Teacher Opinions on the Applicability of the 2017 Secondary Education English Curriculum Based on the Blended Learning Approach*

Abstract

The aim of this study is to determine the views of teachers about the applicability of the 2017 Secondary Education English Curriculum based on blended learning. Phenomenology, a qualitative research design, a semi-structured interview form developed by the researcher and content analysis, one of the data analysis methods, were used in the study. In the study, 20 English teachers from Anatolian high schools in Kocaeli were interviewed. The findings were evaluated in view of the readiness of the teachers for the curriculum, of the practices carried out by the teachers in the courses, of student readiness and technological competence, and of institutional infrastructure and expert support. Despite the positive opinions of teachers toward the blended learning approach, the study concludes that a number of obstacles are encountered in the implementation of the 2017 English Curriculum due to several reasons such as; lack of necessary in-service training for teachers on blended learning, lack of appropriate content in Education Informatics Network (EBA) and Dynamic and Education (DynEd), low level of technological literacy of students, and the inadequacy of institutions in providing services like internet connection, computer supply and expert support.

Keywords

• Blended learning,information technologies

Harmanlanmış Öğrenme Yaklaşımına Dayalı olarak Hazırlanan 2017 Ortaöğretim İngilizce Dersi Programının Uygulanabilirliğine İlişkin Öğretmen Görüşleri

Öz

Bu araştırmanın amacı, harmanlanmış öğrenme yaklaşımına dayalı olarak hazırlanan 2017 Ortaöğretim İngilizce Dersi Programının uygulanabilirliğine ilişkin öğretmen görüşlerinin belirlenmesidir. Araştırmada nitel araştırma yöntemlerinden fenomenoloji, veri toplama aracı olarak araştırmacılar tarafından geliştirilen görüşme formu ve veri analiz yöntemlerinden içerik analizi kullanılmıştır. Araştırmada Kocaeli’de bulunan Anadolu liselerinde görev yapan 20 İngilizce öğretmeniyle görüşme yapılmıştır. Bulgular öğretmenlerin program hazırbulunuşluğu, öğretmenlerin derslerde gerçekleştirdikleri uygulamalar, öğrenci hazırbulunuşluğu ve teknolojiye sahip olma, kurumsal alt yapı ve uzman desteği başlıklarında değerlendirilmiştir. Araştırmada, öğretmenlerin harmanlanmış öğrenme yaklaşımını olumlu kabul etmelerine karşın gerekli hizmet içi eğitimi almamaları, Milli Eğitim Bakanlığınca sağlanan ders materyallerinin harmanlanmış öğrenme yaklaşımını destekler nitelikte olmaması, EBA ve DynEd’in ortaöğretim İngilizce dersine uygun içerik barındırmaması, öğrencilerin teknoloji okuryazarlığının düşük olması, kurumların internet bağlantısı, bilgisayar temini ve uzman desteği sağlamada yetersiz kalması gibi nedenlerle 2017 İngilizce Dersi Öğretim Programı’nın uygulanmasında engellerle karşılaşıldığı sonucuna ulaşılmıştır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Harmanlanmış öğrenme,bilişim teknolojileri

References

1. Abate, L. M. (2004). Blended model in the elementary classroom. Tech & Learning, September (1), 42-49.
2. Allan, B. (2007). Blending learning tools for teaching and training. London: Facet Publishing.
3. Balcı, E. (2017). Harmanlanmış öğrenme algısı: İngilizce hazırlık programında öğrenci ve öğretmen deneyimleri üzerine bir çalışma [Perception of blended learning: A study on students and teachers’ experiences in English preparatory programme]. (Master’s thesis). Retrieved from Council of Higher Education Thesis Center database. (Access no: 454676).
4. Bandura, A. (1995). Perceived self-efficacy in cognitive development and functioning. Educational Psychologist, 28 (2), 117- 148.
5. Bernard, R. M., Abrami, P. C., Borokhovski, E., Wade, C. A., Tamim, R. M., Surkes, M. A., & Bethel, E. C. (2009). A meta-analysis of three types of interaction treatments in distance education. Review of Educational Research, 79(3), 1243–1289. doi:10.3102/0034654309333844
6. Briggs, C. (1986). Learning how to ask: A sociolinguistic appraisal of therRole of the interview in social science research. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
7. Cebeci, Z., & Bek, Y. (1999). İnternet’te istatistik eğitimi [Statistics education on the Internet]. A paper presented in statictics congress, Alfa Virtual Statistics School, Antalya.
8. Cheong, S. C. (2001). E-learning-a Providers Perspective. Internet and Higher Education, 4, 337-352.

