Yeliz, Bolat, International Online Journal of Education and Teaching (IOJET) 2021, 8(3), 1706-1728. 1706 Bolat,Y. (2021). The attainments in the framework annual plan for primary school adaptation classes prepared within the scope of PIKTES in terms of the revised bloom taxonomy. International Online Journal of Education and Teaching (IOJET), 8(3). 1706-1728. Received : 15.02.2021 Revised version received : 28.04.2021 Accepted : 01.05.2021 THE ATTAINMENTS IN THE FRAMEWORK ANNUAL PLAN FOR PRIMARY SCHOOL ADAPTATION CLASSES PREPARED WITHIN THE SCOPE OF PIKTES IN TERMS OF THE REVISED BLOOM TAXONOMY Research article Yeliz Bolat Hitit Universty yelizbolat@hitit.edu.tr Biodata: Yeliz Bolat is an Assistant Professor at Hitit University, Faculty of Health Sciences, Department of Child Development. She conducts researches on interdisciplinary teaching, teaching concepts, learning strategies and education of refugees. Copyright © 2014 by International Online Journal of Education and Teaching (IOJET). ISSN: 2148-225X. Material published and so copyrighted may not be published elsewhere without written permission of IOJET. mailto:yelizbolat@hitit.edu.tr https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1661-1645 Yeliz, Bolat, International Online Journal of Education and Teaching (IOJET) 2021, 8(3), 1706-1728. 1707 THE ATTAINMENTS IN THE FRAMEWORK ANNUAL PLAN FOR PRİMARY SCHOOL ADAPTATION CLASSES PREPARED WITHIN THE SCOPE OF PIKTES IN TERMS OF THE REVISED BLOOM TAXONOMY Yeliz Bolat yelizbolat@hitit.edu.tr Abstract This research examined the attainments available within the framework annual plan of teaching Turkish as a foreign language prepared for under temporary protection Syrian primary school students continuing their education within scope of PIKTES according to the revised Bloom taxonomy. In the first phase of the analysis, a total of 72 attainments, including 19 in the listening skill, 13 in the speaking (oral production), 9 in speaking (verbal interaction), 15 in the reading skill and 16 in the writing were examined in the research. In the second stage, the action verbs corresponding to the cognitive process dimensions of the revised Bloom taxonomy were listed through various sources, and the attainments were analyzed by descriptive analysis. Considering these attainments in terms of knowledge dimension, 71.2% of the attainments were found to be at factual knowledge, 21.9% at the conceptual knowledge level, 6.8% at procedural knowledge, and no objective is available at the metacognitive knowledge level, meaning that factual knowledge dimension held the most attainments, while procedural knowledge had the fewest. When the attainments were analyzed in terms of cognitive process dimensions, 31.6% of the attainments were determined to be at the level of remembering, 21.9% understanding, 39.8% applying, 5.4% analyzing and 1.3% creating, and no objective is available at the evaluation level. This indicated that applying dimension had the most attainments, while creating dimension had the fewest. Keywords: Syrian students under temporary protection, PIKTES, teaching Turkish as a foreign language, revised Bloom taxonomy. 1. Introduction Turkey has been confronted with huge migration movements because of the civil war in Syria. Turkey afforded the status of "temporary protection" to the Syrian citizens that were accepted to the country in accordance with international refugee law and international legal practices (Grand National Assembly of Turkey, 2012). Temporary protection refers to the “protection provided to foreigners who were forced to leave their countries and unable to return to the countries they left, and arrived at or crossed our borders to find urgent and temporary protection” (Foreigners Protection Law, 2013). According United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) (2019a) February data, Turkey is host to the largest refugee population in the world with the immigration from Syria to Turkey. According to the January 2020 data of the General Directorate of Migration Management of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, the number of Syrians under temporary protection in our country is 3,576,659. While 63,247 of Syrians live in temporary shelter centers, 3,513,412 reside outside temporary shelter centers. 915,451 of the Syrians under temporary protection are between the ages of 5-14. According to the April 2019 data of the Ministry of National Education, Directorate General for Lifelong Learning, Directorate of Migration and Emergency Education, 643.058 Syrian students were accepted to the schools and these students were enrolled in e-SCHOOL or YOBIS (Foreign Student Information Processing System). mailto:yelizbolat@hitit.edu.tr Yeliz, Bolat, International Online Journal of Education and Teaching (IOJET) 2021, 8(3), 1706-1728. 1708 The Syrian children under temporary protection were provided access to the school to enjoy the educational rights. The acceptance of the Syrian students to the schools led to the emergence of various problems. Language problem is a major obstacle for many immigrant children starting school (Bosswick and Heckmann, 2006; Human Rights Watch, 2015; Stathopoulou & Dassi, 2020; UNHCR, 2011, 2013 and 2015; Yohani, 2010). The major problems frequently discussed related to the Syrians in Turkey are economic difficulties, language deficiency or insufficiency, discrimination in schools, cultural diversity and harmony, inadequate psychological support and counseling, inexperienced teachers, lack of staff and materials in schools (Alpaydın, 2017; Duruel, 2016; Coşkun et al., 2017). In recent years, a large body of studies has been conducted on the problems Syrian students face in schools. The results of the studies carried out with teachers (Aydın & Kaya, 2019; Avcı, 2019; Boylu & Işık, 2020; Başar, Akan & Çiftçi, 2018; Bozkırlı, Er & Alyılmaz, 2018; Bulut, Soysal & Gülçiçek, 2018; Karaağaç & Güvenç, 2019; Çelik, 2019; Dolapçıoğlu & Bolat, 2019; Erdem, 2017; Güngör & Şenel, 2015; Jafari, Tonga & Kışla, 2018; Seydi, 2013; Uzun & Bütün, 2016; Yurdakul & Tok, 2018), administrators ( Aydın & Kaya, 2019; Levent & Çayak, 2017), Syrian students (Aldaraghmeh, 2020; Akpınar, 2017; Çimşir and Baysal, 2020; Gün & Baldık, 2017; Güngör & Şenel, 2015; Sezgin & Yolcu, 2016), Syrian families (Akpınar, 2017; Dorman, 2014; Yaylacı, Serpil & Yaylacı, 2017; Yıldız, 2013 ) and academicians (Seydi, 2013) revealed that the language is the biggest problem for Syrian students under temporary protection. In their study conducted with school administrators, Levent and Çayak (2017) noted that Syrian students have communication barriers caused by language problems. One of the problems identified by Human Rights Watch (2015) is the inadequacy of Turkish language teachers and lack of teaching materials. Another problem is that teachers do not know Arabic and do not have sufficient professional skills in teaching Turkish as a foreign language, as they do not have training in teaching Turkish to foreigners, and problems in communicating due to the language problem. Yurdakul and Tok (2018), on the other hand, carried out a study with primary and secondary school teachers and determined that the education to be given to solve the Syrian students’ language problems will increase their success. In another study performed with the participation of preschool teachers, Uzun and Tüm (2016) concluded that Syrian students could not communicate with their teachers and peers as they do not speak Turkish and therefore they could not socialize and they are alienated from the group. In his study with classroom teachers, Erdem (2017) put forward that the most significant problems Syrian students face during the learning and teaching process are language problems; in this regard, teachers should be professionally supported and materials should be provided in service of these problems. In their interviews with students, Gün and Baldık (2017) emphasized that the most significant problem of Syrian students who learn at Turkish schools is the language barrier, which leads them to experience adaptation problems. Besides, in the study carried out with teachers and principals working with Syrian students, Aydın and Kaya (2019) fingered that Syrian refugees’ integration into Turkish culture gets difficult due to language barriers in speaking and understanding Turkish, and that Syrian children need psychological support owing to language-related problems and limited access to daily needs. Güngör and Şenel (2015) conducted a study with classroom teachers and Syrian students, and they found that the students could not understand their teachers and friends, express themselves, and they fail to attend classes due to language problems, and thus they are either academically low or unsuccessful. Likewise, Çelik (2019) pointed out social studies teachers were of the view that Syrian students’ attitudes and achievements were negatively affected by the lack of speaking Turkish. Unlike other studies, Karaağaç and Güvenç (2019), in their research with classroom teachers and counselors, stated that the language barrier negatively affects the emotional development of Syrian students. Tunç (2015) recommended that the process of social acceptance and social cohesion of Yeliz, Bolat, International Online Journal of Education and Teaching (IOJET) 2021, 8(3), 1706-1728. 