The Alignment between the Official Curriculum and the Taught Curriculum: An Analysis of Primary School English Curriculum

Abstract

The aim of this research is to analyze the alignment between the official primary school English curriculum and the taught curriculum. In this mixed method research, concurrent equal status design was adopted. Questionnaires, semi-structured interviews, teachers’ reflection diaries, and research diaries were used to collect the data. The participants were the teachers who were teaching English in primary schools in Kütahya in 2016-2017 academic year. The quantitative data of the study were analyzed by using descriptive statistics analysis and the qualitative data were analyzed with inductive analysis. The result of this research showed that the English teachers can align the curriculum in terms of its learning outcomes and content. However, they cannot completely align the curriculum in terms of its teaching-learning process and evaluation. Moreover, the study found out the classroom teachers can partially align the curriculum and the multigrade classroom teachers cannot ensure the alignment between the official and the taught curriculum to a considerable extent. The lack of technological equipment and materials, challenges of teaching in a multigrade classroom, teachers’ professional competencies, and beliefs are among the factors affecting the alignment.

Keywords

• Curriculum alignment
• Curriculum fidelity
• Multigrade classrooms
• Taught curriculum
• Written curriculum

References

1. Arı, A. (2014). İlköğretim altıncı sınıf İngilizce dersi öğretim programına ilişkin öğretmen görüşleri [Teacher opinions about evaluation of 6th grade English lesson curriculum in primary schools]. Kuramsal Eğitimbilim Dergisi, 7(2), 172-194.
2. Bobbitt, F. (1918). The curriculum. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The Riverside.
3. Bümen, N. T., Çakar, E. & Yıldız, D. G. (2014). Türkiye’de öğretim programına bağlılık ve bağlılığı etkileyen etkenler [Curriculum fidelity and the factors affecting the fidelity in Turkey]. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Bilimleri, 14(1), 203-228.
4. Büyükduman, F. İ. (2005). İlköğretim okulları İngilizce öğretmenlerinin birinci kademe İngilizce öğretim programına ilişkin görüşleri [The opinions of elementary school English teachers on the English curriculum for elementary schools]. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 28, 55-64.
5. Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2018). Sosyal bilimler için veri analizi el kitabı: istatistik, araştırma deseni, SPSS uygulamaları ve yorum [Data analysis handbook for social sciences: statistics, research design, SPSS applications and interpretation]. Ankara: Pegem.
6. Çelebi, M. D. (2006). Türkiye’de anadili eğitimi ve yabancı dil öğretimi [Education of native language and teaching foreign language in Turkey]. Erciyes Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 1 (21), 285-307.
7. Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research design: qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (3rd Ed.). Thousand Oaks, California: Sage.
8. Demirel, Ö. (1999). İlköğretim okullarında yabancı dil öğretimi [Teaching foreign language in primary schools]. İstanbul: MEB.

