Abstract
This research analyzes the 4th and 5th grade teachers’ and students’ opinions about the new Turkish Language Education curriculum, which was piloted during the 2004-2005 academic year. Data, collected through interviews from teachers and stu-dents were analyzed by qualitative techniques. Seven male and seven female, teachers were participated in this study, of which half were teaching the 4th graders (9-10 years old students) and the other half were teaching the 5th (10-11 years old students). 57 males and 67 females of which 61 were the 4th graders and the rest
were the 5th graders participated in this study.
Results indicate that teachers think that “in-service training seminars” about the new program were insufficient in terms of their duration, organization, and sample activi-ties. They also indicated that they sometimes had some difficulties in finding lecture materials. Despite all, they still believe that the new program was very functional regarding learning fields, learning and teaching processes and measurement–assess-ment processes. They thought that the most problematic area in the program was in “teaching grammar rules”. The students participated in this study responded that they understood the subjects better, the classes were more enjoyable, and they could
express their feelings more than they did in the previous year.
Keywords
Turkish Language Education, Curriculum Evaluation, Teachers’ Opinions, Students’ Opinions.
A Qualitative Research on 4
th
and 5
th
Grade Teachers’ and Students’
Opinions about the New Turkish
Language Education Curriculum
Eyyup COfiKUN*
© 2005 E¤itim Dan›flmanl›¤› ve Araflt›rmalar› ‹letiflim Hizmetleri Tic. Ltd. fiti. (EDAM)
*Correspondence: Dr. Eyyub Çoflkun, Gazi University, Institute of Educational Sciences, Department of Turkish Language Education 06570 Maltepe / Ankara- Turkey. E-mails: ecoskun@gazi.edu.tr &
ecoskun2002@yahoo.com. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice
New Approaches to Language Education
Today, mother tongue education is not seen as a subject of only one field. Improvement of language skills a base for gaining could be held in different areas in the life. Many researchers reported that there is a positive relation between the language skills of students and their academic skills (Bloom 1976; Tazebay, 1997) and person-ality development (Burns, 2001; Coflkun, 2003). In this manner, in contemporary language education studies the development of the language skills of students who need special education has a special importance. (Burns, 2001; Moats, 2004; Shankweiler et al., 1999; Torgesen et al., 2001).
One of the foremost popular approaches in language education is the development of the students’ cognitive skills and creative thinking skills, rather than making them to memorize certain rules and forms. For example, in the field of composition, teachers have found that children’s writing represents a fresh view of the world and there is increased interest in motivating creative writing. As a result, there is less concentration on marking of technical features of the composi-tion in favor of appreciating the ideas expressed (Burns, 2001). After 1980s, as a result of rapid technological development, two new language skills, visual reading and visual representation, gained importance in addition to classical language skills (reading, listening, speaking and writing). Today, visual reading and visual presentation take place in language education programs (NCTE, 1996; Tompkins, 1998).
Being the most used language skill in daily life notwithstanding, the listening skill did not get particular attention in previous edu-cation programs. Listening skill is named as “neglected language art, “orphan language art” or “forgotten language skill” (MacKey, 1997; Tompkins, 1998). In order to improve the students’ listening skills and give them “effective listening education” to the students, language education programs paid a primary focus on listening activities (Burns, 2001; Temur, 2001).
Turkish Language Education Curriculums
It was in the 19th century that Turkish was taken up as a course subject in educational institutions and instructional methods began
to be discussed in this field. Dr. Rüfltü and Selim Sabit proposed important innovations about the literacy education through Arabic alphabet in this century. Again, “Public Education Regulations” (1869) (Maarif-i Umumiye Nizamnamesi) in this century, intro-duced important changes that affected education system entirely. After the transition to Latin alphabet (1928) in the Republican Period, more importance was given to mother tongue education (Duman, 1992; Temizyürek, 2001).
