2013 (c) EJRE published by
International Association of Social Science Research - IASSR
European
Journal of
Research on
Education
ISSN: 2147-6284European Journal of Research on Education, 2014, Special Issue: Contemporary Studies in Education, 35-39
The relationship between the success in Turkish classes with
teaching methods and supporting school implementations
1
Mustafa Ayral
a*, Nedim Özdemir
a, Şule Ötken
b, Hakan Özarslan
a, Leyla Yılmaz
Fındık
a, Ahmet Ünlü
a, Ayşegül Akdoğan
b, Sevim Aksoy Güler
c, Esin Bayraktar
d, Elif
Diren
eaAltındağ Guidance and Research Center, Telsizler, Ankara 06900, Turkey b Altındağ Örnek Atıfbey Low-Secondary School, Telsizler, Ankara 06900, Turkey
c Altındağ Çocuk Sevenler Derneği Primary School, Ankara 06360, Turkey d Altındağ Kaşgarlı Mahmut Primary School, Ankara 06360, Turkey e Altındağ Karapürçek Low-Secondary School, Ankara 06165, Turkey
Abstract
General or subject-based international researches affect education policies of countries. With the help of these researches, some development studies in country level have been done. It is necessary to present guiding information by doing similar studies in district and city levels. In this kind of study, it is being aimed to present developing information support for Turkish language education to school and district management stuff, by identifying students’ learning levels according to basic abilities of Turkish language classes in Altındağ district of Ankara, Turkey. The study has been conducted in survey model. As a measurement argument, a survey compiled from Turkish Achievement and Evaluation exam grades and with this exam, PISA, TIMMS and ÖBBS examination topics applied in district is being used. With research exam, 23 036 students in Altındağ, Ankara has been reached. As a result, a medium-level and meaningful relation between Turkish achievement and teaching method has been revealed. And also we can see no relation between Turkish achievement and resources used. Although there is a low-level of relation between Turkish Language class achievement and supportive school Implementations, this relation is a meaningful one statistically. Classrooms with Turkish Language teaching methods highly used are meaningfully higher than low and medium level of Turkish Language teaching methods in Turkish Language achievement. Success ratio of a group which commonly uses supportive in-school Turkish Language Implementations is meaningfully higher than a group with low or medium level of it. © 2014 European Journal of Research on Education by IASSR.
Keywords: Turkish Language Achievement, Turkish Language teaching methods, student achievement, supportive school Implementations;
1. Introduction
Researches related to students’ achievement usually keep up to date. Results of the international surveys on classes or other factors affects educational politics and planning. Because of these reasons, national researches are conducted. Turkish Language achievement is also one of these classes.
The pervasiveness of information technology means that reading proficiency is becoming even more crucial. New media are continually emerging and redefining what it means to be an avid reader and how to teach and learn
1 This study was presented European Conference on Social and Behavioural Sciences held at Marmara University in Istanbul, Turkey, June
19-21, 2013.
reading (OECD, 2010c, p.26). Studies in education and applied psychology suggest that reading proficiency is the result of multiple developmental cumulative cycles (MEB, 2010a, p.135). Research also shows a strong link between the incidence and intensity of reading practices, reading motivation and reading proficiency among adults. Students who are highly engaged and are effective learners are most likely to be proficient readers and proficient readers are also those students that are most engaged and interested in reading (OECD, 2010c, p.26). Surveys conducted in educational field presents that reading performance are associated with family background, teacher, gender, being confidence, students’ reading habits and approaches to learning, teaching methods, reading activities in the class and school resources (Kamil, Intrator, & Kim, 2000; Cheung and Slavin, 2011; Baumgartner, Lipowski and Christy, 2003; Fredriksson, 2002; Geske and Ozala, 2009; Linch, 2002; Phakiti, 2003; Aslanoğlu and Erman, 2007; PIRLS 2011 Surveys, 2012).
It is necessary to assessing students’ competencies in school subjects as PISA, TIMSS and PIRLS and to share findings with educators, policy makers and the general public. The aims of the survey is to determine how well the students are learning Turkish Language at school (with reference to general expectations, aims of the curriculum, and preparation for further learning and for life) and which factors are associated with student achievement. This survey aims at describing students’ learning in Turkish Language Class in Altındağ district in Ankara and offering pointers on what parents, teachers and school administrators can do to help students become proficient and engaged readers.
