Türkçe Dersi Öğretim Programının 5., 6., 7. ve 8. Sınıf Kazanımlarının SOLO Taksonomisine Göre İncelenmesi

Öz

Bu çalışmada Türkçe dersi öğretim programı (2019) kazanımlarının SOLO taksonomisine göre incelenmesi ve kazanımların hangi düzeye karşılık geldiğinin belirlenmesi amaçlanmıştır. Çalışmada nitel araştırma yöntemlerinden doküman analizi tekniği kullanılmıştır. Bu kapsamda 2017 yılında taslak olarak hazırlanan ve 2018-2019 yılında uygulamaya konan Türkçe dersi öğretim programında yer alan kazanımlar veri kaynağı olarak kullanılmıştır. Öğretim programında yer alan kazanımların dinleme/izleme, konuşma, okuma ve yazma şeklinde sınıflandırıldığı görülmüştür. Kazanımlar SOLO taksonomisi düzeylerine göre sınıflandırılırken gösterge fiiller göz önünde bulundurulmuştur. Sonuçlara bakıldığında kazanımların en çok ilişkisel yapı basamağını (162 kazanım) temsil ettiği görülmüştür. Bu sıralamayı çok yönlü yapı basamağı (76 kazanım), soyutlanmış yapı basamağı (28 kazanım) ve tek yönlü yapı basamağı (23 kazanım) takip etmiştir. Sınıf seviyesi arttıkça tek yönlü ve çok yönlü kazanım sayısının azalıp, soyutlanmış yapı basamağı kazanımlarının artması beklenirken bir artış olmadığı görülmüştür. Sonuç olarak, Türkçe dersi öğretim programı kazanımlarının SOLO taksonomisinin yapısına uygun ve yeterli düzeyde olmadığı görülmüştür.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• SOLO Taksonomisi
• Türkçe dersi
• Öğretim programı
• Kazanım

INVESTIGATION OF THE LEARNING OUTCOMES IN THE TURKISH COURSE CURRICULUM (FROM 5TH GRADE TO 8TH GRADE) IN TERMS OF THE SOLO TAXONOMY

Öz

The purpose of the study is to examine the Turkish Course Curriculum (2019) in terms of the SOLO taxonomy and determine to which level the learning outcomes correspond. Document analysis, one of the qualitative research methods, was used as the data analysis method. In this context, the learning outcomes in the Turkish Course Curriculum, which was drafted in 2017 and put into practice between 2018 and 2019, were used for the data source. It was observed that the learning outcomes in the curriculum were classified as listening, speaking, reading and writing. While classifying the learning outcomes, the levels of the Solo taxonomy were considered. The results showed that 162 learning outcomes s mostly corresponded to the level of relational. It was followed by the level of Multistructural (76 learning outcomes), the level of extended abstract (28 learning outcomes) and the level of unistructural (23 learning outcomes). As the grade level increased, the number of unistructural and multi-structural learning outcomes decreased. Additionally, as the learning outcomes of the extended abstract level were expected to increase, there was no increase. As a result, the o learning outcomes in the Turkish Course Curriculum are not adequate and suitable for the SOLO taxonomy.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Curriculum
• Learning Outcome
• SOLO Taxonomy
• Turkish Course

Kaynakça

1. Altunkeser, F., & Coşkun, İ. (2017). Comparison and evalation of 2009-2015 Turkish course instruction program, Trakya University Journal of Education Faculty, 8(1), 114-135. DOI: https://doi.org/10.24315/trkefd.366695
2. Anderson, L.W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (2001). A taxonomy for learning teaching and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy of educational objectives. New York: Longman.
3. Arı, A. (2013). Revised Bloom, SOLO, Fink, Dettmer taxonomies in cognitive area classification and their international recognition cases, Uşak University Journal of Social Sciences, 6(2), 259-290. DOI: https://doi.org/10.12780/UUSBD164
4. Aydın, E. (2017). Evaluation of Turkish course curriculums (2015 and 2017). Turkish Studies - International Periodical for the Languages, Literature and History of Turkish or Turkic, 12(28), 41-66.
5. Bağdat, O. (2013). Investigation of the 8th grade students’ algebraic thinking skills with SOLO Taxonomy. (Unpublished master's thesis), Osmangazi University Institute of Educational Sciences, Eskişehir.
6. Biggs, J. B. (1992). Modes of learning, forms of knowing, and ways of schooling. (Eds. InDemetriou, A., Shayer, M., and Efklides, A.). Neo-piagetian theories of cognitive development (pp. 31-51). London: Routledge.
7. Biggs, J. B., & Collis, K. F. (1982). Evaluation the quality of learning: the SOLO taxonomy (structure of the observed learning outcome). Academic Press.
8. Biggs, J., & Tang, C. (2007). Teaching for quality learning at university. Maidenhead: Open University Press.