From the beginning of Republic of Turkey (1923) to 1981, Turkish language lessons programs can be investigated under two headings; (i) Primary school integrated programs (1924, 1926, 1936, 1948, 1968 primary school programs); (ii) Secondary school integrated programs (1924, 1929, 1938, 1949 secondary school-programs). Basic Education Schools -Turkish Language Education Program (Temel E¤itim Okullar› Türkçe E¤itim Program› ), prepared in 1981 (MEB, 1981), was an autonomous program which considered the Turkish Language Education from 1stto 8thgrades as a whole. Another important stage in program development studies is the applications of Curriculum Laboratory Schools (MLO- Müfredat Laboratuar Okullar›), which have been functioning since 1994. The most important innovation coming with MLO was that the devel-oped programs were piloted by testing in these schools firstly (Gözütok, 2003; Yüksel, 2003).
New Turkish Language Education Curriculum and Its Characteristics
Constructivist approach was being taken as the centre in this new program; and various educational approaches, such as multiple intel-ligence and student oriented learning were also benefited from. Superior skills taken into account in the program were: Colloquial, effective and fine use of Turkish Language, critical thought, creative thought, communication, problem solving, investigation, making decision, using information technologies, entrepreneurship, inter-tex-tual reading, giving importance to personal and social values. The new program has been based on five learning areas consisting of listening, speaking, reading, writing, visual reading and visual representation. The new program includes 52 acquisitions about
listening and speaking, 78 acquisitions about reading, 67 acquisi-tions about writing, 25 acquisiacquisi-tions about visual reading and visual representation (MEB, 2005).
Learning and teaching process in the program consists of five stages: Preparation, understanding, learning through using a text, expressing oneself, measurement and assessment. In this program, through measurement and assessment, the aim is not only the observation of the learning outcomes; but also the students’ process of learning (MEB, 2005).
This study has been performed in order to show the opinions of teachers and students of 4thand 5thgrades about the new Turkish Language Education Curriculum, the pilot applications of which were implemented within 2004 – 2005 academic year. In the study, it has been intended to clarify the issues, such as the new in - serv-ice training of teachers, instructional materials, educational areas, learning and teaching process, measurement and evaluation processes, deficiencies in new program, the issues which are diffi-cult to apply, feasibility of the new curriculum. On the other hand, it has also been intended to show the opinions of the students about the changes of Turkish Language course which are applied within the new program.
Method
This study is a descriptive and qualitative field study considering the data collection and evaluation methods.
Participants
The participants consist of teachers and students of 4th and 5th grade at schools where pilot application of the new Turkish Language Education Curriculum is implemented. 14 teachers have participated in the study. 7 of them are 4thand the remaining 7 are 5thgrade teachers. Half of the teachers are male and the rest are females. 7 of the teachers have got 6 – 10 years’ experience, and the rest have got above 15 years of experience. 124 students have par-ticipated in the study. The range of 4thgrade students’ ages is 9-10 and range of 5thgrade students’ ages is 10-11. 61 of them attend 4th grade and 63 attend 5thgrade. 57 of these students are male and 67 are females.
Data Collection
In “Teacher Interview Form”, 10 open-ended questions have been asked to the teacher to be used for research purposes. Besides, in “Student Interview Form”, it has been demanded from students to explain the differences between Turkish Language Lecture of this year and of previous year in written or by drawing a picture to illustrate both.
Procedures
The interview forms of teachers and students have been evaluated by using content analysis method(Y›ld›r›m & fiimflek, 2003). In this respect, in the first step of the evaluation, some judgmental state-ments about the former and new education program have been coded in teacher and student interview forms. The coding process-es have been performed in teacher forms and student forms sepa-rately. Each judgmental statement has been added to the evalua-tion form and for the statements which are repeated, a frequency mark has been used next to the sentence. The pictures which have been drawn by the students testing the study have been evaluated by being transformed into description expressions (For example, PICTURE: The teacher who says “I am happier”).
The data from the Teacher Interview Forms have been organized according to the questions which take place in the interview form. These ideas have been analyzed by using induction method (Y›ld›r›m & fiimflek, 2003) or sometimes they have been stated as discrete items.
In Student Interview Forms, the views about the former program and the new program have been classified in 3 categories as positive, neu-traland negative. Then, these ideas have been evaluated under 5 sep-arate themes (general evaluations, methods and techniques, material, measurement and evaluation, communication environment).
