The Antecedents Influencing the Implementation and Success of the Middle School English Language Curriculum

Year 2020, , 201 - 214, 15.06.2020

Suat Kaya , Ahmet Ok

https://doi.org/10.33200/ijcer.660386

Cited By: 1

Abstract

The purpose of the present study was to explore the antecedents influencing the implementation and the outcomes of the middle school English language curriculum. Case study was adopted to deeply explore a phenomenon, which can be the processes, events, persons, curricula, or things of interest to the researcher. The phenomenon, in this study, is the middle school English language curriculum. Four English teachers teaching different grade levels from a middle school located in Ankara were participants of the study. The data collection instrument was a semi-structured interview developed by the researchers. The interview schedule included 11 main questions and some probing questions to explore the antecedents that might have influence on the implementation of the curriculum. Data collected through interviews were analyzed with content analysis. Content analysis revealed four categories (themes) which were named as “teacher characteristics”, “student characteristics”, “school characteristics”, and “teachers’ views about the curriculum”. Findings indicated that rather than one factor, the combination of the four factors influence teacher and student behaviors which in turn influence the implementation process and the overall success of the curriculum.

Keywords

Middle school English language curriculum, Qualitative research, Case study, Teacher views

References

• Akınoğlu, O. (2008). Primary education curriculum reforms in Turkey. World Applied Sciences Journal. 3(2), 195-199.
• Akşit, N. (2007). Educational reform in Turkey. International Journal of Educational Development, 27 (2007), 129–137.
• Bamgbose, A. (2003). A recurring decimal: English in language policy and planning. World Englishes, 22(4), pp. 419-431.
• Bulut, M. (2007). Curriculum reform in Turkey: A case of primary school mathematics curriculum. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science &Technology Education, 3(3), 203-212.
• Council of Europe. (2001). Common European framework of reference for languages: Learning, teaching, assessment. Cambridge University Press.
• Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research designs: Choosing among five traditions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
• Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. (3rd Ed.). USA: Sage Publications.
• Demirel, Ö. (2012). Curriculum development in education: From theory to practice (19th ed.). Ankara: Pegem.
• Dewey. J. (2004). Democracy and education: An Introduction to the philosophy of education. Indian Edition. India: Aakar Books.
• Eraslan, A. (2013). Teachers’ reflections on the implementation of the new elementary school mathematics curriculum in Turkey. Hacettepe University Journal of Education, 28(2), 152-165.
• Erdem, A. (2009). Comparing the language curriculums of Turkey and Ireland. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 1(2009), 529–535.
• Ersen-Yanık, A. (2007). A study of English language curriculum implementation in 6th, 7th and 8th grades of public primary schools through teachers’ and students’ perception. Unpublished PhD thesis, Middle East Technical University, Ankara, Turkey.
• Fitzpatrick, J. L., Sanders, J. R. & Worthen, B. R. (2004). Introduction to evaluation: evaluation’s basic purpose, uses, and conceptual distinctions. Curriculum evaluation alternative approaches and practical guidelines. USA: Pearson Education.
• Gall, M. D., Gall, J. P. & Borg, W. W. (2003). Educational research: an introduction. USA: Pearson Education Inc.
• Gelen, İ. & Beyazıt, N. (2007). Comparing perceptions of the new primary school curriculum with the former curriculum. Educational Administration: Theory and Practice, 50, 457-476.
• Gözütok, D. (2014). Curriculum development in Turkey since 2000. In W. F. Pinar (2nd ed.), International Handbook of Curriculum Research (pp. 511-514). New York & London: Taylor & Francis Group.
• Gredler, M., E. (1996). Curriculum Evaluation. USA: Pearson Education Company
• İnal, K., Akkaymak, G. & Yıldırım, D. (2014). The constructivist curriculum reform in Turkey in 2004–In fact what is constructed? Journal for Critical Education Policy Studies, 12(2), 350-373.
• İnceçay, G. (2012). Turkey’s foreign language policy at primary level: Challenges in practice. International Association of Research
in Foreign Language Education and Applied Linguistics ELT Research Journal, 1(1), 53-62.
• Kelly, A. V. (2004). The Curriculum theory and practice (5th ed.). London: Sage Publications.
• Kırkgöz, Y. (2007a). English language teaching in Turkey: Policy changes and their implementations. Regional Language Centre Journal, 38(2), 216- 228, DOI: 10.1177/0033688207079696

