, curriculum, resources, school-classroom facilities, and others. The last dimension was found to be comparison of previous and the new curriculum. The results are expected to contribute to research areas which will be needed to better understand curriculum change process.

Keywords

• Curriculum change
• English language curriculum
• meta-synthesis
• renewed curriculum

References

1. Acar, A. (2019). Türkiye’deki 2013 ve 2018 ilkokullar ve ortaokullar İngilizce dersi öğretim programlarının karşılaştırılması: 7. sınıf izlencelerinin analizi. Milli Eğitim Dergisi, 48(224), 299-325.
2. Alwan, F. H. (2006). An analysis of English language teachers’ perceptions of curriculum change in the United Arab Emirates. (Doctoral dissertation). UK, The University of Exeter.
3. Anderson-Allen, L. (2010). Curriculum change. In C. Kridel (Ed.), Encyclopedia of curriculum studies (pp. 196-197). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.
4. Aşkar, P., Paykoç, F., Korkut, F., Olkun, S., Yangın, B., & Çakıroğlu, J. (2005). Yeni öğretim programlarını inceleme ve değerlendirme raporu. http://dergipark.ulakbim.gov.tr/ilkonline/article/view/5000038362/5000037218 adresinden 12.12.2019 tarihinde alındı.
5. Barroso, J., Gollop, C. J., Sandelowski, M., Meynell, J., Pearce, P. F., & Collins, L. J. (2003). The challenges of searching for and retrieving qualitative studies. Western Journal of Nursing Research, 25(2), 153-178.
6. Berman, P., & McLaughlin, M. W. (1975). Federal programs supporting educational change, Vol. 4: The findings in review. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation. ED03350.
7. Bondas, T., & Hall, E. O. C. (2007). Challenges in approaching metasynthesis research. Qualitative Health Research, 17(1), 113-121.
8. Bümen, N. T., Çakar, E., & Yıldız, D. G. (2014). Türkiye’de öğretim programına bağlılık ve bağlılığı etkileyen etkenler. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Bilimleri [Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice], 14(1), 203-228. doi: 10.12738/estp.2014.1.2020.