Results
12 of the teachers who have participated in the study have stated that they had participated a 2 – week in – service training seminar about the new program at the beginning of 2004 – 2005 academic year. The other 2 teachers have stated that they had not participat-ed in those seminars.
According to the information, which has been obtained from 12 teachers not only Turkish Language Education Curriculum but also curricula of other lessons have been presented in this seminar. Also, they have stated that the issues such as philosophy, methods and strategies of education, gains and activities, teaching and learning strategies and processes of measurement and evaluation have been presented in this seminar. The majority of the teachers think that in-service training was beneficial to recognize the new program; however, this program is inadequate for many points of views. The teachers who have participated in the study have stated that they had many difficulties related to lecture materials during the whole year and these difficulties were more severe during the ini-tial months of the academic year. These teachers have also stated that they downloaded instructional materials from the web site of the Ministry of Education, they have developed some other instructional materials by referring to former lesson books, encyclo-pedias, other materials at school and they have devised some activ-ities in teachers’ committee.
The teachers who have participated in the study have compared the new program with the former one with regard to the issues such as reading, writing, speaking, listening, visual reading and visual presentation which constitute the category of “learning areas” (NCTE, 1996; Tompkins, 1998). The teachers who have participat-ed in the study have also statparticipat-ed that they are restrictparticipat-ed with some limitations on reading studies and they could not go beyond these limitations and eventually they could not make students like read-ing when applyread-ing the former program. However, with the new pro-gram, they think that they have opportunity to use new reading techniques in reading, they can spare more time for reading and as a result, the students have increased interest in reading and they have started to read more. Besides, they also pointed out that there were not any effective writing techniques in the former curriculum. Although the former curriculum focused on writing, the students dictated what was said to them only. It has been understood that in the new program, the students have developed creative writing skills but they had some difficulties with italic handwriting, with which they are not familiar and they have lost their notebook organ-ization skills at the beginning of the year.
According to the teachers, the former program used to focus on lis-tening considering students. Students used to talk very little and when they talked, they used to say what they were taught, not what they thought. In the classes, which were taught according to the for-mer program, the students used to listen only; there was not an effective listening in which the students could participate. With the new program, the students have gained the opportunity to talk more and they have started to express their feelings more freely. At the same time, listening skills of the students have improved, too. On the other hand, ensuring class management has been difficult sometimes due to high student participation.
The teachers have also noted that the visual reading and the visual presentation studies performed through the former program were very limited. The visual reading and the visual presentation studies have increased in the new program and as a result, the students have the opportunity to improve their reading and listening skills and the classrooms have turned into a more joyful environment. The teachers think that the teaching and learning processes of the former program have got many negative characteristics. The lead-ing negative characteristic is about the educational approach which is based on listening to the teacher and loading of knowledge to stu-dents’ brains. The teachers also think that with the new program, these negative characteristics have disappeared and a new effective learning and teaching processes have taken place.
The teachers have pointed out that the measurement and assess-ment system of the former program is restricted with many rules and realized only with the purpose of giving a grade by checking the taught knowledge. In the new program, many new assessment tools are available and not only the result, but also the whole learn-ing process could be evaluated. With the assessment tools of the new program, the individual differences could be observed and the students have got the opportunity to evaluate themselves.
The teachers who have participated in the study were asked the question “When you compare the new Turkish Language Education Curriculum with the former one, which one do you find more feasible? And why, please explain.” All teachers, except one,, have found the new program more feasible, for which the reason has been stated that the new program is compatible with the cognitive and affective
development, and that it is good for the improvement of their skills of interpretation, expressing themselves, and guessing.
Some of the teachers who have participated in the study said that they had no difficulty in applying the new Turkish Language Lecture Program, while the others stated that they had some diffi-culties with regard to grammar units. The vast majority (9) of the teachers who have participated in this study think that the program is inadequate with regard to grammar subjects. Furthermore, they have also pointed out that there are not enough explanations and examples to teach grammar rules by intuition. In this respect, while some teachers (4) said that they went on teaching the subjects as they were doing in the previous year; some others (3) said that they did not know what and how much of the grammar to teach in class. Lack of information on grammar issues being the major difficulty, the second major problem which the teachers suffer from is the textbooks being unavailable. This problem being prevalent this year made pre – class preparation, lecture planning and scheduling difficult for the teachers. The new textbooks which will be avail-able for 2005 – 2006 educational year are expected to make up for this problem.