9. Bowen, G. A. (2009). Document analysis as a qualitative research method. Qualitative research journal, 9(2), 27-40.
10. Brabrand, C., & Dahl, B. (2009). Using the SOLO-taxonomy to analyze competence progression of university science curricula. Higher Education, 58(4), 531-549.
11. Burnett, P. C. (1999). Assessing the structure of learning outcoma from counselling using the SOLO taxsonomy: An exploratory study. Biritish Journal of Guidance & Counselling, 27(4), 567-580.
12. Çepni, S. (2012). Introduction to research and project work. Trabzon: Celepler Publishing.
13. Dönmez, H. (2019). Investigation of 6th, 7th and 8th grade science education curriculum outcomes and evaluation questions: SOLO taxonomy. (Unpublished master's thesis), Süleyman University Institute of Educational Sciences, Isparta.
14. Erbaş, İ. (2021). İnvestigation of secondary school mathematics curriculum gains and mathematics textbook assessment questions in the framework of SOLO taxonomy. (Unpublished master's thesis), Necmettin Erbakan University Institute of Educational Sciences, Konya.
15. Framework for 21st Century Learning (2019). P21 partnership for 21st century learning. A Network of Battelle for Kids. Retrieved from (http://www.battelleforkids.org/networks/p21/frameworks-resources), on (13.07.2021)
16. Gezer, M., & İlhan, M. (2014). An evaluation of the assessment questions in the textbook and objectives of the 8th grade curriculum citizenship and democracy education course according to SOLO taxonomy. Eastern Geographical Review, 19(32).
17. Goel, S. (2011, February). An overview of selected theories about student learning. Indo US Workshop on Effective Teaching and Learning at College/University Level, IIIT University of Buffalo, USA, Delhi, India.
18. Göçer, A., & Kurt, A. (2016). Turkish course education programme, 6, 7 and 8th class verbal comminication gains examining according to the SOLO taxonomy. Journal of Bitlis Eren UniversityInstitute of SocialSciences, 5(3), 215-228.
19. Gökler, Z. S. (2012). Evaluation of English lesson objectives functions SBS questions and exam questions in primary school according to revised Bloom taxonomy. (Unpublished master's thesis), Osmangazi University Institute of Educational Sciences, Eskişehir.
20. Hattie, J.A.C., & Brown, G.T.L. (2004). Cognitive processes in asTTle: The SOLO taxonomy. asTTle Technical Report 43, University of Auckland/Ministry of Education.
21. Imrie, B.W. (1995). Assessment for learning and taxonomies. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 20(2), 175-189.
22. Ivanitskaya, L., Clark, D., Montgomery, G., & Primeau, R. (2002). Interdisciplinary learning: Process and outcomes. Innovative Higher Education, 27(2), 95-111.
23. Kalaycı, N., & Yıldırım, N. (2020). Comparative analysis and evaluation of Turkish course curricula (2009-2017-2019). Trakya Journal of Education, 10(1), 238-262. DOI: https://doi.org/10.24315/tred.580427
24. Kanuka, H. (2011). Interaction and the online distance classroom: Do instructional methods effect the quality of interaction?. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 23(2- 3), 143-156.
25. Kotluk, N., & Kocakaya, S. (2015). Digital storytelling for developing 21st century skills: From high school students' point of view. Journal of Research in Education and Teaching, 4(2), 354-363.
26. Konyalıhatipoğlu, M. E. (2016). A SOLO taxonomy research on holistic and analytic thinking styles of seventh grade secondary school students. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation), Recep Tayyip Erdoğan University Institute of Educational Sciences, Rize.
27. Leung, C. F. (2000). Assessment for learning: Using SOLO taxonomy to measure design performance of design & technology students. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 10(2), 149-161. DOI:10.1023/A:1008937007674
28. Ministry of National Education [MEB], (2017). Turkish lesson curriculum (Primary and secondary school 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th and 8th grades). Ankara.
29. Ministry of National Education [MEB], (2019). Turkish lesson curriculum (Primary and secondary school 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8th grades). Ankara.
30. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. London: Sage Pub.
31. Minogue, J., & Jones, G. (2009). Measuring the Impact of Haptic Feedback Using the SOLO Taxonomy. International Journal of Science Education, 31(10), 1359-1378.
32. Özenç, E. G. (2015). The comparative assessment of the 2015 and 2017 primary school Turkish lesson teaching curriculum. Uşak Üniversitesi Eğitim Araştırmaları Dergisi, 4(2), 38-50.
33. Padiotis, I., & Mikropoulos, T.A. (2010). Using SOLO to evaluate an educational virtual environment in a technology education setting. Educational Technology & Society, 13(3), 233-245.
34. Pegg, J., & Tall, D. (2005). The fundamental cycle of concept construction underlying various theoretical frameworks. International Reviews on Mathematical Education (Zentralblatt für Didaktik der Mathematik), 37(6), 468-475.
35. Sönmez, V. (2004). Teacher's handbook on curriculum development (11th ed.). Ankara: Anı Publishing.
36. Şahin, D., & Bayramoğlu, C.D. (2016). Evaluation of 2015 Turkish language curriculum in terms of text type and theme. Turkish Studies-International Periodical for the Languages, Literature and History of Turkish or Turkic, 11(3), 2095-2130.
37. Şendur, G. (2019). Fen bilgisi öğretmen adaylarının organik kimyadaki öğrenmelerinin SOLO taksonomisine göre incelenmesi: Aromatik bileşiklerin tepkimeleri konusu. İlköğretim Online, 18(2), 642-662. DOI: https://doi.org/10.17051/ilkonline.2019.562027
38. Thompson, E. (2007). Holistic assessment criteria-applying SOLO to programming projects. (Eds. In Mann, S. and Simon). Proceedings of the Ninth Australasian Computing Education Conference (ACE2007).
39. Weyers, M. (2006). Teaching the FE Curriculum: Encouraging active learning in the classroom. London: Continuum.
40. Yıldırım, A., & Şimşek, H. (2013). Qualitative research methods in the social sciences. Ankara: Seçkin Publishing.