9. Carless, D. R. (1998). A case study of curriculum implementation in Hong Kong. System, 26, 353-368.
10. Cheng, Y. C. (1994). Effectiveness of curriculum change in school: An organizational perspective. International Journal of Educational Management, 8(3), 26-34.
11. Civriz, E. (2019). Ortaöğretim 9. sınıf İngilizce dersi öğretim programına yönelik öğretmen görüşleri. (Yüksek lisans tezi). Ankara, Hacettepe Üniversitesi.
12. Çarıkcıoğlu, M. (2019). 2018 ortaöğretim İngilizce dersi öğretim programının uygulanmasında karşılaşılan sorunlara ilişkin öğretmen ve öğrenci görüşleri. (Yüksek lisans tezi). Ankara, Hacettepe Üniversitesi.
13. *Çelik, S., & Kasapoğlu, H. (2014). Implementing the recent curricular changes to English language instruction in Turkey: Opinions and concerns of elementary school administrators. South African Journal of Education, 34(2), 1-14.
14. De Segovia, L. P., & Hardison, D. M. (2009). Implementing education reform: EFL teachers’ perspectives. ELT Journal, 63(2), 154-162. doi:10.1093/elt/ccn024
15. *Demirtaş, Z., & Erdem, S. (2015). 5. sınıf İngilizce dersi öğretim programı: Güncellenen programın bir önceki programla karşılaştırılması ve programa ilişkin öğretmen görüşleri. Sakarya University Journal of Education, 5(2), 55-80.
16. *Dönmez, Ö. (2010). Implementation of the new eighth grade English language curriculum from the perspectives of teachers and students. (Master’s thesis). Ankara, Middle East Technical University.
17. Duffee, L., & Aikenhead, G. (1992). Curriculum change, student evaluation, and teacher practical knowledge. Science Education, 76(5), 493-506.
18. Duke, D. (2004). The challenges of educational change. Pearson.
19. EARGED. (2005). PISA 2003 projesi: Ulusal nihai rapor. Milli Eğitim Basımevi.
20. 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), 7-22.
21. Erwin, E. J., Brotherson, M. J., & Summers, J. A. (2011). Understanding qualitative metasynthesis: Issues and opportunities in early childhood intervention research. Journal of Early Intervention, 33(3), 186-200.
22. Finfgeld-Connett, D. (2010). Generalizability and transferability of meta- synthesis research findings. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 66(2), 246–254. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2648.2009.05250.x
23. Finlayson, K., & Dixon, A. (2008). Qualitative meta-synthesis: A guide for the novice. Nurse Researcher, 15(2), 59-71.
24. Freeman, D. (2013). Teacher thinking, learning, and identity in the process of educational change. In K. Hyland, L. C. L. Wong (Eds.), Innovation and change in English language education (pp. 123-136). Routledge.
25. Fullan, M. (1983). Evaluating program implementation: What can be learned from follow through. Curriculum Inquiry, 13(2), 215-227.
26. Fullan, M. (1997). Successful school improvement: The implementation perspective and beyond. Bristol, PA: Open University Press.
27. Fullan, M. (2007). The NEW meaning of educational change (4th edition). Teachers College Press.
28. Fullan, M., & Pomfret, A. (1977). Research on curriculum and instruction implementation. Review of Educational Research, 47(2), 335-397.
29. Gürsoy, E., & Eken, E. (2018). English teachers’ understanding of the new English language teaching program and their classroom implementations. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 14(2), 18-33.
30. Hardman, J., & A-Rahman, N. (2014). Teachers and the implementation of a new English curriculum in Malaysia. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 27(3), 260-277. doi: 10.1080/07908318.2014.980826
31. Haznedar, B. (2010, November). Türkiye’de yabancı dil eğitimi: Reformlar, yönelimler ve öğretmenlerimiz. In Proceedings of International Conference on New Trends in Education and Their Implications (pp. 747-755), Antalya.
32. Hoon, C. (2013). Meta-synthesis of qualitative case studies: An approach to theory building. Organizational Research Methods, 16(4), 522-556. doi: 10.1177/1094428113484969
33. Horn, R. (2002). Understanding educational reform. ABC Clio.
34. Intansari, R. (2013). Teachers’ strategy in implementing English curriculum in a junior high school in Indonesia. Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 2(2), 226-235.
35. İnceçay, G. (2012). Turkey’s foreign language policy at primary level: Challenges in practice. ELT Research Journal, 1(1), 53-62.
36. Jensen, L. A., & Allen, M. N. (1996). Meta-synthesis of qualitative findings. Qualitative Health Research, 6(4), 553-560.
37. Jiang, A. L., Zhang, L. J., May, S., & Qin, L. T. (2020). Understanding novice teachers’ perceived challenges and needs as a prerequisite for English curriculum innovation. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 33(1), 15-31. doi:10.1080/07908318.2018.1518452
38. Karaca, B. (2018). A study of Turkey’s primary and middle school English curricula: Teachers’ and program designers’ perceptions. (Doctoral dissertation). Erzurum, Atatürk Üniversitesi.
39. Karavas‐Doukas, E. (1995). Teacher identified factors affecting the implementation of an EFL innovation in Greek public secondary schools. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 8(1), 53-68. doi: 10.1080/07908319509525188.
40. Kennedy, C. (2013). Models of change and innovation. In K. Hyland, L. C. L. Wong (Eds.), Innovation and change in English language education (pp. 13-27). Routledge.
41. *Kırkgöz, Y. (2008a). Curriculum innovation in Turkish primary education. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 36(4), 309-322. doi: 10.1080/13598660802376204.
42. *Kırkgöz, Y. (2008b). A case study of teachers’ implementation of curriculum innovation in English language teaching in Turkish primary education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24, 1859-1875.
43. *Kırkgöz, Y. (2012). Exploring teachers’ implementation of the recent curriculum innovation in ELT in Turkish primary education. In T. Muller, S., Herder, J. Adamson, & P. S. Brown (Eds.), Innovating EFL teaching in Asia (pp. 181-195). Palgrave Macmillan.
44. Kirk, D., & MacDonald, D. (2001). Teacher voice and ownership of curriculum change. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 33(5), 551-567. doi: 10.1080/00220270010016874.
45. Kirkgoz, Y. (2007). English language teaching in Turkey: Policy changes and their implementations. Regional Language Centre Journal, 38(2), 216-228. doi: 10.1177/0033688207079696.