1709 Syrians be carried out together and that the social cohesion process should be started with Turkish language teaching. Similarly, Jafari et al.,(2018) proved that the language problem is the biggest problem for the cultural conflict between Syrian and Turkish students, and hence efforts should be made to improve the language development of Syrian students to prevent this conflict. Having performed a study that discusses Syrian students’ educational problems, Dolapçıoğlu and Bolat (2019) announced that the problem of understanding the language forms forms the basis of social adjustment problems. For all these reasons, it is of great importance to carry on studies related to solving language comprehension problems. In this regard, the Project on Supporting the Integration of Syrian Children into the Turkish Education System (PIKTES) is implemented for the purpose of helping Syrian students adapt to school and learn Turkish. The aim of this project is to help Syrian students under temporary protection to integrate into the Turkish education system and to support their Turkish education and to promote their access to education. PIKTES project was signed between the Ministry of Education and the EU Turkey Delegation within the framework of "Financial Assistance Program for Refugees in Turkey" agreement (FRIT) as limitation to two years, and the studies were initiated with the agreement signed on October 3, 2016. One of the activities within the scope of this project is Turkish Language Education. In this context, the aim is to provide Turkish language education to Syrian students under temporary protection so that they can follow the lessons and communicate with their peers in our country (piktes.gov.tr). Therefore, adaptation classes were opened in schools and the circular numbered 2019/15 was issued by the Ministry of National Education, Directorate General for Lifelong Learning. The circular holds explanations regarding the adjustment classes to be established for promoting the adaptation of foreign students to the education system by increasing their Turkish language skills. Adaptation classes started in the 2019-2020 academic year, and the results of the Turkish Proficiency Exam (TYS) conducted by the Ministry of National Education on January 3, 2019 were taken as a criterion in determining the students that would be accepted in these classes, and those who performed below 60 points were included in the adaptation classes. Turkish teachers are assigned to these classes within the scope of PIKTES, and these teachers conduct Turkish lessons. Branch teachers are assigned for the other courses, but Turkish teachers teach the branch courses in the absence of branch teachers. Besides, “Compliance Classes Framework Annual Plan” was prepared for these students at four different levels: primary school, secondary school, high school and B1 level for teaching Turkish as a foreign language (www.pictes.gov.tr ). The Primary School Level Framework Annual Plan was prepared on the basis of the A1 Language Recognition Level and A2 Intermediate Level determined in the European Common Recommendations Framework for Languages for primary school students (www.pictes.gov.tr). A1 and A2 levels refer to the qualifications for the basic language use according to the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR, 2013). A1 level students are expected to understand knowledge about themselves and their families, and knowledge about shopping, work, and the immediate environment; to comprehend the simple expressions that correspond to ordinary and everyday concrete expressions; to express themselves in simple situations (CEFR, 2013). Those at A2 level are expected to understand and use simple sentences expressing known daily expressions aimed at meeting concrete needs; introducing oneself and meeting other people; answering questions about themselves and asking similar questions as well as establishing a simple and direct communication on routine and familiar matters (CEFR, 2013). A rubric was prepared for the primary school level in order to identify whether the Framework Annual Plan, the activities for the attainments included in this plan, grammar topics and attainments to be taught at this level were achieved. Nine themes (Greeting, Near http://www.pictes.gov.tr/ Yeliz, Bolat, International Online Journal of Education and Teaching (IOJET) 2021, 8(3), 1706-1728. 1710 Abroad, Daily Routine, Occupations, Our Body, Weather, Shopping, Invitation, Travel) and sub-themes related to them were determined within the framework annual plan for teaching Turkish as a foreign language, prepared by the Ministry of National Education, and the desired features selected for the students were expressed as attainments. The attainments in education are paramount in terms of directing the teaching, ensuring the teaching-learning process and guiding the measurement process (Demirel, 2011). The curricula consist of units or themes that form an integrity in themselves, and these units or themes have the features that are desired to be gained by students. The attainments of teaching are composed of those what are desired to be learned by students. With the adoption of the constructivist approach in the curricula, the concept of attainment has been used instead of the goal in the curriculum. Goals express the characteristics (knowledge, skills, attitudes) to be acquired by students, while attainments refer to the students’ performances during and at the end of the educational process (Yanpar Yelken, 2013). There are different classifications created for structuring and measuring the attainments. Bloom's Taxonomy, one of these classifications, is widely used in our country and is included in studies and publications on curriculum development and assessment-evaluation in education (Yüksel, 2007). The classifications made as an alternative to the Revised Bloom Taxonomy provide the emergence of more accurate and error-free classification, based on Bloom's classification (Yüksel, 2007). Therefore, the renewed Bloom taxonomy was preferred in the present research. The revised Bloom taxonomy refers to two different dimensions as cognitive process and knowledge dimensions. The taxonomy, unlike the original taxonomy, includes four dimensions of knowledge: factual, conceptual, procedural and metacognitive knowledge (Anderson&Krathwohl, 2010). Factual knowledge refers to the basic elements that a student who knows a subject area and can solve the problems in that area must know; conceptual knowledge indicates the relationships among the basic elements of a large structure and that enable the elements making up this structure to act together; operational knolwedge signifies criteria for how to do something, research methods; how to benefit from skills, algorithms, techniques and methods; metacognitive knowledge generally refers to the knowledge about cognition, the awareness of the individual's own cognition and have knowledge about it (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2010). In the original taxonomy, the cognitive process dimensions were named as (knowledge, comprehension, application, analysis, synthesis, evaluation); whereas in the revised taxonomy, they were named as actions (remember, understand, apply, analyze, evaluate, create). Besides, the location of the evaluation and synthesis step was changed, the synthesis step was taken to the highest level as the creation step (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2010; Krathwohl, 2002). The level of remembering is to retrieve knolwledge from long-term memory; comprehension level is to derive meaning from educational messages presented orally, in writing or in graphic form; the level of application is performing or exploiting a transaction in a given situation; the level of analysis is to divide the material into its constituent parts, to indicate how the parts relate to each other and the material as a whole; the evaluation level is reaching judgment by taking into account the criteria or standards; level of creation refers to presenting a functional whole by combining elements according to a new pattern or structure (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2010). 