• Kırkgöz, Y. (2007b). Language planning and implementation in Turkish primary schools, Current Issues in Language Planning, 8(2), 174-191, DOI: 10.2167/cilp114.0
• Kırkgöz, Y. (2008). A case study of teachers’ implementation of curriculum innovation in English language teaching in Turkish primary education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24(2008), 1859-1875.
• LeCompte, M. D. & Goetz, J. P. (1982). Problems of reliability and validity in ethnographic research. Review of Educational Research, 52(1), 31-60.
• Liao, X. (2004). The need for communicative language teaching in China. ELT Journal, 58(3), 270-273.
• Lincoln, Y. S. & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: SAGE.
• Marshall, C. & Rossman, G. B. (2006). Designing qualitative research (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks: SAGE.
• Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation, revised and expanded from qualitative research and case study applications in education. San Francisco: Wiley.
• Miles, B. M. & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). USA: Sage.
• Ministry of National Education. (2013). İlköğretim kurumları İngilizce dersi öğretim programı [English language curriculum for primary education institutions]. Ankara: Milli Eğitim Basımevi.
• Oliva, P. F. (1997). Developing the curriculum (4th Ed.). USA: Longman
• Ornstein, A. C. & Hunkins, F. P. (2004). Curriculum: Foundations, principles and issues. Englawood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
• Ornstein, A. C., & Hunkins, F. P. (2017). Curriculum: Foundations, principles and issues (7th ed.). USA: Pearson Education Limited.
• Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks: SAGE.
• Sarıçoban, A., & Sarıçoban, G. (2012). Atatürk and the history of foreign language education in Turkey. The Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 8(1), 24-49. Seale, C. (1999). Quality in qualitative research. Qualitative Inquiry, 5(4), 465-478.
• Shapiro, J. Z. (1985). Evaluation of a worksite program in health science and medicine: An application of Stake’s model of contingency and congruence. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 7(1), 47-56.
• Stake, R. E. (1967). The countenance of educational evaluation. Teachers College Record, 68, 523-540.
• Steller, A. W. (1983). Curriculum planning. In F. W. English (Eds.), Fundamental curriculum decisions (pp. 68-98). Alexandria, Virginia: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
• Şahin, İ. (2007). Assessment of new Turkish curriculum for grade 1 to 5. Elementary Education Online, 6(2), 284-304.
• Tekin-Özel, R. (2011). Determination of challenges encountered in the implementation English curricula for primary schools (The sample of Ankara). Unpublished master’s thesis. Ankara University, Ankara, Turkey.
• Tyler, R. W. (1949). How can the effectiveness of learning experiences be evaluated? Basic principles of curriculum and instruction (pp. 104-125). USA: The University of Chicago Press.
• Yaman, S. (2010). Assessment of English curriculum for primary schools’ 4th and 5th Grades according to teachers’ opinions
(A Case Study in Gaziantep). Unpublished master’s thesis, Fırat University, Elazığ, Turkey.
• Yüksel, İ., & Sağlam, M. (2014). Curriculum evaluation in education (2nd ed.). Ankara: Pegem Academy.
• Wood, B. B. (2001). Stake’s countenance model: Evaluating an environmental education professional development course. The Journal of Environmental Education, 32(2), 18-27.
• Woods, J. D. (1988). Curriculum evaluation models: Practical applications for teachers. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 13(1).