13 teachers in this study think that the new program is better than the former one and they support the new program; one of the teach-ers have stated that the former program would be better than the necessary one if some new regulations were made.
The opinion of the students about the former programwho have par-ticipated in this study is mostly negative (65,6 %), the opinion of some is neutral (28,6 %) and the opinion of very few is positive (5,8 %). The opinion of the students about the new system is mostly pos-itive (82,5 %), the opinion of some is neutral (15,9 %) and the opin-ion of very few is negative (1,8 %). The opinopin-ion distributopin-ion rates of students about the new and former program who attend 4thgrade is very similar to rate distributions of the ones who attend to 5thgrade. The students have expressed that different techniques and materials were not applied in the classes in the previous year and that they were passive in the classroom since the lectures were teacher-orient-ed. They also added that the subjects were boring and that they could not understand some of them. However, the same students
have told that they have understood the subjects better since differ-ent techniques and materials have been applied in the classes this year; adding that they could more easily participate in the discus-sions, and that they could express their own feelings and that the classes were more joyful. They had the opportunity to learn more.
Discussion
The results of this study show that the in–service training seminars, which have been presented to the teachers are not adequate with regarding to several aspects. The main problem was limited dura-tion of the training. It is essential that these problems be eliminat-ed during the next in-service training seminars of the program to be applied in the following academic year. For these reason, it can be concluded that Ministry of Education should organize further in–service training seminars in order to provide teachers with more occupational seminars. The following listed topics can be consid-ered as new possible subjects of those seminars to be given during the semester: class – room management, active learning, construc-tivism, material development, usage of concept maps in education, measurement and assessment methods, usage of technology in edu-cation, literacy education with sound based sentence method. According to Yalç›n (1996), teachers usually lecture the lessons depending on the textbooks, because of a restricted number of course materials, and of deficiency in teacher education. A study conducted by Özbay (2000b) reveals that Turkish language teach-ers mostly depend on textbooks in their teaching. Hence, it is rea-sonable to expect that they will learn the new program through the textbooks. Therefore, the quality of the textbooks will be prepared for the new program is very important with regard to both content and visual components.
The teachers have pointed out that the unavailability of textbooks this year was a big problem, and that they have downloaded lecture materials form the web site of Ministry of Education and they have handed out these lecture materials by photocopying. It could be stated that this problem will be solved with the new textbooks that will be available to be used this year. Besides, the new program requires using many technological devices in the classes, such as
television, computer, projection device and CD. In order to achieve the objectives of the new program, it is vital that schools be equipped with aforementioned devices and teachers be trained to use this equipment.
Teachers declared that the only aim for measurement and evalua-tion in the previous program was to check whether students gain the given information. This result is supported by results of some studies done before. For example, studies conducted to investigate questions asked in written exams (Akbulut, 1999; Filippone, 1998; Zorbaz, 2005) and evaluation questions present in Turkish text-books (Akyol, 2001; Ensar, 2002; Kutlu, 1999) revealed that assess-ment process was generally based on the questions that engage in knowledge and recall steps located at low cognitive levels. Considering the results of this study, it can be said that teachers think that students had a remarkable progress with the new pro-gram in various areas of Turkish Language education (reading, writing, speaking, listening, visual reading and visual presentation) and they also think that the new program is better than the old one with regard to learning - teaching process and measurement – eval-uation process.
Moreover, the reasons for the trimming the teaching of grammar rules in the new program for 4thand 5thgrades should be told to the teachers who have participated in these in – service training semi-nars: In addition, teachers should also be provided with more infor-mation and more examples on how they can teach grammar sub-jects by intuition through teacher books.