2. Method
The study has been conducted in survey model. In the research, two different types of gathering information methods which include test questions about Turkish subject which aims to define students’ success and Turkish teaching methods and school resources and practices survey. The achievement of Turkish language class has obtained from basic skills which are aimed to earn by students in Turkish language class referred to PISA, PIRLS, and Evaluation Exam for Student Achievements (ÖBBS) and Primary education Turkish Language program by Ministry of National Education (Ayral, 2008). The preparation process of the test questions which aim to improve students’ success can be summarized like this: At first stage, a group containing eight Turkish Language educators has been created from all primary schools in Altındağ in 2011-2012 academic year. The test question created by this group personally, evaluated as a group again, made some corrections (context, format, intelligibility) at the second stage.
The assessment included multiple-choice questions. The assessment is based on written passage or graphic, much like the kind of texts or figures that students might encounter in real life. The students also answered a questionnaire after the test. This questionnaire focused on their personal background, their learning habits, and their attitudes towards reading, their engagement and motivation. This questionnaire contains some items taken from PISA, TIMSS and PIRLS. The assessment instruments were developed by an expert team specialized in Turkish Language. The assessment was conducted in May 2012. After the test was over, the heads of schools collected the test booklets and sent them to the ACRC for coding. Following collection of the surveys, all data were entered into the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS 20) for analysis. Percentage rates are calculated and variance analysis and Scheffe test are also applied. Correlational research analyses the relationship between two variables.
Applications are applied by sending and receiving booklets from school management to the class teachers in 62 schools of Altındağ. In this research, data are gathered in three workdays and 62 schools out of 67 (%93), 23.036 students out of 30.336 (%76) have reached. Exam results applied to students and data related to the survey are transferred to electronical platform by the use of optical forms and analysed using SPSS20 computer software. Before the analysis the Turkish test answered by the students were tested for reliability analysis and Cronbach’s Alpha in Turkish Tests for 4th grade ,855 in 40 items; for 5th grade ,865 in 45 items; for 6th grade ,894 in 50 items; for 7th grade ,907 in 55 items and for 8th grade ,904 in 60 items were founded. At the end of the research exam, Turkish achievement degree is calculated by converting clear correct answers to t-points with a maximum of 500 points. The variable which are thought to be effective on Turkish language success are classified by point values containing Low (0.00-0.67), Medium (0.68-1.32 and High (1.33-2.00) and considered relation between these
variables and Turkish Language achievement degree. Additionally, average value of this data, frequency and percentage rates are calculated, and correlation techniques as significance test are also applied.
According to the factor analysis, there are 16 items under teaching methods, 6 items (1.Computer, 2.Reading book besides course book, 3. Photos, poster, pictures, brochure, 4.Resources from daily life, 5. Television, VCD, DVD, 6. Simulation) under resources used while teaching; 6 items under supportive in-school Implementations (1.Reading hours, 2.Conversation with writes 3.School bulletin and newspaper 4. Preparing wall paper 5. Competition on poem, article, 6. Attending national competition). The value of factor of items under teaching methods .528-.724; the value of school practices .383-.655.
3. Findings and Discussion
There are the number of the students included in research according to class levels and students’ success rate and achievement points in Table 1. We can see that except for 8th grades, success of the students are very close. It can be mentioned that there is a moderate level success.
Table 1. Turkish Language Achievement Rate and Grade Average of Class Levels
Grade N Percentage of Turkish Achievement (%) Average of Turkish Points Grade 4 4.623 37 307 Grade 5 4.832 39 327 Grade 6 4.884 39 305 Grade 7 4.503 35 292 Grade 8 4.194 27 291 TOTAL 23.036 36 -
There is the correlation result of the relation between Turkish Language achievement rate and variables in Table 2. There is a twenty-eight level of relation between Turkish Language achievement and course-of-treatment. It can be said that this is a meaningful and a moderate-level relation. There is nearly an uncorrelation between arguments used and Turkish Language achievement. At the same time, there is a low-level relation such as a 06, between supportive in-school Implementations and Turkish Language achievement. Although it is a low level relation, it is a meaningful one statistically.
Table 2. Relation between Turkish Language Achievement Rate and Variables
Average of teaching methods’ Points Average of In-school Implementations’ Points Average of Resources Used while Teaching Percentage of Turkish Achievement (%) Pearson Correlation ,285** -,008 ,060** Sig. (2-tailed) ,000 ,275 ,000 N 18.798 19.621 19.319
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
The Anova (Scheffe) result between the percentage of Turkish Language achievement and supportive in-school Implementations is given in Table 3. It has been determined that Turkish Language achievement of the higher group is significantly higher than moderate and lower groups. Although there is a weak relation between supportive in-school Implementations and Turkish Language class success, it can be mentioned that much usage of these Implementations has a significant effect on Turkish Language achievement.