9. Demirel, Ö. (2003). Yabancı dil öğretimi [Teaching foreign languages]. Ankara: Pegem.
10. Dusenbury, L., Brannigan, R., Falco, M. & Hansen, W. B. (2003). A review of research on fidelity of implementation: implications for drug abuse prevention in school settings. Health Educatıon Research, 18 (2), 237–256.
11. English, F. W. (1992). Deciding what to teach and test. Newbury Park, California: Corwin.
12. Ertürk, S. (1979). Eğitimde program geliştirme (3. Baskı.) [Curriculum Development in Education (3rd Ed.)]. Ankara: Yelkentepe.
13. Furtak, E. M., Ruiz-Primo, M. A., Shemwell, J. T., Ayala, C. C., Brandon, P. R., Shavelson, R. J. & Yin, Y. (2008). On the fidelity of implementing embedded formative assessments and its relation to student learning. Applied Measurement in Education, 21 (4), 360-389.
14. Glatthorn, A.A. (2000). The Principals as curriculum leader: shaping what is taught and tested (2nd Ed.). Thousand Oaks, California: Corwin.
15. Glatthorn, A. A. ve Jailall, J. M. (2009). The principals as curriculum leader: shaping what is taught and tested (3rd Ed.). Thousand Oaks, California: Corwin.
16. Hannigan, J. E. IV (2015). Investigating the impact of common core integration on early literacy curriculum systems (Unpublished dissertation). California State University, Educational Leadership, Fresno.
17. İyitoğlu, O. & Alcı, B. (2015). A qualitative research on 2nd grade teachers’ opinions about 2nd grade English language teaching curriculum. Elementary Education Online, 14(2), 682-696.
18. Johnson, B. & Christensen, L. (2014). Eğitim araştırmaları: nicel, nitel ve karma yaklaşımlar [Educational research: quantitative, qualitative, and mixed approaches]. (S. B. Demir, Trans.). Ankara: Eğiten Kitap.
19. Kandemir, A. (2016). İlkokul 2. sınıf İngilizce öğretim programının katılımcı odaklı program değerlendirme yaklaşımıyla değerlendirilmesi [An evaluation of 2nd grade English curriculum within a participant-oriented program evaluation approach] (Unpublished master’s thesis). Pamukkale Üniversitesi, Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Denizli.
20. Karabacak, E. (2018). İlkokul resmi İngilizce öğretim programı ile uygulamadaki program arasındaki uyumun incelenmesi [Analyzing the alignment between the primary school official English curriculum and the taught curriculum] (Unpublished master’s thesis). Anadolu Üniversitesi, Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Eskisehir.
21. Kaya, S. & Ok, A. (2016). The second grade English language curriculum: theory-practice congruence. Pegem Eğitim ve Öğretim Dergisi, 6(4), 491-512.
22. Küçüktepe, C., Eminoğlu Küçüktepe, S. & Baykın, Y. (2014). İkinci sınıf İngilizce dersi ve programına ilişkin öğretmen görüşlerinin incelenmesi [An investigation of teachers’ views on the second grade English course and curriculum]. Hasan Ali Yücel Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 11(22), 55-78.
23. Livingstone, I. D., Postlethwaite, N. T., Travers, K. J. & Suter, L. E (1986). Second international mathematics study. perceptions of the intended and implemented mathematics curriculum. contractor's report 1986. http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED274525.pdf
24. MEB (2006). İlköğretim kurumları İngilizce dersi öğretim programı [Elementary schools English curriculum]. Ankara.
25. MEB (2013). İlköğretim kurumları (ilkokullar ve ortaokullar) İngilizce dersi (2,3,4,5,6,7 ve 8. sınıflar) öğretim programı [Elementary schools (primary and secondary schools) English (2nd,3rd,4th,5th,6th,7th, and 8th grades) curriculum]. Ankara.
26. MEB (2017). Öğretmenlik mesleği genel yeterlikleri [General competencies of the teaching profession]. Ankara.
27. MEB (2018). İngilizce dersi öğretim programı (ilkokul ve ortaokul 2,3,4,5,6,7 ve 8. sınıflar) [English curriculum (primary and secondary school 2nd,3rd,4th,5th,6th,7th, and 8th grades)]. Ankara.
28. Mendoza, A.S. (2011). Educational reform and teachers’ decision making: relationship between the intended and the implemented reading curriculum in Dominican primary schools (Unpublished dissertation). State University of New York, Department of Educational Administration and Policy Studies, Albany.
29. Morgan, C. & Xu, G.R. (2011). Reconceptualising ‘obstacles’ to teacher implementation of curriculum reform: beyond beliefs. Mathematics Education and Contemporary Theory Conference. http://www.esri.mmu.ac.uk/mect/papers_11/Morgan.pdf
