Physics Teachers’ Views on the Content and Structure of the Physics Teaching Program

Authors

  • Fatih Çağlayan Mercan Boğaziçi University

Keywords:

Curriculum content, Curriculum structure, Science curriculum, Scientific literacy, Teacher views, Teaching programs

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to explore teachers’ views about the content and structure of the 2007 Physics Teaching Program. The participants were 39 teachers working in 27 different schools in Istanbul. The study was designed as a qualitative case study. The data were collected by conducting semi-structured interviews and were analyzed by employing the constant comparative method. The data showed that 38% of the teachers held positive dispositions towards connections of content with daily life; 74% of the teachers disliked spiral sequencing of content. The teachers raised concerns about discontinuity of content between the 9th grade, in which content is superficial, and the following grades, in which content is dense. The results suggest that context based approach to presenting physics content is appreciated by the teachers, hence, continuing the emphasis on the daily life connections can be recommended. The result simplifies a necessity to differentiate the curriculum to match different student needs and to convince teachers about the necessity of multiple goals of the curriculum.

References

Akdeniz, A.R. & Paniç, G. (2012). Yeni fizik öğretim programına ve uygulanmasına yönelik öğretmen görüsleri [Teachers' opinions about new physics education program and its implementation]. Milli Eğitim Dergisi, 196, 290-307.

Ayvacı, H. S. (2010). Fizik Öğretmenlerinin Bağlam Temelli Yaklasım Hakkındaki Görüşleri [Views of Physics Teachers About Context Based Approach], Dicle Üniversitesi Ziya Gökalp Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 15, 42-51.

Balta, N., & Eryılmaz, A. (2011). Turkish new high school physics curriculum: Teachers' views and needs. Eurasian Journal of Physics and Chemistry Education. 3(1), 72-88.

Baybars, M.G. & Kocakülah, M. S. (2009). Evaluation of grade 9 physics curriculum based on teacher’s views. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 1(1), 1121–1126. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2009.01.202

Burner, J.S. (1959).The process of education. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.

Coffey, A. & Atkinson, P. (1996). Making Sense of Qualitative Data Analysis: Complementary Strategies. Thousand Oaks CA: Sage.

Doll, R.C. (1996). Curriculum improvement: decision making and process. (9thed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

EARGED (1998). Ortaöğretim kurumları fizik programı ihtiyaç belirleme analiz raporu [Secondary institutions physics program need analysis report]. Ankara. MEB.

Ergin İ, Kandil İngeç, S., & Safak Ergin, M. (2011).Ortaöğretim 9.sınıf fizik dersi öğretim programının kazanımlar, içerik, öğrenme-öğretme süreci, ölçme değerlendirme boyutlarına iliskin öğretmen görüsleri. In 2nd International Conference on New Trends in Education and their Implications, 1476-1484. Retrieved on 05.05.2013 from http://www.iconte.org/FileUpload/ks59689/File/240._ismet.ergin.pdf.

Ergin, İ. (2013). The evaluation of the studies related to the new curriculum of physics course: the case of Turkey. Educational Research and Reviews, 8(10), 620-630.

Gee, J.P. & Green, J. (1998). Discourse analysis, learning and social practice: A methodological study. Review of Research in Education, 23, 119–169.

Glasser, B. & Strauss, A. (1967). The Discovery of Grounded Theory. Chicago: Adeline.

Goodlad, J.I. (1963). Planning and organizing for teaching. Washington, DC: National Education Association.

Goodlad, J.I. & Su, Z. (1992). Organization of the Curriculum. In Philip W. Jackson (ed.), Handbook of Research on Curriculum, 327-344. New York: MacMillan.

Guba, E. G. & Lincoln, Y. S. (1981). Effective evaluation: Improving the usefulness of evaluation results through responsive and naturalistic approaches. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Göçen, G. & Kabaran, H. (2013). Ortaöğretim 9. Sınıf Fizik Dersi Öğretim Programlarının Tarihsel Süreç içerisinde Karşılaştırmalı Olarak incelenmesi [A comparative investigation of physics teaching programs in the historical processs]. Fen Bilimleri Öğretimi Dergisi, 1(2), 147-157.

Gür, B.S., Çelik, Z. & Özoğlu, M. (2012). Policy options for Turkey: A critique of the interpretation and utilization of PISA results in Turkey. Journal of Education Policy, 27(1), 1-21.

Henson, K.T. (2005). Curriculum planning: integrating multiculturalism, constructivism, and education reform. (3rd ed). Long Grove: Waveland Press.

Karal, A. (2010). Yeni 9.sınıf fizik dersi müfredat programının fizik öğretmenleri tarafından değerlendirilmesi (Mersin ili örneği) [The evaluation of the curriculum for the new 9th grade physics lesson by the physics teachers (example of Mersin)]. Unpublished master's thesis.Gazi Üniversitesi, Ankara.

Kapucu, S. (2010). Fizik öğretim programının uygulamasında yasanan sorunlar ve çözüm önerileri, Türkiye’de Fizik Eğitimi Alanındaki Tecrübeler, Sorunlar, Çözümler ve Öneriler. 30-37. Retrieved on 15.03.2013 from http://www.ssme.metu.edu.tr/scientific_activities/9786058842007.pdf

Kapucu, S. (2012). Physics teachers' beliefs related to Turkish high school physics curriculum: a multiple case study. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. METU, Ankara.