Table 3. The ANOVA (Scheffe) Results of Turkish Language Success Percentage and Supportive In-school Implementations Point Group of Supportive In-school Implementations N Percentage of Turkish Achievement (%) Difference Among Groups (Scheffe) Lower 2.912 35,2 Higher-Lower Higher-Medium Medium 7.040 34,4 Higher 7.004 38 TOTAL 16.986 36,1 F (2-16983) = 39,663; p< .01
The Anova (Scheffe) results between Turkish Language achievement percentage and resources used while teaching has been given in Table 4. The Turkish Language achievement of the group containing members who utilize the resources used while teaching in medium group is significantly lower than the other groups. Nobody could comment on this interesting result within this inquiry.
Table 4. The ANOVA (Scheffe) Results of Turkish Language Class Success Percentage and the Resources Used while Teaching
Point Group of Resources Used while
Teaching N Percentage of Turkish Achievement (%) Difference Among Groups (Scheffe) Lower 6.169 37,3 Lower-Medium Higher-Medium Medium 6.731 34,6 Higher 4.827 36,8 TOTAL 17.727 36,1 F (2-17724) = 22,010; p< .01
The results of relation between Turkish Language achievement percentage and course of treatment method has been given in Table 5. As it can be seen in the table, the Turkish Language achievement of the group containing members who has many more points of course of treatment method is significantly higher than the other groups. The point of the higher group is 14 points more than the other groups which can be considered as a quite high difference.
Table 5. The ANOVA (Schaffe) Results of Turkish Language Class Success Percentage and Teaching Methods
Point Group of Teaching Methods N Percentage of Turkish Achievement (%) Difference Among Groups (Scheffe) Lower 273 26,2 Higher-Lower Higher-Medium Medium 4.183 25,1 Higher 14.342 39,8 TOTAL 18.798 36,3 F (2-18795) = 635,206; p< .01
Although a strong relationship between Turkish achievement and teaching methods has not been determined, it is interesting that the difference among groups is higher. It is seen that there is a weak but meaningful relationship between supportive in-school Implementations and Turkish achievement. However, this difference is higher in favor
resources used in teaching and Turkish achievement. This result makes us think that to examine the nature of usage of resources and to search their effects on student achievement are beneficial.
References
Aslanoğlu, A. E. (2007). PIRLS 2001 Türkiye Verilerine Göre 4. Sınıf Öğrencilerinin Okuduğunu Anlama Becerileriyle İlişkili Faktörler. Doktora Tezi. Ankara Üniversitesi, Ankara.
Ayral, M. (2008). İlköğretim okullarinda öğrencilerin akademik başarılarının izlenmesi sistemi, III. Ulusal Eğitim Yönetimi Kongresi, Osmangazi Üniversitesi, Eskişehir.
Baumgartner, T., Lipowski, M. B. ve Christy, R. (2003). Increasing reading achievement of primary and middle school student through
differentiated instruction. Retrieved on 17 January, 2010, from
http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2sql/content_storage_01/0000019b/80/1b/47/2c.pdf
Cheung, A. & Slavin, R. E. (2011). The effectiveness of education technology for enhancing reading achievement: A meta-analysis. Retrieved from the Center for Research and Reform in Education, Johns Hopkins University website: http://www.bestevidence.org/ reading/tech/tech.html.
Fredriksson, U. (2002). Reading skills among students of immigrant origin in Stockholm. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Stockholm University, Stockholm.
Geske, A. ve Ozola, A. (2009). Different İnfluence of Contextual Educational Factors on Boys’ and Girls’ reading Achievement. US-China Education Review, 6 (4), 38-44.
Kamil, M. L., Intrator, S. M., & Kim, H. S. (2000). The Effects of Other Technologies on Literacy and Literacy Learning. In M . L. Kamil, P. Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 3, pp. 771–788). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
MEB EARGED. (2010a). Uluslararası Öğrenci Değerlendirme Programı PISA 2009 Ulusal Ön Rapor. Ankara: MEB.
Lynch, J. (2002). Parents’ Self-Efficacy Beliefs, Parents’ Gender, Children’s Reader Self-Perceptions, Reading Achievement and Gender. Journal of Research in Reading, 25 (1), 54–67.
OECD. (2010c). PISA 2009 Results: Learning to Learn-Student Engagement, Strategies and Practices (Volume III). OECD. Phakiti, A. (2003). A closer at gender and strategy use in L2 reading. Language Learning, 53(4), 649-703.
PIRLS 2011 International Results in Reading. (2012). IEA. http://timss.bc.edu/pirls2011/downloads/P11_IR_Chapter5.pdf Retrieved on: 19 June 2013.
