Yabancı Dil Olarak İngilizce Öğreniminde Basamaklı Öğretim Programının Öğrencilerin Dilbilgisel Yeterliliklerine Etkisi

Öz

Bu çalışma, basamaklı öğretim programının (BÖP) öğrencilerin İngilizce dilbilgisi başarısı üzerindeki etkinliğini araştırmak için karma yöntem yaklaşımını benimsemektedir. Dilbilgisi başarı puanları üzerindeki etkisini değerlendirmek için deneysel tasarım olan Solomon Dört Gruplu Araştırma Modeli kullanılarak nicel veriler toplanmıştır. Her iki deney grubunda da İngilizce dilbilgisi dersleri BÖP etkinlikleri ile yürütülürken, kontrol gruplarında okulun mevcut öğretim programının ders kitabında yer alan yöntem ve teknikler uygulanmıştır. Nicel bulgulara ek olarak, nitel veriler, öğrencilerin görsel materyaller, pratik etkinlikler ve etkileşimli dilbilgisi etkinlikleri de dahil olmak üzere uygulama tarafından kolaylaştırılan çeşitli öğrenme etkinliklerine yönelik olumlu tepkilerini ortaya koymuştur. Sonuçlar, BÖP etkinliklerine maruz kalan öğrenciler arasında kontrol gruplarına kıyasla önemli ölçüde daha yüksek dilbilgisi başarı puanları olduğunu göstermektedir. Öğrenciler, kendi öğrenme süreçlerini kontrol etme hakkını, etkinlikleri seçme özgürlüğünü ve tamamlanan görevleri sözlü olarak sunma fırsatını sunduğunu belirterek BÖP’ün öğrenmeyi teşvik edici özelliklerini vurgulamışlardır. Yeterli öğretim materyallerinin sağlanmasını, öğrenci merkezli bir öğrenme ortamını ve aktif katılım fırsatlarını olumlu öğrenme deneyimlerine katkıda bulunan kilit faktörler olarak tanımlamışlardır. Bu çalışma, öğrenme sorumluluğunun öğrenci tarafından üstlenildiğini ve öğrenmenin hesap verilebilir olduğunu ortaya koymaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• : Basamaklı öğretim programı
• İngilizce dilbilgisi başarısı
• sözlü değerlendirme
• öğrenci merkezli öğrenme
• yükseköğretim

The Effect of Layered Curriculum on Grammatical Competence of Students in Learning English as a Foreign Language

Öz

This study adopts a mixed-methods approach to explore the effectiveness of the Layered Curriculum (LC) on students' English grammar achievement. Quantitative data were gathered using the Solomon Four-Group Research Model, a robust experimental design, to assess the impact of the LC on grammar achievement scores. In both experimental groups, English grammar lessons were conducted with LC activities, while in the control groups, the methods and techniques in the textbook of the school's current curriculum were applied. In addition to quantitative findings, qualitative data revealed positive responses from students towards the various learning activities facilitated by the application, including visual materials, practical activities, and interactive grammar activities. The results indicate significantly higher grammar achievement scores among students exposed to the LC activities compared to control groups. Students highlighted the LC's encouraging features, emphasizing the right to control their own learning process, the freedom to choose activities, and the opportunity to present completed tasks orally. They identified the provision of adequate teaching materials, a student-centered learning environment, and opportunities for active participation as key factors contributing to their positive learning experiences. In addition, this study revealed that the responsibility for learning is assumed by the student and learning is accountable.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Layered curriculum
• English grammar achievement
• oral evaluation
• student-centered learning
• higher education

Etik Beyan

This study was approved by Selcuk University School of Foreign Languages Scientific Ethics Evaluation Committee on 21/11/2022 with protocol number 2022/06. Participation in this study was strictly voluntary and all participants reviewed and approved the consent form before being included in the study. Participants were thoroughly informed about the purpose and method of the study and the confidentiality of the information they contributed. All of the methodologies employed in the relevant study were compliant with the institutional and national research committees’ codes of conduct and appropriate ethical standards.

