A New Step towards Narrowing the Achievement Gap in Turkey: “1,000 Schools in Vocational Education and Training” Project

Abstract

The aim of this study is to examine the science learning styles of eighth grade students in terms of gender, having a study room, having internet access and future expectation variables. For this purpose, survey design was used. The sample of the study consisted of 584 eighth grade students in Kayseri. Grasha Reichmann Learning Styles Scale developed in 1996 and adapted to Turkish by Vural (2013) was used as a data collection tool. In the analysis of the data, descriptive statistical techniques and cross-table analysis were performed. It has been found that the students use collaborative and competitive learning styles at a high level and they use independent, dependent, avoidant, and participative learning styles at moderate level. In addition, while the dominant learning style of most of the students is dependent learning style. In terms of demographic variables, students' learning style preferences differ in terms of gender, having internet access, and future expectation, but it does not differ in terms of having an independent study room variable.

Keywords

• Education Vision 2023
• vocational education and training
• basic skills
• achievement gap
• equality in education

Türkiye’de Okullar Arası Başarı Farklarını Azaltmaya Yönelik Yeni Bir Adım: Mesleki ve Teknik Eğitimde 1.000 Okul Projesi

Abstract

Türkiye’de 2023 Eğitim Vizyonu sonrasında mesleki eğitimde kaliteyi artırmaya yönelik sistematik adımlar atılmış ve kısa sürede sonuçları alınmaya başlanmıştır. Sektörlerle kurulan iş birliklerinin kapsamı ve ölçeği genişletilmiş ve kalite güvence sistemi kurulmuştur. Mesleki eğitimde işletmelerde beceri eğitimi güçlendirilmiş ve uygulamalı eğitime ağırlık verilmiştir. Mesleki eğitimde mükemmeliyet merkezleri olarak kurulan AR-GE merkezlerinde fikri mülkiyet çalışmaları odağa alınmış ve bu kapsamda patent, faydalı model, tasarım ve marka üretim ve tescil sürecine ağırlık verilmiştir. Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı mesleki eğitimde kaliteyi yaygınlaştırmak ve okullar arası başarı farkını azaltmak için yeni bir adım atarak ‘Mesleki Eğitimde 1.000 Okul Projesi’ni başlatmıştır. Bu çalışmada bu proje tanıtılmakta ve proje kapsamında atılacak adımlara değinilmektedir. Proje kapsamında mesleki eğitimde seçilen okulların altyapısı ve eğitim-öğretim ortamları iyileştirilecek ve zenginleştirilecektir. Diğer taraftan öğrencilere yönelik temel beceri eksikliklerini telafi etmeye yönelik eğitim desteği ve kişisel gelişim destekleri verilecektir. Ayrıca öğrencilerin velilerine yönelik hayat boyu öğrenme kapsamında eğitim desteği verilecektir. Süresi bir yıl olarak belirlenen proje başarılı bir şekilde tamamlandığında Türkiye’de mesleki eğitimde yaşanan iyileşme tüm okullara yayılmış ve toplam bir iyileşme sağlanmış olacaktır. Ayrıca, mesleki ve teknik Anadolu liseleri ile diğer lise türleri arasındaki başarı farkları da azalacaktır.

Keywords

• 2023 Eğitim Vizyonu
• mesleki ve teknik eğitim
• temel beceriler
• okullar arası başarı farkı
• eğitimde eşitlik