46. Kirkgöz, Y. (2010). Evaluating curriculum reform in Turkish secondary education. In L. E. Kattington (Ed.), Handbook of curriculum development (pp 455-463). Nova Science Publishers, Inc.
47. *Koç, N. (2019). Güncellenen 9. sınıf İngilizce öğretim programının eski programla öğretmen görüşlerine göre karşılaştırılması. (Yüksek lisans tezi). Kahramanmaraş, Kahramanmaraş Sütçü İmam Üniversitesi.
48. Lamie, J. M. (2004). Presenting a model of change. Language Teaching Research, 8(2), 115-142.
49. Liu, W. (2016). The changing pedagogical discourses in China: the case of the foreign language curriculum change and its controversies. English Teaching: Practice & Critique, 15(1), 74-90. doi: 10.1108/ETPC-05-2015-0042
50. Macdonald, D. (2003). Curriculum change and the post-modern world: Is the school curriculum-reform movement an anachronism?. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 35(2), 139-149. doi: 10.1080/00220270210157605
51. McNeil, J. D. (2009). Contemporary curriculum: In thought and action. John Wiley and Sons.
52. MEB. (2012). 12 yıl zorunlu eğitim: Sorular – cevaplar. Ankara.
53. MEB. (2013). Talim ve Terbiye Kurulu Başkanlığı ilköğretim kurumları (ilkokullar ve ortaokullar) İngilizce dersi (2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ve 8. sınıflar) öğretim programı. Ankara.
54. MEB. (2017). Sıkça sorulan sorular. http://mufredat.meb.gov.tr/SSS.aspx adresinden 14 Ocak 2020 tarihinde alındı.
55. Mellegård, I., & Pettersen, K. D. (2016). Teachers’ response to curriculum change: Balancing external and internal change forces. Teacher Development, 20(2), 181-196. doi: 10.1080/13664530.2016.1143871
56. Miles, M., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis. Sage Publications.
57. Noblit, G. W., & Hare, R. D. (1999). Chapter 5: Meta-ethnography: Synthesizing qualitative studies. Counterpoints, 44, 93-123. www.jstor.org/stable/42975557
58. *Ocak, G., Boyraz, S., & Kizilkaya, H. (2013). Comparing 1997 and 2005 English curricula applied in 4th and 5th grades in Turkey. Problems of Education in the 21st Century, 56, 93-104.
59. Ostovar-Namaghi, S. A. (2017). Language teachers’ evaluation of curriculum change: A qualitative study. The Qualitative Report, 22(2), 391-409.
60. Özüdoğru, F. (2018). Analysis of curriculum evaluation studies conducted in foreign language education: 2005-2016. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 14(2), 113-134.
61. Pešková, K., Spurná, M., & Knecht, p. (2019). Teachers’ acceptance of curriculum reform in the Czech Republic: One decade later. Center for Educational Policy Studies Journal, 9(2), 73-97. doi: 10.26529/cepsj.560.
62. Rahman, M. M., Pandian, A., & Kaur, M. (2018). Factors affecting teachers’ implementation of communicative language teaching curriculum in secondary schools in Bangladesh. The Qualitative Report, 23(5), 1104-1126.
63. Richards, J. C. (2006). Communicative language teaching today. Cambridge University Press.
64. Sandelowski, M., Docherty, S., & Emden, C. (1997). Focus on qualitative methods. Qualitative metasynthesis: Issues and techniques. Research in Nursing & Health, 20, 365-371.
65. Shawer, S. (2010). Communicative-based curriculum innovations between theory and practice: Implications for EFL curriculum development and student cognitive and affective change. The Curriculum Journal, 21(3), 333-359. doi: 10.1080/09585176.2010.506802
66. Solikhah, I. (2020). Teacher beliefs about the 2013 curriculum reform in English lesson for secondary school in Indonesia. The Asian ESP Journal, 16(1.2), 184-206.
67. Swann, J., & Brown, S. (1997). The implementation of a national curriculum and teachers’ classroom thinking. Research Papers in Education, 12(1), 91-114. doi: 10.1080/0267152970120106.
68. T.C. Resmi Gazete (18 Ağustos 1997). İlköğretim ve eğitim kanunu, milli eğitim temel kanunu, çıraklık ve meslek eğitimi kanunu, Milli Eğitim bakanlığının teşkilat ve görevleri hakkında kanun ile 24.3.1988 tarihli ve 3418 saylı kanunda değişiklik yapılması ve bazı kağıt ve işlemlerden eğitime katkı payı alınması hakkında kanun. Kanun No: 4306, Kabul Tarihi:16.8.1997. https://www.mevzuat.gov.tr/MevzuatMetin/1.5.4306.pdf adresinden 12 Aralık 2019 tarihinde alındı.
69. van den Akker, J. J. (1988). The teacher as learner in curriculum implementation. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 20(1), 47-55. doi: 10.1080/0022027880200104.
70. Voogt, J., & Pelgrum, H. (2005). ICT and curriculum change. Human Technology: An Interdisciplinary Journal on Humans in ICT Environments, 1(2), 157-175.
71. Walsh, D., & Downe, S. (2005). Meta-synthesis method for qualitative research: A literature review. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 50(2), 204-211.
72. Wang, H., & Cheng, L. (2009). Factors affecting teachers’ curriculum implementation. The Linguistics Journal, 4(2), 135-166.
73. Waters, A., & Vilches, M. L. C. (2008). Factors affecting ELT reforms: The case of the Philippines basic education curriculum. Regional Language Centre Journal, 39(1), 5-24. doi: 10.1177/0033688208091138
74. Waugh, R., & Godfrey, J. (1993). Teacher receptivity to system-wide change in the implementation stage. British Educational Research Journal, 19(5), 565-578.
75. Yan, C. (2012). ‘We can only change in a small way’: A study of secondary English teachers’ implementation of curriculum reform in China. Journal of Educational Change, 13, 431-447. doi: 10.1007/s10833-012-9186-1
76. *Yeni-Palabıyık, P., & Daloğlu, A. (2016). English language teachers’ implementation of curriculum with action-oriented approach in Turkish primary education classrooms. i-Manager’s Journal on English Language Teaching, 6(2), 45-57.
77. Yücel, E., Dimici, K., Yıldız, B., & Bümen, N. T. (2017). Son 15 yılda yayımlanan ilk ve ortaöğretim İngilizce dersi öğretim programları üzerine bir analiz. Ege Eğitim Dergisi, 18(2), 702-737.
78. Zhang, F., & Liu, Y. (2014). A study of secondary school English teachers’ beliefs in the context of curriculum reform in China. Language Teaching Research, 18(2), 187-204.
79. Zimmer, L. (2006). Qualitative meta-synthesis: A question of dialoguing with texts. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 53(3), 311-318.