30. Nevenglosky, E. A., Cale, C. & Aguliar, S. P. (2019). Barriers to effective curriculum implementation. Research in Higher Education Journal, Volume 36.
31. Ntoi, L. (2007). Incorporating technology into the Lesotho science curriculum: investigating the gap between the intended and the implemented curriculum (Unpublished dissertation). University of Western Cape, Department of Education, Cape Town.
32. Özüdoğru, F. (2016). İlkokul 2. sınıf İngilizce öğretim programının diller için Avrupa ortak başvuru metni doğrultusunda aydınlatıcı değerlendirme modeli ile değerlendirilmesi [Evaluation of primary school 2nd grade English language teaching curriculum through illuminative evaluation model in line with the Common European Framework of Reference for languages] (Unpublished dissertation). Anadolu Üniversitesi, Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Eskişehir.
33. Patton, M. Q. (2014). Nitel araştırma ve değerlendirme yöntemleri [Qualitative research and evaluation methods] (M. Bütün & S. B. Demir, Trans.). Ankara: Pegem.
34. Penuel, W.R., Phillips R.S. & Harris, C.J. (2014). Analyzing teachers’ curriculum implementation from integrity and actor-oriented perspectives. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 46(6), 751-777.
35. Shah, F. H. (2015). An investigation into Lecturers' Beliefs and Implementation of the English Language Curriculum Change at Higher Education Level in Pakistan (Unpublished Dissertation). University of Exeter, Education and lifelong learning, Exeter.
36. Sidekli, S., Coşkun, İ. & Aydın, Y. (2015). Köyde öğretmen olmak: birleştirilmiş sınıf [Being a teacher in a village: multigrade classes]. Trakya Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 17(1), 311-331.
37. Squires, D.A. (2009). Curriculum alignment: research-based strategies for increasing student achievement. Thousand Oaks, California: Corwin.
38. Summak, M. S., Summak, A. E. G. & Gelebek, M. S. (2011). Birleştirilmiş sınıflarda karşılaşılan sorunlar ve öğretmenlerin bakış açısından olası çözüm önerileri (Kilis ili örneği) [Problems encountered in multi-grade classes and teachers’ suggestions for possible solutions (a case study in Kilis province)]. Gaziantep Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, Sayı: 10(3), s. 1221-1238.
39. Şad, S. N. & Karaova, M. (2015). İlkokul ikinci sınıf İngilizce dersi bağlamında dinleme becerisi öğretimi: bir durum çalışması [Teaching listening skill within the context of primary school 2nd grade English course: a case study]. Eğitimde Nitel Araştırmalar Dergisi, 3(2), 66-95.
40. Turan Özpolat, E.T. (2015). Öğretmenlerin program uyumluluğu ve program uyumluluğunu etkileyen faktörlerin analizi (ortaokul 5. sınıf fen bilimleri dersi örneği) [Teacher’s curriculum alignment and an analysis of the factors affecting curriculum alignment (the case of secondary school grade 5 science lesson)] (Unpublished Dissertation). Gaziantep Üniversitesi, Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Gaziantep.
41. Varış, F. (1994). Eğitimde program geliştirme: teori ve teknikler (5. Baskı) [Curriculum development in education: theory and techniques (5th Ed.)]. Ankara: Alkım.
42. Verhoeven, P. & Verloop, N. (2002). Identifying changes in teaching practice: Innovative curricular objectives in classical languages and the taught curriculum. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 34:1, 91-102.
43. Walker, D. F. & Soltis, J. F. (2004). Curriculum and aims (4th Ed.) (J. F. Soltis, Ed.). New York: Teachers College.
44. Wiles, J. W. & Bondi, J. C. (2011). Curriculum development: a guide to practice. New Jersey: Pearson Education.
45. Yörü, B. (2012). İlköğretim sekizinci sınıf İngilizce öğretim programına ilişkin öğretmen görüşleri [Teachers' opinions on the 8th grade primary school English curriculum] (Unpublished master’s thesis). Eskişehir Osmangazi Üniversitesi, Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Eskişehir.
46. Ziebell, N. (2010). Examining the alignment of the intended curriculum and performed curriculum in primary school mathematics and integrated curriculum (Unpublished master’s thesis). The University of Melbourne, Melbourne Graduate School of Education, Melbourne.