An evaluation of 4th and 5th grade English language teaching program

Abstract

This study investigates state primary school English language teachers’ opinions about the general characteristics, aims/outcomes and content of the new 4th and 5th grade English Language Teaching Program. To this end, a questionnaire was conducted with the participation of 72 teachers from 26 schools in Beyolu district of stanbul city. The analysis of the data revealed that although the participant English language teachers have moderately positive opinions on the general characteristics, aims/outcomes, and content of the new program, they still think that there are inefficient points of the new Key Stage I English Language Teaching Program that need to be revised and developed.

Keywords

• Primary school,English language teaching program,program evaluation,teachers’ opinions

4 ve 5. sınıf İngilizce öğretim programının değerlendirilmesi

Öz

-

Anahtar Kelimeler

• -

Kaynakça

1. AkDno lu, O. (2008). Primary Education Curriculum Reforms in Turkey. World Applied Sciences Journal. 3(2): 195-199. [Online]: Retrieved on January 5, 2009, at URL: http://www.idosi.org/wasj/wasj3(2)/5.pdf.
2. AkSit, N. (2007). Educational reform in Turkey. International Journal of Educational Development. Volume 27, Issue 2: 129-137. . [Online]: Retrieved on September 11, 2008, at URL: doi:10.1016/j.ijedudev.2006.07.011
3. Alderson, J. C., and Beretta, A. (1992). Evaluating second language education.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
4. Babado an, C. and Olkun, S. (2006). Program development models and reform in Turkish primary school mathematics curriculum. International Journal for Mathematics Teaching and Learning. Retrieved on November 11, 2008, at URL: http://www. cimt.plymouth.ac.uk/journal/default.htm.
5. Baturay, M.H. and Karaca, F. (2008) Perceptions of the school staff for the curriculum change at a K12 school setting” 8th International Educational Technology Conference. Online papers. Retrieved on January 3, 2009, at URL: http://www.ietc2008.anadolu.edu.tr/.
6. Bayrak, B., Erden A.M. (2007). Fen bilgisi ö retim programDnDn de erlendirilmesi. Kastamonu Education Journal, 15, 1: 137. [Online]: Retrieved on November 5, 2008, at URL: http://www.ksef.gazi.edu.tr/dergi/pdf/Cilt-15-No1-2007Mart/137bbayrak.pdf
7. Bell, J. (1993). Doing your research project (2nd ed.). Buckhingham: Open University Press.
8. Bilen, M. (1999). Plandan Uygulamaya Ö/retim (5. BaskD). Ankara: AnD YayDncDlDk.