Akb›y›k’s research (2002) shows that students with high critical thinking skills are more successful in mother tongue lessons than those with low critical thinking skills. Therefore, the development of students’ critical thinking skills is a goal, directly related to moth-er tongue education. Students’ creative and critical thinking skills will be developed by taking active and productive roles during les-sons, rather than being “passive recipients”.
It has been observed that the opinion of the students who have par-ticipated in this study are mostly positive about the new program while their opinion is negative about the former program. The stu-dents who have participated in this study have stated that they have
better understood the subjects, the classes were more joyful and they had the opportunity to express their feelings better than they did in the previous year thanks to the new methods, new materials and new activities which have been used in the program of this year. The differences students have expressed between the lec-tures of this year and the previous year clearly show that the changes which have been brought by the new program are very strong and that the students are aware of these changes.
The opinions of teachers and students about the new and the former Turkish Language Education Program, who have participated in this study, are mostly similar to each other. Teachers and students have got common expectations about the quality Turkish language lessons. In the lights of teachers’ and students’ opinions, it can be said that this new program is appropriate for contemporary mother tongue educa-tion principles (Burns, 2001; Moats, 2004; Traw, 1996).
The teachers in this study stated that they have not been provided with enough information about the new program and many of them have noted that they have learnt this new program and the new methods and techniques, which they were not familiar with as they were applying in class in time. The teachers have also had some dif-ficulties about teaching materials. Despite these difdif-ficulties, it is encouraging to hear that students and teachers mostly have positive opinions about the new program. It is expected for the new pro-gram to be much more efficient when remedies are developed for failures and when teachers gain experience about the application of the new program.
Kaynakça/References
Akb›y›k, C. (2002). Elefltirel düflünme e¤ilimleri ve akademik baflar›. Yay›mlanmam›fl yük-sek lisans tezi, Hacettepe Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Ankara.
Akbulut, T. (1999). ‹lkö¤retim okullar›nda görevli ö¤retmenlerin soru sorma becerilerinin baz› de¤iflkenler aç›s›ndan incelenmesi. Yay›mlanmam›fl yüksek lisans tezi, Çukurova Üni-versitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Adana.
Akyol, H. (2001). ‹lkö¤retim okullar› 5. s›n›f Türkçe ders kitaplar›ndaki okuma metinle-riyle ilgili sorular›n analizi. Kuram ve Uygulamada E¤itim Yönetimi, 26, 169-178. Anders, P. L. & Pritchard, G. (1993). Integrated curriculum and instruction the middle grades. The Elementary School Journal, 93, 611-624.
Bachman, L. F. (1987). The development and use of criterion-referenced test of langua-ge ability in langualangua-ge program evaluation. In R. K. Johnson (Ed.) The second language cur
-riculum (pp. 242-258) New York: Cambridge University Press.
Bloom, B. S. (1976). Human characteristics and school learning.New York: Mc Graw-Hill Book Company.
Burns, P. C. (2001). Language arts and the curriculum. Theory Into Practice, 15(2), 107-115. Clay, M. (1985). The early detection of reading difficulties(3rd ed.). Portsmouth: N. H. He-inemann.
Coflkun, E. (2003). Çeflitli de¤iflkenlere göre lise ö¤rencilerinin etkili okuma becerileri ve baz› öneriler. Türklük Bilimi Araflt›rmalar› (TÜBAR), 13, 101-130.
Çelenk, S., Tertemiz, N. & Kalayc› N. (2000). ‹lkö¤retim programlar› ve geliflmeler, prog
-ram gelifltirme ve ilke ve teknikleri aç›s›ndan de¤erlendirilmesi(hzl. A. Tazebay). Ankara: Nobel Yay›nlar›.
Demirel, Ö. (1994). Türkçe program› ve ö¤retimi. Ankara: Usem Yay›nlar›.
Do¤an, H. (1974). Program gelifltirmede sistem yaklafl›m›. Ankara Üniversitesi E¤itim Bilimleri Fakültesi Dergisi, 1-4, 361-385.
Dönmez, B. (2002). Bir okul gelifltirme modeli olarak müfredat laboratuar okullar› uygula-mas›n›n de¤erlendirilmesi. E¤itim ve Bilim, 126, 70-83.