9. Creswell, J. W. (2013). Qualitative inquiry & research design: Choosing among five approaches (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
10. Cropley, A. (2002). Qualitative research methods: An introductionfForsStudents of psychology And Education. Latvia: Zinatne.
11. Çevik, E. (2006). Bilgisayar destekli kimya eğitimi ile ilgili öğretmen ve öğrenci görüşleri [Student and teacher opinions related to computer aided chemistry education]. (Master’s thesis). Retrieved from Council of Higher Education Thesis Center database. (Access no: 182320).
12. Dziuban, C. D., Hartman, J. L., Cavanagh, T. B., & Moskal, P. D. (2011). Blended courses as drivers of institutional transformation. In A. Kitchenham (Ed.), Blended learning across disciplines: Models for implementation (pp. 17–37). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
13. Erdem, M., & Kibar, P. N. (2014). Students' opinions on Facebook supported blended learning environment. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 13(1), 199- 206.
14. Erdiller, Z. B., & McMullen, M. B. (2003). Turkish teachers' beliefs about developmentally appropriate practices in early childhood education. Hacettepe University- Journal of Education, 25, 84-93.
15. Futch, L. S. (2005). A study of blended learning at a metropolitan research university (Doctoral thesis, University of Central Florida, Department of Educational Research, Technology and Leadership, Florida). Retrieved from https://stars.library.ucf.edu/etd/554/
16. Gedik, N. (2010). Karma öğrenme ortamı kullanımı üzerine tasarım tabanlı bir araştırma [A design-based study on the use of blended learning environment]. (Doctoral thesis). Retrieved from Council of Higher Education Thesis Center database. (Access no: 268824 ).
17. Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). Discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago: Aldine.
18. Glazer, F. S. (2012). Blended learning: Across the discipline, across the academy. Stylus Publishing.
19. Gömleksiz, M. N. (2007). Yeni ilköğretim programına ilişkin öğretmen görüşlerinin çeşitli değişkenler açısından değerlendirilmesi [Evaluation of teachers’ opinions about new primary curriculum in terms of various variables]. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research 27, 69–82.
20. Graham C. R. (2006). Blended learning systems: Definition, current trends, and future directions. In C. J. Bonk & C. R. Graham (Eds). The handbook of blended learning global perspectives, locak designs (3-21). San Francisco: Pfeiffer Publishing.
21. Graham, C. R. (2013). Emerging practice and research in blended learning. In M. G. Moore (Ed.), Handbook of distance education (3rd ed.,333–350). New York: Routledge.
22. İnce, A. (2015). İngilizce öğretmenlerinin İngiliz dili öğretiminde harmanlanmış öğrenime bakış açıları [English language teachers’ perspectives on blended learning in teaching English language]. (Master’s thesis). Retrieved from Council of Higher Education Thesis Center database. (Access no: 395158).
23. Jensen, E. (2006). Beyin uyumlu öğrenme [Brain-Based Learning]. (Trans. A. Doğanay). Ankara: Nobel Kitabevi.
24. Karcı, C. (2012). Ortaöğretim Dokuzuncu Sınıf İngilizce Öğretim Programının öğretmen görüşlerine göre değerlendirilmesi [Evaluation of Ninth Grade English Language Teaching Curriculum From Teachers’ Point of View]. (Master’s thesis). Retrieved from Council of Higher Education Thesis Center database. (Access No: 312386).
25. Kefeli, H. (2008). Öğretmenlerin, öğrencilerin ve velilerin yeni 4 yıllık Anadolu Lisesi İngilizce Programı hakkındaki görüşlerinin incelenmesi [Analyzing teachers, students and parents’ opinions about 4-year-long Anatolian High School English Language Teaching Curriculum]. (Unpublished Master’s thesis). Middle East Technical University, Ankara.
26. Khan, B. (2005). Managing e-learning strategies: Design, delivery, implementation and evaluation. USA: Information Science Publishing.
27. Khan, S., Hasan, M., & Clement, C. (2012). Barriers to the introduction of ICT into education in developing countries: the example of Bangladesh. International Journal of Instruction, 5(2), 61-80.
28. Kruse, K. (2004). The benefits and drawbacks of e-learning. Retrieved from http://www.elearningguru.com/ articles/art1_3.htm / 20.10.2017
29. Lincoln, Y. S.& Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic Inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
30. Masie, E. (2006). The blended learning imperative. In C. J. Bonk & C. R. Graham (Eds). The handbook of blended learning global perspectives, locak designs (22-26). San Francisco: Pfeiffer Publishing.
31. Means, B., Toyama, Y., Murphy, R. F., & Baki, M. (2013). The effectiveness of online and blended learning : A meta-analysis of the empirical literature. Teachers College Record, 115(3). Retrieved from http://www.tcrecord.org/library
32. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
33. Osguthorpe R. T., & Graham, C. R. (2003). Blended learning environments definitions and directions. The Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 4 (3), 227- 233.