References

1. Acemoğlu, D., & Restrepo, P. (2018). Artificial intelligence, automation and work. NBER Working Paper 24196. National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge
2. Allmendinger, J. (1998). Educational systems and labour market outcomes. European Sociological Review, 5(3), 231-250.
3. Ander, R., Guryan, J., & Ludwig, J. (2016). Improving academic outcomes for disadvantaged students: Scaling up ındividualized tutorials. Hamilton Project. Retrieved from https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Full-Paper-1.pdf
4. Arslanargun, E., Bozkurt, S., & Sarıoğlu, S. (2016). Sosyoekonomik değişkenlerin öğrencilerin akademik başarısı üzerine etkileri. [The effects of socioeconomic variables on students' academic achievement] Uşak Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi [Uşak University Journal of Social Sciences], 9(3), 214-234.
5. Bol, T., Eller, C. C., Van de Werfhorst, H. G., & DiPrete, T. A. (2019). School-to-work linkages, educational mismatches, and labor market outcomes, American Sociological Review, 84(2), 275-307.
6. Bozgeyikli, H. (2019). Mesleki ve teknik eğitimin geleceği. İLKE Geleceğin Türkiyesi Analiz Raporu No.2. [The future of vocational and technical education. Future Turkey Analysis Report of İLKE, No.2]
7. Bölükbaşı, S., & Gür, B. S. (2020). Tracking and inequality: The results from Turkey. International Journal of Educational Development, 78, 102262.
8. Breen, R. (2005). Explaining cross-national variation in youth unemployment: Market and institutional factors. European Sociological Review, 21(2), 125-134.