Kaynakça

1. Akran, S. K. & Gürbüztürk, O. (2019). Effect of layered curriculum in problem solving skills in science and technology course. International Journal of Educational Methodology, 5(1), 147–162. https://doi.org/10.12973/ijem.5.1.147
2. Andriani, A., Yuniar, V. D., & Abdullah, F. (2021). Teaching english grammar in an Indonesian junior high school. AL-ISHLAH: Jurnal Pendidikan, 13(2), 1046-1056. https://doi.org/10.35445/alishlah.v13i2.956
3. Başbay, A. (2008). Relationship between learners' individual learning tasks and their mental skills and decision-making pace. Education and Science, 33(149), 3-17. Retrieved from https://egitimvebilim.ted.org.tr/index.php/EB/article/view/636
4. Başbay, A. (2005). The effects of project-based learning approach supported by layered curriculum on learning process. Ege Eğitim Dergisi, 1(6), 95– 116.
5. Bhatt, P. R. (2020). The role of grammar instruction in developing communicative proficiency: what the secondary level teachers say. Journal of NELTA, 25(1-2), 149-166. https://doi.org/10.3126/nelta.v25i1-2.49738
6. Blackwood, M., Brosnan, C. & May, B. (2007). Layered curriculum lessons, aligned with the ohio science content standards, for use in the high school science classroom. https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/document?repid=rep1&type=pdf&doi=d28b56b7afe2ea9cc9d23f537334d5c19b48ee09
7. Braver, M. W., & Braver, S. L. (1988). Statistical treatment of the Solomon four-group design: A meta-analytic approach. Psychological Bulletin, 104(1), 150-154. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.104.1.150
8. Campbell, S., Greenwood, M., Prior, S., Shearer, T., Walkem, K., Young, S. & Walker, K. (2020). Purposive sampling: complex or simple? Research case examples. Journal of Research in Nursing, 25(8), 652-661. https://doi.org/10.1177/174498712092720