2. Rationale of The Study The relevant literature presents a limited number of studies on teaching Turkish as a foreign language to Syrian students. These studies were determined to mostly focus on the problems encountered in teaching Turkish as a foreign language. Moralı (2018) examined the problems encountered in teaching Turkish as a foreign language to Syrian refugee children as part of the PICTES project; Boylu and Işık (2019) searched the experiences of those teaching Yeliz, Bolat, International Online Journal of Education and Teaching (IOJET) 2021, 8(3), 1706-1728. 1711 Turkish as a foreign language to Syrian refugee children; Özkale and Yanpar-Yelken (2020) analyzed the problems faced by Turkish teachers working at primary schools and camps while teaching Turkish to Syrian students within the scope of PICTES project; Ünal, Taşkaya and Ersoy (2018) indicated the problems faced by immigrants while learning Turkish and solutions to the problems; Bozkırlı, Er and Alyılmaz (2018) sought the problems of Turkish teaching offered to Syrians; Bulut, Kanat Soysal and Gülçiçek (2018) pointed the experiences of classroom teachers conducting Turkish lessons with asylum-seeking children in this process; Dönmez and Paksoy (2015) examined the problems faced in teaching Turkish to Syrian students. These studies were mostly conducted with teachers. The results suggested that the problem of pronunciation is one of the prominent problems that Syrian students face while learning Turkish. These students especially have difficulties in voicing vowels that are not in Arabic. The other problems identified in these studies are that there are students at different levels in the same class, there are problems in classroom management, textbooks are not suitable for these students, students’ and parents' indifference, students are biased towards Turkish. In this context, there is no such a study in the relevant literature that specifically deals with the Attainments in the Primary School Adaptation Classes Framework Annual Plan Prepared within the Scope of PIKTES in terms of the revised Bloom taxonomy, and this subject was found worth researching. 3. Aim of Research This research examined the attainments available within the framework annual plan of teaching Turkish as a foreign language prepared for Syrian primary school students who continue their education within scope of PIKTES and who are under temporary protection according to the revised Bloom taxonomy. In service of this aim, answers to the following questions were sought: 1. How are the primary school attainments available within the Framework Annual Plan of Teaching Turkish as a Foreign Language distributed according to the knowledge dimension of the revised Bloom taxonomy? 2. How are the primary school attainments available within the Framework Annual Plan of Teaching Turkish as a Foreign Language distributed according to the cognitive process dimensions of the revised Bloom taxonomy? The research findings regarding the knowledge and cognitive process dimensions of the objectives will provide information as to the presence ratio of the objectives in the levels and whether there is a balance in this distribution. Knowing the cognitive process dimensions of the objectives will shed light on the activities, assessment and evaluation processes to be developed for these objectives. The findings may also provide data for program development studies to be carried out by MEB in the following years. It may also provide various contributions for the teachers teaching Turkish to Syrian students in terms of planning the learning-teaching process and evaluating the teaching process much more effectively. The research examined the attainments of the framework annual plan at primary school level and it was limited to this analysis. Secondary school, secondary education and B1 level gains were excluded from the research, and a more in-depth analysis was aimed at the primary school level. Yeliz, Bolat, International Online Journal of Education and Teaching (IOJET) 2021, 8(3), 1706-1728. 1712 4. Method 4.1. Research Design Having a qualitative research design, this research used a survey model. Qualitative research is a research in which qualitative process is followed for revealing perceptions and events in a realistic and holistic manner in its natural environment and in which qualitative information collection methods such as observation, interview and document analysis are used (Yıldırım & Şimşek, 2016). This research employed document analysis, one of the qualitative research methods since it aims to examine the attainments of the framework annual plan at primary school level. Document analysis is the examination of written materials regarding a phenomenon or events that are needed to be examined (Yıldırım & Şimşek, 2016). Documents are treated as research objects in qualitative research. The research object of this research is the Framework Annual Plan on Teaching Turkish as a Foreign Language prepared by the Ministry of National Education for primary school Syrian students under temporary protection. 4.1 Data analysis This research used the Framework Annual Plan for Teaching Turkish as a Foreign Language prepared by the Ministry of National Education for Syrian students at primary schools and under temporary protection as a data source document. While examining the attainments, the action expressions were taken as the unit of analysis. Descriptive analysis was used as the noun and action expressions in the attainments were examined according to the dimensions in the revised Bloom taxonomy. In descriptive analysis, data are summarized and interpreted according to predetermined themes that are identified before analysis (Yıldırım & Şimşek, 2016). The dimensions in the Bloom taxonomy were accepted as themes. 4.2 Document analysis process ● In the first phase of the document analysis, the Framework Annual Plan for Teaching Turkish as a Foreign Language prepared for the Syrian primary school students under temporary protection, which have been published on the official website of the PIKTES (https://piktes.gov.tr/), was downloaded to the computer and the frequencies of the attainments included in the plan were presented by examining them according to the skill areas of Turkish lesson during the 2019-2020 academic year. As a result, a total of 72 attainments, including 19 in the listening skill, 13 in the speaking (oral production) skill, 9 in speaking (verbal interaction) skill, 15 in the reading skill and 16 in the writing skill were examined within the scope of the research. ● In the second stage, the action verbs corresponding to the cognitive process dimensions of the revised Bloom taxonomy were analyzed through seeking various sources, and they were presented in Table 1: Yeliz, Bolat, International Online Journal of Education and Teaching (IOJET) 2021, 8(3), 1706-1728. 1713 Table 1. Action Verbs Suitable for Cognitive Process Dimensions According to the Revised Bloom Taxonomy 1.Remember 2.Understand 3.Apply 4. Analyze 5.Evaluate 6.Create Name Tell Distinguish Direct transfer Scheduling Match Memorize Recall List Read Select Classify Sort Recognize Define Repeat Write Explain Distinguish Find Translate Infer Change Transform Realize Find the distinctions Generalize Show Relate Compare Illustrate Summarize Report Select Show with symbols Classify Infer Guess Define Rephrase Rewrite Identify the location Locate Interpret Operating Solve Experiment with Dramatize Model Illustrate Using maps, guides, charts Prepare Calculate Explore Utilize Form Plan Select Classify Outline Experience Transfer Implementation Produce Construct Make Make use of Write Interpret Explain Show subgroups Subcategorization Outline Analyze Research Discriminate Dissect Identify Show with diagram Edit Criticize See the difference Differentiation Show differences Examine Inspect Compare Organize Classify Inquire Test Reconstruct Value Evaluate Inspect Support Criticize Give opinion Take action Prove Decide Compare Rate Measure Prioritize Defend Discuss Judge Estimate Recommend Test Justify Rule on Interpret Combine Compile Change Compose Arrange Formulate Develop Happen Prepare Hypothesize Build Harmonize Set Create Organize Propose Modify Plan Estimate Design Produce Write Reorganize Source: (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2010; Arı, 2013; Conklin & Frei, 2015; Doğanay & Sarı 2011). ● Following this phase, the attainments were analyzed according to the revised Bloom taxonomy. ● The 72 attainments were coded separately by the researcher and an expert with a PhD education in the field of educational sciences, and the reliability between the two coders was determined by the reliability formula of Miles and Huberman (Reliability = Agreement / Agreement + Disagreement). The results suggested that the reliability related to the acquisitions in the knowledge dimension was 80.5%, while the reliability related to the acquisitions in the cognitive processes dimension was 83.3%. A reliability of over 70% between the two coders is considered reliable for the research (Miles & Huberman, 1994). ● While examining the attainments, firstly, it was determined which cognitive process it expresses according to the action verb at the end of the objective statement, then the dimension of knowledge was identified by examining the name part in the objective sentence. For instance; the action verb in the objective of “Determines the effect of understanding the Yeliz, Bolat, International Online Journal of Education and Teaching (IOJET) 2021, 8(3), 1706-1728. 