9. Canbal, M. S., Kerkez, B., Suna, H. E., Numanoğlu, K. V., & Özer, M. (2020). Mesleki ve teknik ortaöğretimde paradigma değişimi için yeni bir adım: Eğitim programlarının güncellenmesi [A New Step for Paradigm Shift in the Vocational and Technical Secondary Education in Turkey: The Revision of Education Programs]. Eğitim ve İnsan Bilimleri: Teori ve Uygulama, 11(21), 1-25.
10. Carter, P. L. (2018). The multidimensional problems of educational inequality require multidimensional solutions. Educational Studies, 54(1), 1-16.
11. Center on Education Policy (CEP) (2007). Answering the question that matters most: Has student achievement increased since no child left behind. Washington, D.C: CEP.
12. Cingöz, Z. K., & Gür, B. S. (2020). Ekonomik, sosyal ve kültürel statünün akademik başarıya etkisi: PISA 2015 ve TEOG 2017 sonuçlarının karşılaştırılması [The Effect of Economic, Social and Cultural Status on Academic Achievement A Comparison of PISA 2015 and TEOG 2017 Results]. İnsan ve Toplum, doi:10.12658/M0563
13. Coenen, J., Heijke, H., & Meng, C. (2015). The labour market position of narrow versus broad vocational education programmes. Empirical Research in Vocational Education and Training, 7(9). doi:10.1186/s40461-015-0020-x
14. Coşkun, M. K., & Ünal, B. (2006). Kültürel sermaye, eğitim ve eşitsizliğin yeniden üretimi. Sosyoloji Araştırmalar Dergisi, 9(1), 24-44.
15. Deissinger, T. (2015). The German dual vocational education and training system as ‘good practice’?. Local Economy, 30(5), 557-567.
16. Dinçer, M. A., & Uysal-Kolaşin, G. (2009). Türkiye’de öğrenci başarısında eşitsizliğin belirleyicileri: Türkiye’de eğitimde eşitliğin geliştirilebilmesi için veriye dayalı savunu projesi araştırma raporu. [The determinants of disparities in student achievement in Turkey: defend the project research report based on data in order to improve equality in education in Turkey]. İstanbul: Sabancı Üniversitesi, Eğitim Reformu Girişimi.
17. DiPrete, T. A., Eller, C. C., Bol, T., & Van de Werfhorst, H. G. (2017). School-to-work linkages in the United States, Germany, and France. American Journal of Sociology, 122(6), 1869-1938.
18. Educational Research Centre (1998). Early start preschool programme: Final evaluation report. Retrieved from http://www.erc.ie/documents/esfinal98.pdf EQAVET (2015). Actions to reduce early leaving in vocational education and training. EQAVET Policy Brief. Retrieved from https://www.eqavet.eu/Eqavet2017/media/Documents/EQAVET-Policy-Brief-on-PLA-on-Actions-to-reduce-early-leaving-in-VET.pdf
19. Fuller, A (2015). Vocational Education. In James D. Wright (Ed.), International encyclopedia of the social & behavioral sciences (2nd edition, pp.232-238). Oxford: Elsevier.
20. Gençoğlu, C. (2019). Milli bir destekleme ve yetiştirme sistemi modeli: İlkokullarda Yetiştirme Programı (İYEP). [A national support and training system model: Primary School Education Program] Milli Eğitim Dergisi [Journal of National Education], 48(1), 853-881.
21. Güllüpınar, F., & İnce, C. (2014). Şanlıurfa’da eğitimsel eşitsizliklerin yeniden üretimi: Kültürel yapı, sosyal sermaye ve yapısal faktörlerin sosyolojik analizi. [Reproduction of educational inequalities in Şanlıurfa: Cultural structure, social capital and sociological analysis of structural factors] Eğitim, Bilim ve Toplum Dergisi [Education, Science and Society Journal], 12(46), 84-121.
22. Haas Institute for a Fair and Inclusive Society (2017). Responding to educational inequality. Berkeley, CA: University of California.
23. Hanushek, E.A., Schwerdt, G., Woessman, L., & Zhang, L. (2017). General education, vocational education, and labor-market outcomes over the life-cycle. The Journal of Human Resources, 52(1), 48–87.
24. Korber, M. (2019). Does vocational education give a labour market advantage over the whole career? A comprasion of the United Kingdom and Switzerland. Social Inclusion, 7(3), 202-223.
25. Koretz, D. (2005). Alignment, high stakes, and the inflation of test scores. Los Angeles: National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing. Ministry of National Education-MoNE (2016). PISA 2015 ulusal ön raporu. Ankara: MEB
26. Ministry of National Education-MoNE (2019a). Türkçe-matematik-fen bilimleri öğrenci başarı izleme araştırması (TMF-ÖBA)-I: 2019. 4. sınıf seviyesi. Eğitim Analiz ve Değerlendirme Raporları Serisi No:9. [Turkish-mathematics-science student achievement monitoring survey (TMF-ÖBA) -I: 2019. 4th grade level. Training Analysis and Evaluation Reports Series No: 9]. Ankara: MEB.
27. Ministry of National Education-MoNE (2019b). Dört beceride Türkçe dil sınavı: Pilot çalışma sonuçları. Eğitim Analiz ve Değerlendirme Raporları Serisi No: 11 [ Turkish language test in four skills: Pilot study results. Training Analysis and Evaluation Reports Series No: 11]. Ankara: MEB.
28. Muja, A., Blommaert, L., Gesthuizen, M., & Wolbers, M. H. J. (2019a). The vocational impact of educational programs on youth labor market. Research in Social Stratification and Mobility 64, 100437.
29. Muja, A., Blommaert, L., Gesthuizen, M., & Wolbers, M. H. J. (2019b). The role of different types of skills and signals in youth labor market integration. Empirical Research in Vocational Education and Training, 11, 6.
30. Oakes, J. (1990). Multiplying inequalities: The effects of race, socialclass, and tracking on oppurtunities to learn mathematics and science. Santa Monica: The RAND Corporation.