9. Caughie, B. D. (2015). The perceived impact of the layered curriculum instructional model on student engagement (Doctoral dissertation). School of Education at Holy Family University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. https://www.proquest.com/docview/1765699167?pq-origsite=gscholar&fromopenview=true&sourcetype=Dissertations%20&%20Theses
10. Celce‐Murcia, M. (1991). Grammar pedagogy in second and foreign language teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 25(3), 459-480. https://doi.org/10.2307/3586980
11. Chomsky, N. (1957). Review of fundamentals of language, by R. Jakobson & M. Halle. International Journal of American Linguistics, 23(3), 234–242. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1263618
12. Christensen, L. B., Johnson, R. B., & Turner, L. A. (2015). Research methods, design and analysis (A. Aypay, Trans. & Ed.). Anı Yayıncılık.
13. Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2017). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Sage Publications.
14. Demirel, Ö., Şahan, H. H., Ekinci, N., Özbay, A. & Begimgil, A. M. (2006). Basamaklı öğretim programının süreç ve ürün açısından değerlendirilmesi [Evaluation of the layered curriculum in terms of process and product]. Milli Eğitim, (172), 72-90. https://dhgm.meb.gov.tr/yayimlar/dergiler/Milli_Egitim_Dergisi/172/172/06.pdf
15. Duman, B., & Özçelik, C. (2017). The effect of layered curriculum use for the 7th grade circle and circular region subject on academic success and attitude towards mathematics. Bartın University Journal of Faculty of Education, 6(3), 1293-1308. https://doi.org/10.14686/buefad.339559
16. Ellis, N. C. (2006). Language acquisition as rational contingency learning. Applied linguistics, 27(1), 1-24. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/ami038
17. Gömleksiz, M. N. & Öner, Ü. (2013). Basamaklı öğretim programının sosyal bilgiller dersinde öğrencilerin akademik başarılarına ve tutumlarına etkisi [The effect of layered curriculum on students' academic achievement and attitudes in social studies course]. Millî Eğitim, (198), 173–195.
18. Hsieh, H. & Shannon, S. (2005). Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 15(9), 1277-1288. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732305276687
19. Ilgūnaitienė, R. V. (2021). Is grammar still important learning the english language on tertiary level? The analysis of students’ attitude. International Linguistics Research, 4(2), 1-9. https://doi.org/10.30560/ilr.v4n2p1
20. Ilıman, M. & Gencel, İ.E. (2018). İngilizce dersinde basamaklı öğretim programına ilişkin bir eylem araştırması. In the 1st Internation Conference on Critical Debates in Social Sciences (ICCDSS) 5-7 October 2018 (p. 62-71). Seferihisar/İzmir: Turkey.
21. Imron, A., Wahyuni, E., Mandang, S. R. I., Mustain, K., & Susanto, B. (2023). English learning model based on social media. Journal of Applied Studies in Language, 7(2), 141-152. https://doi.org/10.31940/jasl.v7i2.141-152
22. Jean, G. & Simard, D. (2011). Grammar teaching and learning in L2: necessary, but boring?. Foreign Language Annals, 44(3), 467-494. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1944-9720.2011.01143.x
23. Kahraman, K., & Gündoğdu, K. (2021). The effect of layered curriculum on student achievement, attitude, self-regulation strategy and retention in English lesson. MSKU Journal of Education, 8(2), 559–78. . https://doi: 10.21666/muefd.842958.
24. Karasar, N. (2015). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemi (28. bs.) [Scientific research method (28th ed.)]. Nobel Yayın Dağıtım.
25. Kılınçaslan, H., & Şimşek, P. Ö. (2015). Effects of curriculum layered and creative drama methods on 6th grade “force and motion” unit on achievement, attitude and retention. Education and Science, 40(180), 217-245. http://dx.doi.org/10.15390/EB.2015.4380
26. Koc Akran, S., & Üzüm, B. (2018). The effect of the layered curriculum on the 6th grade students’ learning styles in science lesson. International Journal of Educational Methodology, 4(3), 141-152. https://doi.org/10.12973/ijem.4.3.141
27. Koç, E. S. & Şahin, A. E. (2014). The effect of layered curriculum supported by multiple intelligences on students’ achievements and permanence. Education and Science, 39(174), 286–296. https://doi.org/10.15390/EB.2014.2424
28. Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of Bloom's taxonomy: An overview. Theory into practice, 41(4), 212-218. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4104_2
29. Larsen-Freeman, D. (2001). Teaching grammar. Teaching English as a second or foreign language, 3, 251-266. Retrieved from https://www.academia.edu/22723192/Teaching_Grammar
30. LaSovage, A. J. (2006). Effects of using a layered curriculum format of ınstruction in a high school environmental science energy unit (Master's thesis). Department of Science and Mathematics Education at Michigan State University, Michigan.
31. Liu, C., Sands-Meyer, S., & Audran, J. (2018). The effectiveness of the student response system (srs) in English grammar learning in a flipped English as a foreign language (EFL) class. Interactive Learning Environments, 27(8), 1178-1191. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2018.1528283
32. Lei, M. & Lomax, R.G. (2005). The effect of varying degrees of nonnormality in structural equation modeling. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 12(1), 1-27. https://dx.doi.org/10.12 07/s15328007sem1201_1
33. Loewen, S., Li, S., Fei, F., Thompson, A. S., Nakatsukasa, K., Ahn, S., … & Chen, X. (2009). Second language learners' beliefs about grammar instruction and error correction. The Modern Language Journal, 93(1), 91-104. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2009.00830.x
34. Lynch, R., McNamara, P., & Seery, N. (2012). Promoting deep learning in a teacher education programme through self- and peer-assessment and feedback. European Journal of Teacher Education, 35(2), 179-197. https://doi.org/10.1080/02619768.2011.643396