1714 structural features of Turkish.” is “determines”. This statement refers to a cognitive process in the analysis dimension. The expression related to the name is "structural features of Turkish". This expression signifies the conceptual knowledge dimension in the knowledge dimension. To illustrate; the objective of "S/He distinguishes the sounds in the words s/he listens." refers to understanding in terms of cognitive process dimension, while factual information (Phonology) in terms of knowledge dimension. Considering the objective of “Makes a simple presentation supported with visuals on familiar subjects (family, environment, city etc.)”, it is evaluated in the apply dimension (makes presentation) in terms of cognitive process dimension, and procedural knowledge (as presentation requires a sequence) in terms of knowledge dimension. 5. Findings This research analyzed the Framework Annual Plan of Teaching Turkish as a Foreign Language prepared for Syrian primary school students under temporary protection in terms of the knowledge and cognitive process dimensions of the revised Bloom taxonomy. There are 72 acquisitions in the Framework Annual Plan for Teaching Turkish as a Foreign Language. Table 2 depicts the list of 19 attainments in the listening skill area and their repetition frequencies in the themes. Table 2. The Repetition Status of the Attainments Related to The Listening Skill Area by Themes The Attainments of Listening Skill Area f L.1 S/He recognizes numbers from 1 to 10. 1 L.2 S/He recognizes numbers from 1 to 100. 1 L.3 S/He recognizes numbers from 1 to 20. 1 L.4 S/He identifies descriptive statements. 32 L.5 S/He distinguishes the sounds in the words s/he listens. 5 L.6 S/He relates the information in the texts he/she listens to/watches with the visuals. 1 L.7 S/He understands simple sentences about situations/events expressed in visuals. 32 L.8 S/He estimates frequently used words in daily life based on context. 32 L.9 S/He recognizes colors. 1 L.10 S/He recognizes the basic patterns of greeting (inquire after health), acquaintance, kindness and farewell. 1 L.11 S/He distinguishes sounds. 5 L.12 S/He feels and recognizes sounds. 5 L.13 S/He relates verbal information to visuals. 32 L.14 S/He recognizes date/time expressions. 32 L.15 S/He recognizes the basic question statements. 32 L.16 S/He identifies the knowledge corresponding to the basic question patterns. 32 L.17 S/He realizes the pronunciation features of Turkish. 32 L.18 S/He recognizes the name of the objects around. 32 L.19 S/He selects the words s/he already knew in a simple and slow spoken simple text. 10 Total 319 Yeliz, Bolat, International Online Journal of Education and Teaching (IOJET) 2021, 8(3), 1706-1728. 1715 As is seen in Table 2, there are 19 attainments related to the listening skill area and these attainments are observed 319 times in the themes. Table 2 also shows that L.4, L.7, L.8, L.13, L.14, L.15, L.16, L.17 and L.18 attaienments were repeated 32 times in themes, while L.19 10 times; L.5, L.11, L.12 5 times; L.1, L.2, L.3, L.6, L.9 and L.10 attainments once. Table 3 displays the list of the attainments examined with regard to the speaking (oral production) skill area and their repetition frequencies in the themes. Table 3. The Repetition Status of the Attainments Related to The Speaking (Oral Production) Skill Area by Themes The attainments of speaking (oral production) skill area f S.OP.1 S/He counts rhythmically from 1 to 10. 1 S.OP.2 S/He counts rhythmically from 1 to 100. 1 S.OP.3 S/He counts rhythmically from 1 to 20. 1 S.OP.4 S/He makes the sounds of the letters in the alphabet. 5 S.OP.5 S/He makes a simple presentation supported with visuals on familiar subjects (family, environment, city etc.). 32 S.OP.6 S/He introduces herself/himself using simple words. 1 S.OP.7 S/He says simple words and phrases given with visual elements. 32 S.OP.8 S/He describes the spaces / events / situations expressed in visuals with simple sentences. 32 S.OP.9 S/He pronounces the words accurately. 37 S.OP.10 S/He presents basic personal information about her/him. 1 S.OP.11 S/He uses the newly learned words and phrases in her/his speeches. 32 S.OP.12 S/He says the names of colors. 1 S.OP.13 S/He introduces his/her close environment with simple sentences. 32 Total 208 Table 3 illustrates that there are 13 attainments related to the speaking (oral production) skill area and these attainments are available 208 times in the themes. Table 3 also suggests that S.OP 9 attainments was available 37 times in the themes; S.OP 5, S.OP 7, S.OP 8, S.OP 11, S.OP 13 attainments 32 times; S.OP 4 5 times; S.OP 1, S.OP 2, S.OP 3, S.OP 6, S.OP 10 and S.OP 12 attainments once. Table 4 presents the list of the attainments examined with regard to the speaking (verbal interaction) skill area and their repetition frequencies in the themes. Yeliz, Bolat, International Online Journal of Education and Teaching (IOJET) 2021, 8(3), 1706-1728. 1716 Table 4. The Repetition Status of the Attainments Related to the Speaking (Verbal Interaction) Skill Area by Themes The attainments of speaking (verbal interaction) skill f S.VI.1 S/He says the colors of the objects around. 1 S.VI.2 S/He establishes dialogues with simple information / guidance / warning phrases about daily life. 1 S.VI.3 S/He uses expressions and patterns for daily needs. 1 S.VI.4 S/He understands simple questions about himself/herself and asks simple questions to the other person. 5 S.VI.5 S/He asks and responds to the questions during the conversation. 32 S.VI.6 S/He uses basic question statements in speeches. 1 S.VI.7 S/He uses basic patterns of greeting (inquire after health), acquaintance, kindness, and farewell. 32 S.VI.8 S/He establishes dialogues about meeting and greeting. 32 S.VI.9 S/He asks / says the name of objects around. 37 Total 142 Upon analyzing Table 4, 9 attainments were identified related to the speaking (verbal interaction) skill area and these attainments are repeated 142 times in the themes. Since the 5th objective of S.VI consists of two sentences and includes two different actions, it was evaluated as two attainments, thus speaking area (verbal interaction) was examined as 10 attainments. Table 4 depicts that S.VI 9 attainment was available 37 times in the themes, while the attainments of S.OP 5 , S.OP 7, S.OP 8 was observed 32 times; S.OP 4 attainment 5 times; S.OP 1, S.OP 3 and S.OP 6 once. The list of the attainments examined with regard to the reading skill area and their repetition frequencies in the themes were given in Table 5. Table 5. The Repetition Status of the Attainments Related to the Reading Skill Area by Themes The Attainments of Reading Skill Area f R.1 S/He reads numbers from 1 to 10. 1 R.2 S/He reads numbers from 1 to 20. 1 R.3 S/He reads numbers from 1 to 100. 1 R.4 S/He chooses simple information from texts such as poster, ticket, brochure, announcement, menu, etc.. 32 R.5 S/He recognizes the letters of the alphabet. 5 R.6 S/He selects the information requested from a text. 32 R.7 S/He reads the sentences fluently. 5 R.8 S/He understand texts describing simple actions supported with visuals. 32 R.9 S/He understands simple texts supported by visuals. 32 R.10 S/He recognizes basic vocabulary and pattern expressions for daily life. 32 R.11 S/He reads syllables fluently. 5 R.12 S/He reads words fluently. 5 R.13 S/He reads the names of colors. 1 R.14 S/He identifies information about basic question patterns. 32 R.15 S/He determines the effect of understanding the structural features of Turkish. 32 Total 248 Yeliz, Bolat, International Online Journal of Education and Teaching (IOJET) 2021, 8(3), 1706-1728. 1717 Table 5 indicates that there are 15 attainments identified related to the reading skill area and these attainments are repeated 142 times in the themes. Table 5 also displays that R.4, R.6, R.8, R.9, R.10, R.14 and R.15 attainments were observed 32 times in the themes; R.5, R.7, R.11 and R12 5 times and R.13 was observed once. The list of the acquisitions related to the writing skill area and the repetition frequencies in the themes are presented in table 6. Table 6. The Repetition Status of the Attainments Related to The Writing Skill Area by Themes The attainments of Writing Skill Area f W.1 S/He writes numbers from 1 to 10. 1 W.2 S/He writes numbers from 1 to 100. 1 W.3 S/He writes numbers from 1 to 20. 