Duman, A. (1992). 1923-1957 Y›llar› aras›nda ortaokul ve liseler için haz›rlanan Türkçe, Türk Dili ve Edebiyat› Programlar› üzerine bir inceleme.Yay›mlanmam›fl yüksek lisans te-zi, Gazi Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Ankara.
Ensar, F. (2002). ‹lkö¤retim 6. s›n›f Türkçe ders kitaplar›ndaki metin alt› sorular› üzerine bir inceleme. Yay›mlanmam›fl yüksek lisans tezi, Gazi Üniversitesi E¤itim Bilimleri Ensti-tüsü, Ankara.
Ergin, A. & Birol, C. (2000). E¤itimde iletiflim.Ankara: An› Yay›nlar›. Erickson, A. (1985). Listening leads to reading. Reading Today, 2, 13-15.
Filippone, M., (1998). Questioning at the elementary level.Unpublished master thesis, Ke-an University, KeKe-an. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 417 431). Goodman, K. (1982). Language and literacy (2. Vol.). Boston: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Gö¤üfl, B. (1968).‹lkokullarda Türkçe ö¤retimi k›lavuzu. ‹stanbul: MEB Yay›nlar›. Gö¤üfl, B. (1970). Anadili olarak Türkçenin ö¤retimine tarihsel bir bak›fl. Türk Dili Arafl
-t›rmalar› Y›ll›¤›- Belleten (s. 123-154). Ankara: Türk Dil Kurumu Yay›nlar›.
Gö¤üfl, B. (1978). Orta dereceli okullar›m›zda Türkçe ve yaz›n e¤itimi. Ankara: Kad›o¤lu Matbaas›.
Gözütok, F. D. (2003). Curriculum development in Turkey. In W. F. Pinar (Ed.) Interna
-tional Handbook of Curriculum Research(pp. 607-622). London: Lawrence Erlbaum As-sociates, Publishers.
‹hsano¤lu, E. (1992). Tanzimat öncesi ve Tanzimat dönemi Osmanl› bilim ve e¤itim an-lay›fl›. (hzl. H. D. Y›ld›z) 150. Y›l›nda Tanzimat(s. 335-355). Ankara: Türk Tarih Kuru-mu Yay›nlar›.
Kutlu, Ö. (1999). ‹lkö¤retim okullar›ndaki Türkçe ders kitaplar›ndaki okuma parçalar›na dayal› olarak haz›rlanm›fl sorular üzerine bir inceleme. E¤itim ve Bilim, 111, 14-21. Mackey, I. (1997). Dinleme becerisi. (çev. A. Bora ve O. Cankoçak), Ankara: ‹lkkaynak Kültür ve Sanat Ürünleri Ltd. fiti.
Marchione, K. E., Shaywitz, S. E., & Shaywitz, B. A. (1999). Comprehension and deco-ding: Patterns of association in children with reading difficulties. Scientific Studies of Rea
-ding, 31,24-53.
MEB. (1949). Ortaokul program›.Ankara: Millî E¤itim Bas›mevi. MEB. (1968). ‹lkokul program›.‹stanbul: Millî E¤itim Bas›mevi.
MEB. (1981). Temel e¤itim okullar› Türkçe e¤itim program›. Tebli¤ler Dergisi, 2098, 327-356.
MEB. (2005). ‹lkö¤retim Türkçe dersi ö¤retim program› ve k›lavuzu (1-5. s›n›flar). Anka-ra: Millî E¤itim Bakanl›¤›.
Moats, L. C. (2004). Efficacy of a structured, systematic language curriculum for adoles-cent poor readers. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 20,145-159.
National Council of Teachers of English (NCTE) & The International Reading Associ-ation (IRA). (1996). Standards for the English language arts. Urbana, IL: Author. Özbay, M. (2000a). ‹lkö¤retim okulu ö¤rencilerinin yaz›l› anlat›m becerileri – Alan arafl
-t›rmas›. Ankara: Bizim Büro Bas›mevi.