34. Özdil, B. ve Çelik, A. (2000, February). İnternet’e dayalı uzaktan eğitim [Computer-based distance learning]. A paper presented in Academic Informatics Congress, Isparta. Retrieved from http://ab.org.tr/ ab2000/dokumanlar/ozdil.txt
35. Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
36. Patton, M. Q. (1987). How to use qualitative methods in evaluation. Newburry Park, CA: Sage.
37. Reich, J. (2015). Rebooting MOOC research. Science, 347 (6217):34-35.
38. Romero-Frias E., & Arquero, J. L. (2013). A view on personal learning environments through approaches to learning. Journal for Innovation and Quality in Learning (INNOQUAL), 1(1), 29-36.
39. Rovai, A. P., & Jordan, H. M. (2004). “Blended learning and sense of community: A comparative analysis with traditional and fully online graduate courses”. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 5 (2), 1-13
40. Sarıtepeci, M., Durak, H. ve Seferoğlu, S. (2016). Öğretmenlerin öğretim teknolojileri alanında hizmet-içi eğitim gereksinimlerinin FATİH Projesi kapsamında incelenmesi [Analyzing teachers’ ın-service training needs in the field of ınstructional training within Fatih Project]. Turkish Journal of Computer and Mathematics Education, 7 (3), 601- 620.
41. Schacht, N. (2002). Blended learning: Turning the training center into a learning center. E-learning Magazine, 3(5), 34 – 36.
42. Segovia, L. P., & Hardison, D. M. (2009). Implementing education reform: EFL teachers’ perspectives. ELT Journal 63(2), 154-162.
43. Shea, P., & Bidjerano, T. (2010). Learning presence: Towards a theory of self-efficacy, selfregulation, and the development of a communities of inquiry in online and blended learning environments. Computers & Education, 55(4), 1721–1731. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.
44. Singh, H., & Reed, C. (2001). A white paper: Achieving success with blended learning. Retrieved from https://maken.wikiwijs.nl/userfiles/f7d0e4f0bd466199841ede 3eea221261.pdf
45. Stabback, P. (2016). Current and critical issues incurriculum and learning: What makes a quality curriculum? (Report No. 2). Retrieved from Unesdoc Digital Library: https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000243975
46. Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. M. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage..
47. Şavran, E. (2017). Mesleki ve teknik Anadolu lisesi öğretmen ve öğrencilerinin İngilizce öğretim programının etkililiğine ilişkin algıları: Osmaniye İli örneği [Vocational and technical Anatolian high schools’ students and teachers’ perception of the effectiveness of English language teaching curriculum]. (Master’s thesis). Retrieved from Council of Higher Education Thesis Center database. (Access no: 485591)
48. The Republic of Turkey Directorate of Strategy Development. (2015). 2015-2019 Stratejik Planı [2015-2019 Strategic Plan]. Retrieved from http://sgb.meb.gov.tr/meb_iys_dosyalar/2015_09/10052 958_10.09.2015sp17.15imzasz.pdf
49. The Republic of Turkey Head Council of Education And Morality. (2017). Müfredatta yenileme ve değişiklik çalışmalarımız üzerine [On our curriculum renewal and change study]. Retrieved from http://ttkb.meb.gov.tr/meb_iys_dosyalar/2017_07/18160003_basin_aciklamasi-program.pdf
50. The Ministry of National Education [MoNE] (2017). Ortaöğretim İngilizce Dersi Öğretim Programı [Secondary Education English Language Teaching Curriculum]. Retrieved from http://mufredat.meb.gov.tr/ProgramDetay.aspx?PID=342
51. Ucur, A. (2010). Dyned programının uygulanabilme etkililiği hakkında öğrenci görüşleri, Safranbolu örneği [Students’ views on the application effectiveness of Dyned program, Safranbolu sample]. (Master’s thesis). Retrieved from Council of Higher Education Thesis Center database. (Access no: 253265)
52. Üstün, A. B. (2011). BÖTE öğretim elemanlarının harmanlanmış öğrenme ortamlarında verilen dersler hakkındaki görüşleri [CEIT instructors’ opinions about the lectures given in blended learning environment]. (Master’s thesis). Retrieved from Council of Higher Education Thesis Center database. (Access no: 290750)
53. Vaughan, N. (2007). Perspectives on blended learning in higher education. International Journal on E-Learning, 6 (1), 81- 94.
54. Vaughan, N. (2003). Blended learning model. Retrieved from www.ucalgary.ca/~nvaughan/norm/ blendeduofs2003.html
55. Wu, J. H., Tennyson, R. D., & Hsia, T. L. (2010). A study of student satisfaction in a blended e-learning. System Environment. 55, 155-164.
56. Yalavaç, G. (2015). Öğrencilerin, öğretmenlerin ve velilerin okul sonrası yapılan çevrim içi derslere karşı olan algıları: Bir ortaokul durum çalışması [Students, teachers and parents’ perceptions of online lessons after school: A case study in a middle school]. (Master’s thesis). Retrieved from Council of Higher Education Thesis Center database. (Access no: 414599)
57. Yılmazçoban, S. ve Damkacı, F. (1999). Internet’in eğitim amaçlı kullanılması [Use of Internet for educational purposes]. A paper presented in V. Internet in Turkey Congress, Ankara.
58. Yıldırım, A. ve Şimşek, H. (2016). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri [QualitativerResearch method in social sciences] (10th ed.). Ankara: Seçkin Kitabevi.