31. OECD (2012). Equity and Quality in Education: Supporting Disadvantaged Students and Schools. OECD Publishing.
32. OECD (2019). Country note: Turkey. Paris: OECD Publishing.
33. Oral, I., & Mcgivney, E. J. (2014). Türkiye’de eğitim sisteminde eşitlik ve akademik başarı: Araştırma raporu ve analiz. [Equality and academic achievement in the education system in Turkey: Research Report and analysis]. İstanbul: ERG.
34. Özer, M. (2018). The 2023 Education Vision and new goals in vocational and technical education. Journal of Higher Education and Science, 8(3), 425–435.
35. Özer, M. (2019a). Reconsidering the fundamental problems of vocational education and training in Turkey and proposed solutions for restructuring. İstanbul Üniversitesi Sosyoloji Dergisi [Istanbul University Journal of Sociology], 39(2), 1–19.
36. Özer, M. (2019b). Background of problems in vocational education and training and its road map to solution in Turkey’s Education Vision 2023. Journal of Higher Education and Science, 9(1), 1–11.
37. Özer, M., & Suna, H. E. (2019). Future of vocational and technical education in Turkey: Solid steps taken after Education Vision 2023. Journal of Education and Humanities, 10(20), 165–192.
38. Özer, M., & Suna, H. E. (2020). The linkage between vocational education and labor market in Turkey: Employability and skill mismatch. Kastamonu Education Journal, 28(2), 558–569.
39. Özer, M., & Perc, M. (2020). Dreams and realities of school tracking and vocational education. Palgrave Communications, 6, 34.
40. Özer, M. (2020a). Mesleki eğitimde okuldan işe geçişi etkileyen yeni parametreler: Küresel dönüşümde yeni eğilimler. [New parameters affecting the transition from school to work in vocational education: New trends in global transformation]. İnsan ve Toplum, [Human and Society] 10(3), 1-27.
41. Özer, M (2020b). Mesleki eğitimde paradigma değişimi: Türkiye’nin mesleki eğitim ile imtihanı. [n vocational education paradigm shift: a test of Turkey's vocational training.] İstanbul: Maltepe Üniversitesi Kitapları.
42. Özer, M. (2020c). Türkiye’de mesleki eğitimde paradigma değişimi. [paradigm shifts in vocational education in Turkey] Gazi Üniversitesi Gazi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi [Gazi University Journal of Gazi Education Faculty], 40(2), 357-384.
43. Özer, M. (2020d). Vocational education and training as “a friend in need” during coronavirus pandemic in Turkey. Bartın University Journal of Faculty of Education, 9(2), 1-7.
44. Özer, M. (2020e). Educational policy actions by the Ministry of National Education in the times of COVID-19 pandemic in Turkey. Kastamonu Educational Journal, 28(3), 1124-1129.
45. Özer, M. (2020f). The contribution of strengthened capacity of vocational education and training systems in Turkey to the fight against Covid-19. Journal of Higher Education, 10(2), 134-140.
46. Özer, M. (2020g). What PISA tells us about performance of education systems?. Bartın University Journal of Faculty of Education, 9(2), 217-228. Özer, M., & Suna, H. E. (2020). COVID-19 pandemic and education, In M. Şeker, A. Özer, C. Korkut (Eds.), Reflections on the pandemic in the future of the world (pp. 157-178). Ankara: TÜBA.
47. Özkan, N. (2010). The role of families in the achievement of students at secondary education. Trakya Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 12(2), 262-271.
48. Perc, M., Özer, M., & Hojnik, J. (2019). Social and juristic challenges of artificial intelligence. Palgrave Communication 5, 61.
49. Rözer, J., & Van de Werfhorst, H. (2020). Three worlds of vocational education: Specialized and general craftsmanship in France, Germany, and The Netherlands. European Sociological Review, 36(5), 780-797.
50. Sahlberg, P. (2007). Secondary education in OECD countries: Common challenges, differing solutions. European Training Foundation.
51. Shavit, Y., & Müller, W. (2000). Vocational secondary education: Where diversion and where safety net?. European Societies, 2(1), 29-50.
52. Solga, H., Protsch, P., Ebner, C., & Brzinsky-Fay, C. (2014). The German vocational education and training system: Its institutional configuration, strength, and challenges. WZB Discussion Paper SP-I-2014-502.
53. Suna, H. E., Tanberkan, H., & Özer, M. (2020). Changes in literacy students in Turkey by years and school types: Performance of students in PISA applications. Journal of Measurement and Evaluation in Education and Psychology, 11(1), 76-97.
54. Suna, H. E., Tanberkan, H., Gur, B. S., Perc, M., & Özer, M. (2020a). Socioeconomic status and school type as predictors of academic achievement. Journal of Economy Culture and Society, 61(1), 41-64.
55. Suna, H. E., Gür, B. S., Gelbal, S., & Özer, M. (2020b). Fen lisesi öğrencilerinin sosyoekonomik arkaplanı ve yükseköğretime geçişteki tercihleri. [The socio-economic background of science high school students and their preferences in transition to higher education]. Yükseköğretim Dergisi[Journal of Higher Education], doi:10.2399/yod.20.734921.
56. UK Department of Education (2018). Government pledge £28 million to support children and young people. UK Press Release. Retrieved from https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-pledge-28-million-to-support-children-and-young-people
57. U.S. Department of Education (USDE) (2002). No child left behind: A desktop reference. Washington, D.C.: Office of Elementary and Secondary Education.