9. Brown, J.D. (1995). The elements of language curriculum: a systematic approach to program development. Massachusetts: Heinle & Heinle Publishers.
10. 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. [Online]: Retrieved on December 6, 2008, at URL: http://www.ejmste.com/v3n3/EJMSTE_v3n3_Bulut.pdf
11. Büyükduman, F. . (2001).The opinions of primary school teachers of English on the syllabus of English as a second language in primary school fourth and fifth grades. Unpublished MA Thesis. stanbul: YDldDz Teknik University.
12. Büyükduman, F. (2005). lkö retim OkullarD ngilizce Ö retmenlerinin Birinci Kademe ngilizce Ö retim ProgramDna liSkin GörüSleri. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Egitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 28: [2005] 55-64. [Online]: Retrieved on October 14, 2008, at URL: http://193.140.216.63/200528F%C4%B0GEN%20%C4%B0LKE%20B%C3%9CY%C3%9CK DUMAN.pdf
13. Çelebi, M.D. (2006). Türkiye’de anadili e itimi ve yabancD dil ö retimi. Social Sciences Institute Journal, 21, 2: 285-307.
14. ÇDnar, O., Teyfur, E., Teyfur, M. (2006). lkö retim okulu ö retmen ve yöneticilerinin yapDlandDrmacD e itim yaklaSDmD ve programD hakkDndaki görüSleri. 8nönü Üniversitesi E/itim Fakültesi Dergisi, 7, 11: 47-64. . [Online]: Retrieved on December 3, 2008, at URL: http://www.pegem.net/akademi/3-8290-Primary-School-Teachers-and-Administrators-8217- Views-about-Constructivist-Education-Approach-and-Programs.aspx
15. Demircan, Ö. (1988). Dünden Bugüne Türkiye’de Yabanc= Dil. stanbul: Remzi Kitabevi.
16. Demirel, Ö. (1999). 8lkö/retim Okullar=nda Yabanc= Dil Ö/retimi. stanbul: MEB YayDncDlDk.
17. Eisner, E.W. (2002).The Educational Imagination: On the Design and Evaluation of School Programs. New Jersey: Merrill Prentice Hall. Third Edition.
18. Ekiz, D. (2004). “Teacher professionalism and curriculum change: primary school teachers’ views of the new science curriculum.” Kastamonu E/itim Dergisi, 12/2: 339-350. . [Online]: Retrieved on November 14, 2008, at URL: http://www.ksef.gazi.edu.tr/dergi/pdf/Cilt12-No2- 2004Ekim/dekiz.pdf
19. Er, K.O. (2006). Evaluation of English Curricula in 4th and 5th Grade Primary Schools,Ankara
20. University, Journal of Faculty of Educational Sciences, 39, 2, 1-25. [Online]: Retrieved on January
21. , 2009, at URL:http://dergiler.ankara.edu.tr/dergiler/40/151/1086.pdf
22. Erdo an, V. (2005). An evaluation of the English curriculum implemented at the 4thand 5th
23. grade primary state schools: the view of the teachers and the students. Unpublished MA
24. Thesis. Mersin: Mersin University.
25. Gömleksiz, M.N., Bulut, . (2007). Yeni Fen ve Teknoloji Dersi Ö retim ProgramDnDn Uygulamadaki Etkilili inin De erlendirilmesi. Hacettepe Üniversitesi E/itim Fakültesi Dergisi. 32 [2007] 76- 88. . [Online]: Retrieved on October 30, 2008, at URL:
26. http://193.140.216.63/200732MEHMET%20NUR%C4%B0%20G%C3%96MLEKS%C4%B0Z .pdf
27. Hutchinson,T. and Waters, A.(1997). English for Specific Purposes: A Learning Centred Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
28. lkö retim 1-5. SDnDflar Ö retim ProgramlarDnD De erlendirme ToplantDsD (2006) 8lkö/retim Online. 5/1. online.org.tr/vol5say1/.
29. Korkmaz, . (2006). The evaluation of the new primary school 1stgrade program by teachers. [Online]: Retrieved on December 14, 2008, at URL: http://www.sosyalbil.selcuk.edu.tr/sos_mak/articles/2006/16/IKORKMAZ.PDF
30. Lynch, B. K. (1997). Language program evaluation: theory and practice. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
31. MEB 8lkö/retim Kurumlar= 8ngilizce Dersi Ö/retim Program= (1997). stanbul: Milli E itim BasDmevi.
32. MEB 8lkö/retim Kurumlar= 8ngilizce Dersi Ö/retim Program= (2006). stanbul: Milli E itim BasDmevi.
33. Mersinligil, G. (2001). Evaluation of the English language curriculum for the fourth and fifth grade students in elementary education: a sample of Adana province. Unpublished MA Thesis. ElazD : FDrat University.
34. Nunan, D. (1988). The learner-centred curriculum. New York: Cambridge University Press.
35. Ocak, G., Beydo an, H.Ö. (2005). lkö retim OkullarD 3. SDnDf Hayat Bilgisi Ders çeri inin AmaçlarlaTutarlDlDk ve Ö renci Seviyesine Uygunluk AçDsDndan Yeterlilik Düzeyi (Standart Belirleme-Erzurum l Örne i).Gazi Üniversitesi K=rGehir E/itim Fakültesi Dergisi. Cilt 6 SayD 1, 109-132. . [Online]: Retrieved on October 3, 2008, at URL: http://www.kefad.gazi.edu.tr/2005.1/109-132.pdf.pdf
36. Official Gazette (1997) 18.07.1997, 4306.
37. Official Gazette (2006) 10.02.2006, 26076.
38. Özden, Y. (2003). Ö/renmeye Farkl= Bir Bak=G: Yap=land=rmac=l=k, Ö/renme ve Ö/retme.
39. Ankara: Pegem A YayDncDlDk.
40. Tahin, . (2007). Assessment of new Turkish curriculum for grade 1 to 5. 8lkö/retim Online, 6, 2, 284- 304. [Online]: Retrieved on December 7, 2008, at URL: http://ilkogretim-online.org.tr/vol6say2/v6s2m21.pdf
41. Savran, A., ÇakDro lu, J., Özkan, Ö. (2002). Fen bilgisi ö retmenlerinin yeni fen bilgisi programDna yönelik düSünceleri. Fourth National Science and Math Education Congress Proceedings. Ankara: ODTÜ, 203-207.
42. Selvi, K. and YaSar, T. (1999). Orta ö retim fen ö retimi programlarDnDn de erlendirilmesi. Fourth National Education Sciences Congress Proceedings. EskiSehir: Anadolu University.
43. ToptaS, V. (2006). lkö retim matematik dersi (1-5) ö retim programDnDn uygulanmasDnda sDnDf ö retmnelerinin karSDlaStDklarD sorunlarla ilgili görüSleri. Ulusal S=n=f Ö/retmenli/i Kongresi, Bildiri Kitab=, Cilt 1, 277-285. Ankara: Kök YayDncDlDk.
44. Umay, A. AkkuS, O., and Duatepe Paksu, A. (2006). An investigation of 1-5 grades mathematics curriculum by considering NCTM principles and standards. Hacettepe Universitesi E/itim Fakültesi Dergisi, 31, 198-211. . [Online]: Retrieved on November 5, 2008, at URL: http://193.140.216.63/200631AYSUN%20UMAY.pdf
45. Worthen, B.R. (1990). Program evaluation. H. Walberg and G. Haertel (Eds.), The International Encyclopedia of Educational Evaluation. TORONTO: Pergammon Press, 42-47.
46. Yalden, J. (1987). Principles of Course Design for Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
47. Karatepe, A., YDldDrDm, H. A., Tensoy, Ö., and YalçDn, N. (2004). Fen bilgisi ö retimi amaçlarDnDn gerçekleStirilmesinde mevcut fen bilgisi müfredat programDnDn amaçlar boyutunda uygunlu u konusunda ö retmen görüSleri. Gazi Üniversitesi K=rGehir E/itim Fakültesi Dergisi, 5, 2: 165- 175. [Online]: Retrieved on November 23, 2008, at URL: http://www.kefad.gazi.edu.tr/2004.2/165-175.pdf.pdf
48. ÜltanDr, G (2003). E/itimde Planlama ve De/erlendirme’de Kuram ve Teknikler. Ankara: Nobel
49. Yüksel, A. (2001). An evaluation of English teaching programme and implementations in primary schools (4thgrade) (Elaz=/ sample). Unpublished MA Thesis. ElazD : FDrat University.
50. Zincir, B. (2006). 5th grade English teachers’ evaluations of curriculum objectives. Unpublished MA Thesis. EskiSehir: Anadolu University.
51. ve 5. sAnAf Bngilizce öEretim programAnAn deEerlendirilmesi