1 W.4 S/He writes texts such as poster, brochure, announcement etc. 1 W.5 S/He writes the letters in the alphabet. 5 W.6 S/He writes with attention to the cohesion elements. 32 W.7 S/He distinguishes between capital letters and smallcaps. 5 W.8 S/He writes the colors of the surrounding objects. 1 W.9 S/He writes letters and simple words through dictation. 5 W.10 S/He writes the words and simple sentences s/he listens. 32 W.11 S/He writes simple sentences based on images. 32 W.12 S/He writes a visualized event in his/her own words. 32 W.13 S/He writes the numbers given numerically with their way of reading. 1 W.14 S/He writes sentences containing basic question statements. 32 W.15 S/He writes the numbers in black and white as numbers. 1 W.16 S/He writes newly-learned words and phrases. 32 Total 214 As is observed in Table 6, there are 16 attainments identified related to the writing skill area and these attainments are repeated 214 times in the themes. The table also indicates that W.6, W.10, W.11, W.12, W.14 and W.16 attainments were observed 32 times in the themes; W.5, W.7, W.9 attainments 5 times and W.1, W.2, W.3, W.4, W.8, W.13, W.15 attainments were seen once. The distribution of 73 attainments available within the Framework Annual Plan of Teaching Turkish as A Foreign Language as the skill areas of listening (L), speaking oral production (S.OP.), speaking verbal interaction (S.VI), reading (R) and writing (W) in terms of the knowledge and cognitive process dimensions of the revised Bloom taxonomy is presented in Table 7, Figure 1 and 2 as graphs. Yeliz, Bolat, International Online Journal of Education and Teaching (IOJET) 2021, 8(3), 1706-1728. 1718 Table 7. The Distribution of the Attainments in The Framework Annual Plan of Teaching Turkish as A Foreign Language in Terms of the Knowledge and Cognitive Process Dimensions of the Revised Bloom Taxonomy KNOWLEDGE DIMENSION COGNITIVE PROCESS DIMENSION 1.Remember 2.Understand 3.Apply 4.Analyze 5.Evaluate 6.Create A. Factual Knowledge L.1, L.2, L.3, L.9, L.10, L.12, L.14, L.15, L.18, L.19 S.OP.1, S.OP. 2, S.OP.3, S.OP.7, S.OP.10, S.OP.12, S.VI.1, S.VI.9, R.1, R.2, R.3, R.5, R.10, L.5, L.6, L.7, L.8, L.11, L.17, S.OP.4, W.13, W.15 S.OP.4, S.OP.5, S.OP.6, S.OP.9, S.OP.11, S.VI.3, S.VI.4, S.VI.5, S.VI.5, S.VI.6, S.VI.7, R.13, W.1, W.2, W.3, W.5, W.6, W.8, W.10, R.6 --- --- B. Conceptual Knowledge --- L.4, L.13, L.16, S.OP.8, R.8, R.9, W.7 S.OP.13, W.4, W.9, W.11, W.14 R.4, R.14, R.15 --- W.12 C. Procedural Knowledge --- --- S.VI.2, S.VI.8, R.7, R.11, R.12, --- --- --- D. Metacognitive Knowledge --- --- --- --- --- --- L: Listening, S.OP: Speaking Oral Production, S.VI: Speaking Verbal Interaction, R: Reading, W: Writing Table 7 depicted that there are 52 attainments in the factual knowledge dimension and 23 of these objective is in remembering dimension, 9 are in understanding, 19 are applying and one is analyzing. 16 attainments were determined in the conceptual knowledge dimension and 7 of which are in the dimension of understanding, 5 are applying, 3 are analyzing and one is creating. Besides, procedural knowledge dimension was found to include 5 attainments, all of which are in the applying dimension. Metacognitive knowledge and evaluation dimension of the cognitive processes are free from any attainments. The graphics related to these findings are displayed in Chart 1 and Chart 2. Yeliz, Bolat, International Online Journal of Education and Teaching (IOJET) 2021, 8(3), 1706-1728. 1719 Chart 1. The Percent Distribution of The Attainments According to The Knowledge Dimensions Chart 1 suggested that 71.2% of the attainments are at factual knowledge level, 21.9% are at the conceptual knowledge level, 6.8% are at procedural knowledge level, and no objective is available at the metacognitive knowledge level. This indicated that factual knowledge dimension held the most attainments, while procedural knowledge dimension had the fewest. The graph showing the distribution of the examined attainments according to cognitive processes is presented in Chart 2. Chart 2. The Percent Distribution of The Attainments According to The Cognitive Process Dimensions Chart 2 showed that 31.6% of the attainments are at the level of remembering, 21.9% are understanding, 39.8% are applying, 5.4% are analyzing and 1.3% are creating, and no 31,6 21,9 39,8 5,4 1,3 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 Remember Understand Apply Analyze Evulate Create P e rc e n t The Cognitive Process Dimensions The Percent Distribution of the Attainments According to The Cognitive Process Dimensions Yeliz, Bolat, International Online Journal of Education and Teaching (IOJET) 2021, 8(3), 1706-1728. 1720 objective is available at the evaluation level. This paved the way for the fact that applying dimension had the most attainments, while creating dimension had the fewest. 6. Results and Discussion This research analyzed the attainments available within the Framework Annual Plan of Teaching Turkish as a Foreign Language prepared for Syrian primary school students under temporary protection within the scope of PIKTES in terms of the knowledge and cognitive process dimensions of the revised Bloom taxonomy. Framework Annual Plan of Teaching Turkish as a Foreign Language were identified to include a total of 72 attainments, including 19 in the listening skill, 13 in the speaking (oral production) skill, 9 in speaking (verbal interaction) skill, 15 in the reading skill and 16 in the writing skill. Since one of these attainments was composed of two attainments, the number was accepted as 73. When these attainments were examined in terms of knowledge dimension of Bloom taxonomy, 71.2% (f:52) of the attainments were found to be at factual knowledge level, 21.9% (f:16) are at the conceptual knowledge level, 6.8% (f:5) are at procedural knowledge level, and no objective is available at the metacognitive knowledge level. This indicated that factual knowledge dimension held the most attainments, while procedural knowledge dimension had the fewest. In the study conducted by Büyükalan Filiz and Yıldırım (2019) for examining the attainments of the secondary school Turkish lesson curriculum according to the revised Bloom taxonomy, they concluded that the attainments were for factual and operational knowledge, and that those for metacognitive knowledge were almost nonexistent, which supports this result of the research. Similar results emerged in the study conducted by Aslan and Atik (2018). The rich presence of the factual knowledge in the Framework Annual Plan for Teaching Turkish as a Foreign Language can be interpreted as asking students to have basic knowledge of Turkish. Factual knowledge includes the basic information of a discipline due to its structure. Anderson and Krathwohl (2010) stated that factual knowledge includes the basic elements students must know in order to be familiar with a discipline or solve a problem in it. This type of knowledge is often associated with concrete objects, events and situations. The terms included in the scope of factual dimension include specific names and symbols (words, numbers, signs, alphabet, pictures) with and without verbal knowledge. It is obligatory for a student who has just started learning to be acquainted with these names and symbols as well as learning the associations. For students who first meet Turkish language and learn it for the first time, teaching the alphabet, colors, numbers, basic patterns and expressions, vocabulary may be effective in the number of attainments related to factual knowledge. A1 Language Recognition Level and A2 Primary Level were determined based upon the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages during the preparation process of the Framework Annual Plan for Teaching Turkish as a Foreign Language. Considering the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (2013); the students at the A1 level understand the basic expressions to satisfy ordinary and concrete expressions, and at the A2 level, they establish a simple and direct communication on the familiar and routine matters. These aims may affect the rich presence of factual knowledge in attainments. What is more, conceptual knowledge was identified to be less than the factual knowledge in the Framework Annual Plan for Teaching Turkish as a Foreign Language. Conceptual knowledge includes the knowledge of categories and classifications, as well as the relationships between the more complex and organized forms of knowledge, and the interrelationships among the basic elements within a larger structure that enable them to function together (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2010). At that point, it may be wise to mention that there is lack of knowledge Yeliz, Bolat, International Online Journal of Education and Teaching (IOJET) 2021, 8(3), 1706-1728. 