35. Maurer, A. L. (2009). Evaluating the use of layered curriculum and technology to increase comprehension and motivation in a middle school classroom (Master’s Thesis). Interdepartmental Physical Sciences at Michigan State University, Michigan.
36. Melendy, G. A. (2008). Motivating writers: the power of choice. The Asian EFL Journal Quarterly, 10(3), 187–198. Retrieved from https://www.elejournals.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/September_2008.pdf#page=187
37. Mirazna, M. N. &Hikmah, N. (2019). Students perceptions toward grammar in english classroom. PROJECT (Professional Journal of English Education), 2(5), 682. https://doi.org/10.22460/project.v2i5.p682-686 National Geographic Learning (2021). Grammar in Context 3. National Geographic Learning.
38. Noe, B. (2008). The effects of a layered curriculum versus traditional teaching methods on academic achievement of fourth graders in the science content area [Unpublished master’s thesis]. Columbia College, USA.
39. Nunley, K. F. (2011). Enhancing your layered curriculum classroom tips tune-ups and technology (Kindle ed.). Brains.org Publication.
40. Nunley, K. F. (2006). Differentiating the high school classroom solution strategies for 18 common obstacles. Corwin Press.
41. Nunley, K. F. (2004). Layered curriculum the practical solution for teachers with more than one student in their classroom (2nd ed.). Morris Publishing
42. Nunley, K. F. (2003a). Layered curriculum brings teachers to tiers. The Education Digest, 69(1), 31-36. Retrieved from https://www.proquest.com/openview/29f1f6fd0ca2d6a7786d7daf8afe79c8/1.pdf?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=25066
43. Nunley, K. F. (2003b). Giving credit where credit is due. Principal Leadership, 3(9), 26-31.
44. Nunley, K. F. (2002). Layered curriculum: A workbook for designing layered curriculum teaching units. Morris Publishing.
45. Nunley, K. F. (1996). Going for the goal: Multilevel assignments cater to students of differing abilities. The Science Teacher, 63(6), 52–56.
46. Nunley, K. F., & Gencel, İ. E. (2019). Katmanlı program: İlkeler, planlama, uygulama ve değerlendirme. Mersin Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 15(2), 349-362. https://doi.org/10.17860/mersinefd.554724
47. Orakcı, Ş. (2019). The effect of layered curriculum model on students’ academic achievement and attitudes in English course. Malaysian Online Journal of Educational Sciences, 7(4), 55–66. Retrieved from https://tamilperaivu.um.edu.my/index.php/MOJES/article/view/20061
48. Özdemir, O. (2020). Basamaklı öğretim modeli [Layered curriculum model]. Eğitim Yayınevi.
49. Pal, A. & Jain, S. (2023). Study of the effect of the module method on the achievement in english grammar of class viii students in indore city. International Journal of Advanced Research in Science Communication and Technology,3(2) 374-377. https://doi.org/10.48175/ijarsct-13865
50. Pallant, J. (2020). SPSS Survival Manual: A Step by Step Guide to Data Analysis Using IBM SPSS (7th ed.). Open University Press.
51. Patria, A. N. (2022). Vocational english students’ perceptions of learning english grammar. International Journal of English Language Studies, 4(4), 62-66. https://doi.org/10.32996/ijels.2022.4.4.9
52. Patton, M. Q. (2014). Qualitative research & evaluation methods: Integrating theory and practice. Sage publications.
53. Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Sage Publications.
54. Rasooli, A., Rasegh, A., Zandi, H., & Firoozi, T. (2022). Teachers’ conceptions of fairness in classroom assessment: an empirical study. Journal of Teacher Education, 74(3), 260-273. https://doi.org/10.1177/00224871221130742
55. Sawilowsky, S., Kelley, D. L., Blair, R. C., & Markman, B. S. (1994). Meta-analysis and the Solomon four-group design. The Journal of Experimental Education, 62(4), 361-376. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220973.1994.9944140
56. Schulz, R. A. (2001). Cultural differences in student and teacher perceptions concerning the role of grammar instruction and corrective feedback: Usa‐colombia. The Modern Language Journal, 85(2), 244-258. https://doi.org/10.1111/0026-7902.00107
57. Sinclair, J., Bromley, K. W., Shogren, K. A., Murray, C. J. L., Unruh, D., & Harn, B. (2016). An analysis of motivation in three self-determination curricula. Career Development and Transition for Exceptional Individuals, 40(3), 175-185. https://doi.org/10.1177/2165143416676081
58. Suhirman, L., Maesaroh, D., Amaliah, A., Sasabone, L., & Putra, D. (2023). Enhancing english language acquisition: strategies for effective classroom implementation. Global International Journal of Innovative Research, 1(3), 254-259. https://doi.org/10.59613/global.v1i3.45
59. Tavşancıl, E. &Aslan, A. E. (2001). Sözel, yazılı ve diğer materyaller için içerik analizi ve uygulama örnekleri. Epsilon Yayıncılık.
60. Üzüm, B., & Pesen, A. (2019). Do the learner-centered approaches increase academic performance? Effect of the layered curriculum on students' academic achievement in English lesson. International Journal of Instruction, 12(1), 1585-1608. Retrieved from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1201246
61. Yakar, Z. Y. & Albayrak, M. (2019). The effect of the layered curriculum method on the students' achievement in "area measurement. Hacettepe University Journal of Education, 34(2), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.16986/huje.2018044393
62. Ye, L. (2024). Innovative pedagogical strategies in second language acquisition. SHS Web of Conferences, 183, 03013. https://doi.org/10.1051/shsconf/202418303013
63. Yıldırım, Z., & Albayrak, M. (2017). Matematik dersinde basamaklı öğretim yönteminin kullanılmasının öğrencilerin duyuşsal gelişimlerine etkisi Atatürk Üniversitesi Kazım Karabekir Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, (34), 133-154. Retrieved from https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/ataunikkefd/issue/29687/310205
64. Yılmaz, F. (2010). Applications of layered curriculum in Science and Technology course (Thesis Number: 263140). [PhD thesis, Anadolu University].