Künbet, S. (2010). 9. ve 10. Sınıf fizik öğretim programları hakkında dershane öğretmenlerinin görüsleri [Course teachers' views on 9th and 10th grade physics curriculum]. Unpublished master's thesis. Gazi Üniversitesi, Ankara.

Lincoln, Y. S. & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Marulcu, I. & Doğan, M. (2010). Ortaöğretim fizik ders kitaplarına ve müfredatlarına Afyonkarahisar’daki öğretmen ve öğrencilerin bakısı [Physics teachers' and their students' opinions about the current physics curricula and textbooks in Afyonkarahisar]. Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 29(2), 193-209.

Ministry of National Education [MoNE] (2005). İlköğretim Fen ve teknoloji dersi öğretim programı [Elementary science and technology teaching program]. Retrieved on 10.01.2013 from http://ttkb.meb.gov.tr/program.aspx?islem=1&kno=25

MoNE (2009). MEB 2010-2014 Stratejik Planı[MoNE 2010-2014 Strategic Plan]. Retrieved on 10.01.2013 from http://sgb.meb.gov.tr/Str_yon_planlama_V2/MEBStratejikPlan.pdf

MoNE (2011). Ortaöğretim 9. Sınıf Fizik Dersi Öğretim Programı [9th grade physics teaching program]. Retrieved on 10.01.2013 from http://ttkb.meb.gov.tr/program.aspx?islem=1&kno=69

Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study: Applications in education, Revised and expanded from case study research in education. Jossey-Bass Publishers. San Francisco.

Miles, M.B. & Huberman, A.M. (1994). Qualitative Data Analysis: an Expanded Sourcebook. Thousand Oaks, Sage.

OECD (2003). PISA 2003 Assessment framework - mathematics, reading, science and problem solving knowledge and skills. Retireved on 02.01.2012 from http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/38/29/33707226.pdf

Ornstein A.C. & Hunkins, F.P. (2004). Curriculum foundations, principles and issues. (3rd Ed). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Ryder, J. & Banner, I. (2011). Multiple aims in the development of a major reform of the national curriculum for science in England. International Journal of Science Education, 33(5), 709-725.

Sadi, Ö. & Yıldız, M. (2012). Fizik öğretmenlerinin 2010-2011 öğretim döneminde ilk defa uygulanan 11. Sınıf fizik dersi müfredatına bakısı [Physics teachers opinions on new applied 11th grade physics course at 2010-2011 academic year]. Kastamonu Eğitim Dergisi, 20(3), 869-882.

Schmidt, W.H. (2004). A vision for mathematics. Educational Leadership, 61(5), 6-11.

Seidman, I. (2006). Interviewing as qualitative research: a guide for researchers in education and the social sciences. New York: Teachers College Press.

Söğüt, Ö., Söğüt, D. & Akay, H. (2010). Fizik, kimya ve biyoloji öğretim programlarının içerik öğesi bakımından değerlendirilmesi [Evaluation of physics, chemistry, and biology curriculums in point of content].SelçukÜniversitesi Ahmet Kelesoğlu Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 29, 95-112.

Strauss, A. & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Safak Ergin, M. (2010). Ortaöğretim 9. sınıf fizik dersi öğretim programına ilişkin öğretmen görüşleri [Teacher views on secondary 9th grade physics course curriculum]. Unpublished master's thesis. Gazi Üniversitesi, Ankara.

Tanuğur, B., Ogan-Bekiroğlu, F., Gürel, C., & Süzük, E. (2012). Yeni ortaöğretim fizik programının günlük hayatla ilişkilendirilmesinin öğretmen görüşlerine göre değerlendirilmesi [Teachers' views on the association of new physics curriculum with daily life]. Yalova Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 4(1), 167-187.

Tasçı, S. (2011). Fizik öğretim programının uygulamasının değerlendirilmesi [Evaluation applications of physics curriculum]. Unpublished master’s thesis. Karadeniz Teknik Üniversitesi, Trabzon.

Tortop, H.S. (2012). Fizik öğretmenlerinin yeni fizik programına uyumları: bir durum çalısması [Adaptation of physics teachers on new physics currriculum: A case study]. Adıyaman Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 5(10), 419-438.

Van Driel, J.H., Bulte, A.M. & Verloop, N. (2008). Using the curriculum emphasis concept to investigate teachers’ curricular beliefs in the context of educational reform. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 40(1), 107–122.

Yiğit, N. (2013). Ortaöğretim Fizik dersi öğretim programı uygulamada ne getirebilir? [What can secondary physics teaching program bring about in implementation]. Fen ve Fizik Eğitimi Sempozyumu, KTÜ, Trabzon.

Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research.design and methods (3rd Ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA.: Sage.

Yolbası, C. (2010). Yeni fizik öğretim programının öğretmen görüsleri doğrultusunda değerlendirilmesi [The evaluation of new physics teaching program based on teachers' views].Unpublished master's thesis. Marmara Üniversitesi, Istanbul.

Downloads

Published

02/15/2015

How to Cite

Mercan, F. Çağlayan. (2015). Physics Teachers’ Views on the Content and Structure of the Physics Teaching Program. International Journal of Physics &Amp; Chemistry Education, 7(1), 2–17. Retrieved from https://ijpce.org/index.php/IJPCE/article/view/42