1721 about the Turkish classifications knowledge or the interrelationships among their structural features. However, Çerçi (2018) emphasized that various attainments related to determining the meanings of words, determining the plot, main idea and secondary thoughts of the text, summarizing and interpreting the text should be in the conceptual knowledge dimension in Turkish education. The present research also revealed the lack of procedural knowledge. Procedural knowledge is mostly about 'how to do' question. It involves sequential operations, steps and processes, and this knowledge covers skills, algorithms, techniques, and methodologies that are specific to a subject or discipline (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2010). Given the purpose of the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (2013) at A2 level, to establish a simple and direct communication on the familiar and usual matters, it is likely that the plan will be insufficient to achieve this goal. The richer presence of the factual and conceptual knowledge than the procedural knowledge in the attainments available within the Framework Annual Plan for Teaching Turkish as a Foreign Language means that more emphasis is given to the terms and special details of Turkish along with the features of Turkish rather than how to use the Turkish language. Another result of the research suggested that the plan is free from any metacognitive knowledge. Likewise, Çerçi (2018) examined the 2018 Turkish course curriculum, and found that metacognitive knowledge was not included in the plan. Metacognitive knowledge is the awareness and knowledge of one’s own cognition. Knowledge of one’s own cognition includes information about the one’s weaknesses and strengths (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2010). Considering that these students have just learned Turkish, their knowledge of how to solve their own learning in their reading and writing skills or when they encounter a problem may ease their Turkish learning process. Filiz and Yıldırım (2019) implied that metacognition education should be provided to raise awareness about what students can do when they encounter different texts, thus reading anxiety level can be lessened. Melanlıoğlu (2014) also stressed that the use of metacognitive strategies is of great significant as it facilitates reading comprehension and positively affects reading skills. Özbay and Bahar (2012) noted that the student can overcome the reading anxiety problem by improving his/her self-awareness level so that he/she can have knowledge that will shape school life and real life. In this regard, the nonexistence of metacognitive knowledge in the Framework Annual Plan for Teaching Turkish as a Foreign Language may be evaluated as a shortcoming. Metacognitive knowledge must be included in order for students to boost and manage their awareness towards their own learning. When the attainments in the Framework Annual Plan for Teaching Turkish as a Foreign Language were analyzed in terms of cognitive process dimensions, 31.6% (f:23) of the attainments were determined to be at the level of remembering, 21.9% (f:16) are understanding, 39.8% (f:29) are applying, 5.4% (f:3) are analyzing and 1.3% (f:1) are creating, and no objective is available at the evaluation level. This paved the way for the fact that applying dimension had the most attainments, while creating dimension had the fewest. Similar results was found in the studies examining Turkish curricula according to the revised Bloom taxonomy, (Aslan & Atik, 2017; Avşar & Mete, 2018; Büyükalan Filiz & Yıldırım, 2019; Çerçi, 2018; Çiftçi, 2010; Karagöl, 2020). Similarly, Karagöl (2020) analyzed the attainments of Turkey Maarif Foundation, 2019 Turkish Curriculum as Foreign Languages and 2018 Turkish and Turkish Culture Course, and he found that higher-level cognitive skills such as analyzing, evaluation and creation were less mentioned within the attainments. In addition, Avşar and Mete (2018) dealt with the 2006 and 2015 Turkish curricula, and stated that the attainments included in the curriculum were not included enough in the higher levels of cognitive processes; Çerçi (2018) examined the 2018 Turkish course curriculum and suggested to include more high-level cognitive process skills in the study; Çiftçi (2010) Yeliz, Bolat, International Online Journal of Education and Teaching (IOJET) 2021, 8(3), 1706-1728. 1722 analyzed the reading comprehension attainments of the fifth grade Turkish curriculum and concluded that metacognitive levels were not included enough in the study. What is more, Büyükalan Filiz and Yıldırım (2019) sought the attainments of the secondary school Turkish lesson curriculum according to the revised Bloom taxonomy, and they concluded that the attainments are mostly concentrated in the stages of understanding and application, and that the acquisitions for high-level skills are almost non-existent. Aslan and Atik's (2018) determined that most of the attainments are in lower-level cognitive processes within the framework of the 2015 and 2017 primary school Turkish curricula. The result was in line with that of the present study. In another study conducted on the attainments in Ankara and Gazi University TÖMER Turkish as a Foreign Language curriculum according to Bloom's taxonomy by Ulutaş and Kara (2019), both curricula did not have any attainments for the creation step, and the percentages of high-level cognitive process skills were found to be lower than the low-level cognitive process. The level of remembering in Bloom Taxonomy is a process that involves recalling knowledge as it is taught and retrieving it from long-term memory (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2010). An individual at this level recognizes the previously learned knowledge and recalls it when necessary by keeping it in the memory (Doğanay & Sarı, 2011). In the remembering step, the individual recognizes some features about an object or fact when s/he sees it, tells it when he has a problem or recite (Sönmez, 2007). Anderson and Krathwohl (2010) mentioned that when the main goal in teaching is to increase the permanence of what is learned, the attainments are concentrated at the remembering level. Hence, importance was given to the permanence of the knowledge in the plan and to recall the knowledge learned by the students. At the level of understanding, an individual is required to explain, interpret, summarize, exemplify, classify, draw graphics, explain verbally or in writing, and explain the reasons with their pivots (Doğanay & Sarı, 2011; Sönmez, 2007). This level includes clarification, expressing in other sayings, translating, concretizing, dividing into groups, placing it in the relevant group, expressing it briefly, generalizing, inferring, translating, predicting, looking for similarity or difference, matching and modeling (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2010). The results of the current research found that the attainments at the level of understanding were more than those at the levels of remembering and applying. In this regard, the students may be expected to remember and use the knowledge they have acquired about the Turkish language, rather than explain, exemplify, summarize, classify and interpret it. Individuals are expected to do something using the information they have acquired and apply them at the applying level of Bloom Taxonomy (Doğanay & Sarı, 2011). At this level, an individual can solve a new problem based on the behaviors s/he gained at the level of remembering and understanding (Sönmez, 2007). Application-level behaviors are related to the use of previously learned theoretical expressions and generalizations (facts, concepts, principles, rules, theories, etc.) in new situations (Yalın, 2012). Performing or using a transaction in the given situation requires a cognitive process at the applying level (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2010). In this context, the action verbs of the attainments such as pronouncing, using pattern expressions, introducing oneself or one’s environment, establishing a dialogue, using question expressions, writing behaviors in accordance with the sentence, word or numbers rule were evaluated as applying level. The inclusion of more attainments that are at the application level can be considered as an indicator that students are expected to use what they have learned. The research results also showed that there were fewer attainments in the Framework Annual Plan for Teaching Turkish as a Foreign Language at analysis and creation levels, and no attainments were found at the evaluation level. This refers to the fact that students are expected to remember, understand and use the knowledge related to Turkish rather than Yeliz, Bolat, International Online Journal of Education and Teaching (IOJET) 2021, 8(3), 1706-1728. 