Özbay, M. (2000b). Ö¤retmen görüfllerine göre Ankara merkez ilkö¤retim okullar›nda Türkçe ö¤retimi. Ankara: Bizim Büro Bas›mevi.
Sabanc› Üniversitesi, ‹stanbul Politikalar Merkezi, E¤itim Reformu Giriflimi. (2005). Ye
-ni ö¤retim programlar›n› inceleme ve de¤erlendirme raporu. http://www.erg.sabanciu-niv.edu/docs/mufredat_raporu.doc web adresinden 15 Eylül 2005 tarihinde edinilmifltir. Shankweiler, D., Lundquist, E., Katz, L., Stuebing, K. K., Fletcher, J. M., Brady, S. et al. (1988). Understanding reading.Hillsdale: Erlbaum.
Stein, N. L. & Glenn, C. G. (1979). An analysis of story comprehension in elementary school children. In R. O. Freedle (Ed.) New Directions in Discourse Processing(Volume II in the Series Advances in Discourse Processes; pp. 53-120). New Jersey: Ablex Publishing Corporation.
Sönmez, V. (1993). E¤itim felsefesi. Ankara: Ad›m Yay›nlar›.
fiimflek, N. (2004) Yap›land›rmac› ö¤renme ve ö¤retime elefltirel bir yaklafl›m. E¤itim Bi
-limleri ve Uygulama, 5,115-139.
Tazebay, A. (1997). ‹lkokul ö¤rencilerinin okuma becerilerinin okudu¤unu anlamaya etki
-si. Ankara: MEB Yay›nlar›.
Torgesen, J. K., Alexander, A. W., Wagner, R. K., Rashotte, C. A. Voeller, K., Conway, T. et. al. (2001). Intensive remedial instruction for children with severe reading disabilities: Immediate and long-term outcomes from two instructional approaches. Journal of Lear
-ning Disabilities, 34,33-58.
Temizyürek, F. (2001). Atatürk dönemi e¤itim politikam›z ve Türkçe ö¤retimi.Ankara: Gazi Kitabevi.
Tompkins, G. E. (1998). Language arts content and teaching strategies(4’th edition). New Jersey, Colombus, Ohio: Upper Saddle River.
Traw, R. (1996). Large-scale assessment of skills in a whole language curriculum: Two districts’ experiences. The Journal of Educational Research, 89, 323-339.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1998). Düflünce ve dil(çev. S. Koray). ‹stanbul: Toplumsal Dönüflüm Ya-y›nlar›.
Yalç›n, A. (1996). Türkçe ders kitaplar›n›n plânlanmas› ve yaz›lmas›. Türk Yurdu, 107, 24-27. Yeflilmen, N. (1983). S›n›f içi sözlü ö¤retimin etkileflim analizi yöntemiyle de¤erlendirilme
Y›ld›r›m, A. (1994). Temel program gelifltirme modelleri ve ülkemizdeki program gelifltir-me çal›flmalar›na etkileri. I. E¤itim Bilimleri Kongresi -Bildiriler içinde (c. 1, s.157-165). Adana: Çukurova Üniversitesi Yay›nlar›
Y›ld›r›m, A. & fiimflek, H. (2003). Nitel araflt›rma yöntemleri(3. Bask›). Ankara: Seçkin Yay›nlar›.
Y›ld›z, C. (2003a). Türkçe ö¤retiminde alternatif yöntemler. Ankara: An› Yay›nlar›. Y›ld›z, C. (2003b). Ana dili ö¤retiminde ça¤dafl yaklafl›mlar ve Türkçe ö¤retimi.Ankara: Pegem A Yay›nlar›.
Yüksel, S. (2003). Türkiye’de program gelifltirme çal›flmalar› ve sorunlar›. Milli E¤itim, 159, 120-124.
Zorbaz, K. Z. (2005). ‹lkö¤retim okullar› ikinci kademe Türkçe ö¤retmenlerinin ölçme ve de
-¤erlendirmeye iliflkin görüflleri ve yaz›l› s›navlarda sorduklar› sorular üzerine bir de¤erlen
-dirme. Yay›mlanmam›fl yüksek lisans tezi, Mustafa Kemal Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Hatay.