1723 improve their higher-level thinking in teaching Turkish as a foreign language. When this result was evaluated according to the purpose of understanding the lean expressions that meet ordinary and usual concrete expressions in A1 and A2 level in the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (2013), the attainments may be said to be written according to this purpose. On the other hand, Anderson and Krathwohl (2010) stated that it is essential to concentrate on five cognitive processes from the level of understanding to creation with a view to increasing the transfer of previously learned knowledge. At that point, no significance was attached to the initiatives for increasing the transfer of those learned in teaching Turkish as a foreign language. A large number of studies conducted on Syrian children under temporary protection unveiled that language problem negatively affects the educational life of these children, that they cause communication problems, academic failure, exclusion and social adjustment problems; moreover, they recommended that the language problem be solved primarily for the solution of these problems (Aydın & Kaya, 2019; Avcı, 2019; Başar et al., 2018; Bulut, Soysal & Gülçiçek, 2018; Bozkırlı et al., 2018; Karaağaç & Güvenç, 2019; Çelik, 2019; Dolapçıoğlu & Bolat, 2019; Erdem, 2017; Gün & Baldık, 2017; Güngör & Şenel, 2015; Jafari et al., 2018; Levent & Çayak, 2017; Seydi, 2013; Sezgin & Yolcu, 2016; Uzun & Bütün, 2016; Yurdakul & Tok, 2018). Accordingly, the PIKTES has been implemented in order to help Syrian students under temporary protection to adapt to the Turkish education system and to learn Turkish, to promote their access to education. Taking into account this aim of the PIKTES, it can be said that the attainments in the Framework Annual Plan for Teaching Turkish as a Foreign Language largely focus on factual knowledge in order to enable students to acquire knowledge about the basic structure and features of Turkish and applying level to use this information in their daily lives. In conclusion, the attainments in the Framework Annual Plan of Teaching Turkish as a Foreign Language prepared for Syrian students under temporary protection attending elemantary school, which is one of the activities of the PIKTES, heavily focus on the factual knowledge in the knowledge dimension and the level of application among the cognitive process dimensions of the revised Bloom taxonomy; however, those at the metacognitive and evaluation levels were not included. Besides, conceptual knowledge, procedural knowledge, and the level of analysis and creation were found to less observed in the attainments. 7. Recommendations This research determined that the metacognitive knowledge of the revised Bloom taxonomy was not included in the acquisitions within the Framework Annual Plan of Teaching Turkish as a Foreign Language. Attainments that refer to this knowledge type may be included in a new plan or program to be prepared in the future. The research results also suggested that there were no attainments that were related to the evaluation level in the cognitive process dimension of the revised Bloom taxonomy within the Framework Annual Plan for Teaching Turkish as a Foreign Language, and the number of attainments with regard to the levels of analysis and creation were very few. In this regard, attainments appropriate to these levels can be added in order to overcome this deficiency. In addition, the questions of the Turkish Proficiency Exam conducted to identify the Turkish levels of the Syrian students under temporary protection can also be examined according to the revised Bloom taxonomy to reveal their compatibility with the attainments. Yeliz, Bolat, International Online Journal of Education and Teaching (IOJET) 2021, 8(3), 1706-1728. 1724 References Akpınar, T. (2017). The Problems of Syrian Refugee Children and Women in Turkey in the Context of Social Policy, Balkan and Near Eastern Journal of Social Sciences, 3(3), 16- 29. Aldaraghmeh, H. (2020). A Research On The Speakıng Skılls Of The Students Whose Natıve Language Is Arabıc (Unpublished master thesis), Sakarya University, Institute of Educational Sciences, Sakarya. Anderson, L. W. & Krathwohl, D. R. (2010). A Classification Related to Evaluation of Learning and Teaching. Trans., Durmuş Ali Özçelik. Ankara: freePegem Academy. 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. Aslan, M. & Atik, U. (2018). “Investıgatıon of 2015 And 2017 Prımary School Turkısh Currıcula Objectıves Accordıng to Revısed Bloom's Taxonomy”. International Journal Turkish Literature Culture Education (TEKE), 7(1), 528-547. Avcı, F. (2019). “Teachers’ Opinions on The Problems Faced by The Refugee Students in Preschool Education İnstitutions”. Language Teaching and Educational Research (LATER), 2(1),57-80. https://doi.org/10.35207/later.537817 Avşar, G. & Mete, F. (2018). “Classification of Actions Used in Turkish Teaching Programs According to the Revised Bloom Taxonomy”. Karaelmas Journal of Educational Sciences, 6, 75-87. Aydın, H. & Kaya, Y. (2019). “Education For Syrian Refugees: The New Global İssue Facing Teachers And Principals in Turkey”. Educational Studies, 55(1), 46-71. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131946.2018.1561454 Başar, M., Akan, D., ve Çiftçi, M. (2018). Learning-Teaching Process Issues in Classrooms with Refugee Students, Kastamonu Education Journal, 26(5), 1571-1578. https://doi.org/10.24106/kefdergi.427432 Boylu, E., & Işık, P. (2019). The Opinions of Instructors of Turkish as Foreign Language to Syrian Refugee Children with Regard to the Situations They Have Experienced, Gazi University Journal of Education Faculty, 39(2), 895-936. Boylu, E. & Işık, P. (2020). Teacher Opınıons on Turkısh Learnıng Processes in The Provınces Where Syrıan Refugees Lıve Intensely. Bolu Abant İzzet Baysal University Journal of Education Faculty, 20 (2), 1113-1128. Bosswick, W. and Heckmann, F. (2006). Social integration of immigrants: Contribution of local and regional authorities. European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions. Retrieved September 20, 2018, http://edz.bib.uni- mannheim.de/daten/edz-ma/esl/06/ef0622en.pdf Bozkırlı, K. Ç., Er, O. & Alyılmaz, S. (2018). “Teacher Opinions Based Evaluation of Problems in Turkish Instruction to Syrians”. Online Submission, 3(2), 130-147. doi: 10.5281/zenodo.1251566. Bulut, S., Soysal, Ö. K. & Gülçiçek, D. (2018). Being a Turkish Teacher of Syrian Students: Problems Encountered in the Education of Syrian Students. International Journal of Turkish Literature, Culture and Education (TEKE), 7(2),1210-1238. https://doi.org/10.35207/later.537817 https://doi.org/10.1080/00131946.2018.1561454 https://doi.org/10.24106/kefdergi.427432 Yeliz, Bolat, International Online Journal of Education and Teaching (IOJET) 2021, 8(3), 1706-1728. 1725 Büyükalan Filiz, S. & Yıldırım N. (2019). “Analysis of Secondary-School Turkish Course Curriculum Objectives According to Revised Bloom Taxonomy”. Elementary Education Online, 18(4), 1550-1573. Conklin, W. & Frei, S. (2015). Differentiation of the Education Program for the Gifted and Talented. Translation, Nihat Gürel Kahveci. Ankara: Free Publications. Coşkun, İ., Ökten, C. E., Dama, N., Barkçin, M., Zahed, S., Fouda, M., Tokluca, D. & Özsarp, H. (2017). Overcoming Barriers: Syrian children to schooling in Turkey. SETAY Publications, Publication, (93). Çelik, T. (2019). “The Syrian Students in the Classes of Social Studies Teachers from Their Perspective”. Sakarya University Journal of Education, 9(2),383-407. Çerçi, A. (2018). “Investigation of 2018 Turkish Language Curriculum (5, 6, 7, 8th Grade) According to Revised Bloom Taxonomy”. Research in Reading and Writing Instruction, 6(2),70-81. Çiftçi, Ö. (2010). “The Evaluation of Acquisition of the Fifth Year Students’ Reading and Understanding in Terms of Cognitive Skills in the Primary Education Turkish Teaching Programme”. TÜBAR, 27, 185-200. Çimşir, S., ve Baysal, Z. N. (2020). Investıgatıon Of Foreıgn Prımary School Students’ Problems And Solutıons About Theır Teachers And Course Achıevements From Theır Perspectıves. Journal Of Medeniyet Educational, 4(1), 28-45. DİAOÖÇ (2013). European Common Proposals Framework for Languages. European Commission / Department of Modern Languages and T. C. Ministry of National Education. Frankfurt: telc. Demirel, Ö. (2011). Cirruculum Development in Education. Ankara: Pegem A Publishing. Doğanay, A. & Sarı, M. (2011). Determining and Expressing Instructional Objectives and Choosing Appropriate Content. In Ahmet Doğanay (Ed.), Teaching Principles and Methods (pp.38-80). Ankara: Pegem Academy. Dolapçıoğlu, S. & Bolat, Y. (2019). “The Education İssues Of Syrian Students Under Temporary Protection Status”. Research in Education, 0(0), 1-17. https://doi.org/10.1177/0034523719892019 Dorman, S. (2014). Educational needs assessment for urban Syrian Refugees in Turkey. https://data2.unhcr.org/en/documents/download/42946. Recieved date:31.03.2018. Dönmez, M. İ., & Paksoy, S. (2015). Syrian Students Studying in Turkey in the Turkish Learning Problems Encountered A Research on: Example of Kilis 7 Aralık University, International Journal of Languages Education and Teaching, 1907-1919. DOI: 10.18298 / ijlet.366. Duruel, M. (2016). The Education Problem of Syrian Refugees . Atatürk University Journal of Economic and Administrative Sciences, 30(5), 1399-1414. Erdem, C. (2017). Instructıonal Problems Experıenced By Prımary School Teachers Who Have Refugee Students In Theır Classes And Theır Solutıons For Problems, Journal of Medeniyet Educational Research, 1(1), 26-42. Filiz, S. B., & Yıldırım, N. (2019). Analysis of Secondary School Turkish Course Curriculum Outcomes According to the Revised Bloom's Taxonomy]. Elementary Education Online, 18(4),1550-1573. doi:10.17051/ilkonline.2019.632521. https://doi.org/10.1177/0034523719892019 https://data2.unhcr.org/en/documents/download/42946 Yeliz, Bolat, International Online Journal of Education and Teaching (IOJET) 2021, 8(3), 1706-1728. 1726 Foreigners Protection Law. (2013). Retrieved from https://www.goc.gov.tr/gecici- koruma5638. Received Date: January, 19,2020 Grand National Assembly of Turkey, (2012). Investigation Report on Tent Cities sheltered by Syrian Citizens who took refuge in our country. Grand National Assembly of Turkey Presidency. Retrieved from https://www.tbmm.gov.tr/komisyon/insanhaklari/docs/2012/raporlar/28_02_2012_1.pdf Gün, M. & Baldık, Y.(2017). Under the Education Services for Syrian Refugees youth camp outside visitors in Turkey (Kayseri Example). Route Educational and Social Science Journal, 4(2), 287-299. Güngör, F. & Şenel, E.A. (2015). Teachers 'and Students' Views on the Problems Experienced in Education and Training of Foreign Primary School Students . Anadolu University Journal of Educational Science, 8(2), 124-173. doi: 10.18039/ajesi.454575 HUMAN RİGHTS WATCH, 2015, When I tried to imagine my future I can not see Nothing, the children of Syrian refugees in Turkey Obstacles to Access Training - Avoiding Being Lost Generation: Turkey, https://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/report_pdf/turkey1115tu_web.pdf ss. 16-35. Jafari, K. K., Tonğa, N. & Kışla, H. (2018). Views and Practices of Classroom Teachers Working in Classrooms with Syrian Students. Academy Journal of Educational Sciences, 2(2),134-146. doi:10.31805/acjes.479232 Karaağaç, F.C. & Güvenç, H. (2019). Educational Problems of Syrian Refugee Students Attending Official Primary Schools. OPUS International Journal of Society Studies, 11(18), 530-568. https://doi.org/10.26466/opus.530733 Karagöl, E. (2020). “Current Turkish Education Programs According to Renewed Bloom Taxonomy”. Journal of Language Education and Research, 6(1):56-71. DOI: 10.31464/jlere.666641 Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). “A Revision Of Bloom's Taxonomy: An Overview”. Theory İnto Practice, 41(4), 212-218. Levent, F. & Çayak, S. (2017). Opinions of School Administrators for the training of Syrian Students in Turkey. HAYEF Journal of Education, 14(1), 21-46. Melanlıoğlu, D. (2014). The Effect of Metacognition Strategy Training on Secondary School Students' Reading Anxiety. Education and Science, 39(176), 107-119. http://dx.doi.org/10.15390/EB.2014.3540 Miles, M. B. & Huberman, A.M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis : an expanded sourcebook. California: SAGE Publications. Moralı, G. (2018). Problems Encountered in Teaching Turkish as a Foreign Language to Syrian Refugee Children ”. OPUS International Journal of Society Studies, 8(15): 1426- 1449. https://doi.org/10.26466/opus.443945 Özbay, M. & Bahar, M. A. (2012). Advanced Reader and Metacognition Education. International Journal of Turkish Literature Culture Education, 1(1), 158-177. Özkale, U., & Yelken, T. Y. (2020). “Analysis Of Problems Encountered By İnstructors Teaching Turkish As A Foreign Language To Syrian Children and Their Opinions On Their Participation İn The Certification Program For Teaching Turkish As A Foreign Language”. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 16(1), 185-212. https://doi.org/10.17263/jlls.712698 /https://piktes.gov.tr/ Received Date: 15.10.2019 https://www.goc.gov.tr/gecici-koruma5638 https://www.goc.gov.tr/gecici-koruma5638 https://www.tbmm.gov.tr/komisyon/insanhaklari/docs/2012/raporlar/28_02_2012_1.pdf https://doi.org/10.26466/opus.530733 http://dx.doi.org/10.15390/EB.2014.3540 https://doi.org/10.26466/opus.443945 https://doi.org/10.17263/jlls.712698 https://piktes.gov.tr/ Yeliz, Bolat, International Online Journal of Education and Teaching (IOJET) 2021, 8(3), 1706-1728. 1727 Stathopoulou, M. & Dassi, P. (2020). Teaching languages to students from refugee and migrant backgrounds around Europe: Exploring difficulties and teachers’ beliefs. International Online Journal of Education and Teaching (IOJET), 7(1). 60-82. http://iojet.org/index.php/IOJET/article/view/792. Seydi, A. R. (2013). Syrian academics and Reflections on Educational Process of Conflict in Syria by the Syrian Educators of Opinion in Turkey . Süleyman Demirel University Faculty of Arts and Sciences Journal of Social Sciences, 30, 217-241. Sezgin, A. & Yolcu, T. (2016). Social Cohesion and Social Acceptance Process of International Students Coming Through Immigration. HUMANITAS - International Journal of Social Sciences, 4(7), 417-436. https://doi.org/10.20304/husbd.14985 Sönmez, V. (2001). Teacher's Handbook in Cirruculum Development. Ankara: Anı Publishing. Tunç, A. (2015). Refugees Behavior and Social Impacts: An Evaluation of the Syrians in Turkey, Turkish Journal Of TESAM Academy, 2 (2), 29-63. Ulutaş, M. & Kara, M. (2019). “Analysis of Turkish Language Curriculums’ Reading Acquisitions of Turkish Teaching Centers in Terms of Cognitive Strategies”. Journal of Language Education and Research, 5(2), 232-250. Doi: 10.31464/jlere.575801 United Nations High Commissioner for refugees (UNHCR) (2011). Ensuring Acess to Education: Operational Guidance on Refugee Protection and Solutions in Urban Areas, Geneva, http://www.unhcr.org/4ea9552f9.pdf. Received Date: 11.07.2019. UNHCR, (2013). A New Begınnıng Refugee Integration in Europe. European Refugee Fund of the European Commission. Retrieved from http://www.resettlement.eu/sites/icmc.tttp.eu/files/Emilie%20Wiinblad%20UNHCR.pdf Received Date: 15.06.2019. UNHCR, (2015), Curriculum Choices in Refugee Settings, Geneva. Retrieved from http://www.unhcr.org/560be1209.html. Received Date: 29.04.2019. UNHCR. (2019). UNHCR Türkiye İstatistikleri. Retrieved from https://www.unhcr.org/tr/unhcr-turkiye-istatistikleri. Received Date: April 20, 2020. Uzun, E. M. & Bütün, E. (2016). Teachers' Views on the Problems Encountered by Syrian Refugee Children in Preschool Education Institutions. International Journal of Early Childhood Education Studies, 1(1), 72-83. https://doi.org/10.35207/later.537817 Ünal, K., Taşkaya, S. M. & Ersoy, G. (2018). Problems Encountered by Syrian Immigrants While Learning Turkish as a Foreign Language and Solution Suggestions. Ahi Evran University Journal of Social Sciences Institute, 4(2), 134-149. https://doi.org/10.31592/aeusbed.472814 Yalın, H.İ. (2012). Instructional Technologies and Material Development. Ankara: Nobel Publishing. Yanpar Yelken, T. (2013). Instructional Technologies and Material Desing. Ankara: Anı Publishing. Yaylacı, F. G., Serpil, H. & Yaylacı, A. F. (2017). Education for Refugees and Asylum Seekers from the Perspective of Stakeholders: The Case of Eskişehir. Mediterranean Journal of Educational Research, 11(22), 101-117. Yıldırım, A. & Şimşek, H. (2016). Qualitative research methods in the social sciences. Ankara: Seçkin Publishing. http://iojet.org/index.php/IOJET/article/view/792 https://doi.org/10.20304/husbd.14985 http://www.resettlement.eu/sites/icmc.tttp.eu/files/Emilie%20Wiinblad%20UNHCR.pdf https://www.unhcr.org/tr/unhcr-turkiye-istatistikleri https://doi.org/10.35207/later.537817 https://doi.org/10.31592/aeusbed.472814 Yeliz, Bolat, International Online Journal of Education and Teaching (IOJET) 2021, 8(3), 1706-1728. 1728 Yıldız, Ö. (2013). Turkey Syrian Refugees in Camps: Issues, Prospects, Turkey and the perception of future. Journal of Sociology Research, 16(1), 140-169. Yohani, S. (2010). Nurturing hope in refugee children during early years of post-warad justment. Children and Youth Services Review, 32(6), 865-873. Doi: 10.1016 / j.childyouth.2010.02.006. Yurdakul, A. & Tok, T.N. (2018). Immigrant / Refugee Student Through the Eyes of a Teacher. Adnan Menderes University Faculty of Education Journal of Educational Sciences, 9(2), 46-58. Yüksel, S. (2007). “New Developments and Classifications in the Classification of Cognitive Field (Taxonomy)”. Turkish Journal of Educational Sciences, 5(3), 479-511.