An Investigation of Teacher Response to National Science Curriculum Reforms in Turkey

Rıdvan Elmas; Nilay Öztürk; Meltem Irmak; William W. Cobern

doi:10.51724/ijpce.v6i1.53

Authors

Rıdvan Elmas Afyon Kocatepe University https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7769-2525
Nilay Öztürk Middle East Technical University
Meltem Irmak Gazi University https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3233-3267
William W. Cobern Western Michigan University https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0219-203X

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.51724/ijpce.v6i1.53

Keywords:

Elementary Science and Technology Curriculum, Curriculum Reform, Elementary School Science Teacher, School Type

Abstract

Major science education curriculum reform is taking place in Turkey involving a substantial break with past science curricula. Such reform has significant implications for teachers but to date there has been little research on teacher response to these reforms. The purpose of this qualitative study was to investigate the impact on the teachers who are charged with implementing reforms. Semi-structured interviews with 18 elementary science teachers were conducted and additional observational data was recorded. The interview schedule comprised 23 questions in 9 themes. According to the data analysis, the main problem for teachers is that curriculum reforms involve overly big innovative ideas within unrealistically short timelines and with limited economic investment in human resources and supporting materials. In addition, there is a lack of organization and coherence between system stakeholders. Another drawback is the very centralized educational system and the idea that change can be driven from the top down.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Aikenhead, G.S. (2006). Science education for everyday life: Evidence-based practice. New York: Teachers College Press.

Aydin, S. & Cakiroglu, J. (2010). Teachers’ views related to the new science and technology curriculum: Ankara case, Ilkogretim Online, 9(1), 301-315.

Balta, N., & Eryilmaz, A. (2010). Turkish New High School Physics Curriculum: Teachers' Views and Needs. Eurasian Journal of Physics and Chemistry Education, 1(1), 72-88.

Bogdan, R. & Biklen, S. K. (2007). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theories and methods. London: Pearson Education Inc.

Bulus Kirikkaya, E. (2009). İlkogretim Okullarindaki Fen Ogretmenlerinin Fen ve Teknoloji Programina Iliskin Gorusleri. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 6(1), 133-148.

Bybee, R.W. & Ben-Zvi, N. (2003). Science curriculum: Transforming goals to practices. In B. Fraser & K. Tobin (Eds.), International handbook of science education (pp. 487–498). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Press.

Coenders, F., Terlouw, C. & Dijkstra, S. (2008). Assessing teachers’ beliefs to facilitate the transition to a new chemistry curriculum: What do the teachers want? Journal of Science Teacher Education, 19, 317-335.

Crawford, B. (2000). Embracing the essence of inquiry: New roles for science teachers. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(9), 916–937.

Davis, K. (2002). Change is hard: What science teachers are telling us about reform and teacher learning of innovative practices. Science Education, 87(1), 3 - 30.

De Jong, O., Veal, W.R. & van Driel J.H. (2002). Exploring chemistry teachers’ knowledge base. In J.K. Gilbert, O. De Jong, R. Justi, D.F. Treagust, & J.H. Van Driel (Eds.), Chemical education: Towards research-based practice (pp. 369–390). Dordrecht: Kluwer.

Demirbas, M. & Yagbasan, R. (2005). Türkiye’de etkili fen öğretimi için ilköğretim kurumlarına yönelik olarak gerçekleştirilen program geliştirme çalışmalarının analizi ve karşılaşılan problemlere yönelik çözüm önerileri. Gazi Üniversitesi Kırşehir Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 6(2), 53-67. [in Turkish]

Education Reform Initiative (ERI) (2005). Yeni öğretim programlarını inceleme ve değerlendirme raporu. İstanbul: Sabancı University Press. [in Turkish]

Elmas, R. & Geban, O. (2012). 21. Yüzyıl Öğretmenleri için Web 2.0 Araçları [Web 2.0 tools for 21st century teachers], International Online Journal of Educational Sciences, 4(1), 243-254.

Elmas, R., Demirdogen, B. & Geban, O. (2011). Preservice chemistry teachers’ images about science teaching in their future classrooms, Hacettepe University Journal of Education, 40, 164-175.

Ercan, F. & Altun, S. A. (2005). İlköğretim fen ve teknoloji dersi 4. ve 5. sınıflar öğretim programına ilişkin öğretmen görüşleri. Yeni İlköğretim Programlarını Değerlendirme Sempozyumu Bildiri Kitabi, (pp. 311-319). Ankara. [in Turkish]

Erdogan, M. (2007). Yeni geliştirilen dördüncü ve besinci sınıf fen ve teknoloji dersi öğretim programının analizi: Nitel bir çalışma. Türk Eğitim Bilimleri Dergisi, 5(2), 221-254. [in Turkish]

Felder, R. M., & Brent, R. (1996). Navigating the bumpy road to student-centered instruction. College Teaching, 44(2), 43–48.

Fernandez, T., Ritchie, G. & Barker, M (2008). A sociocultural analysis of mandated curriculum change: the implementation of a new senior physics curriculum in New Zealand schools. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 40(2), 187-213.

Gecer, A. & Ozel, R. (2012). İlköğretim Fen ve Teknoloji Dersi Öğretmenlerinin Öğrenme-Öğretme Surecinde Yaşadıkları Sorunlar. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Bilimleri, 12(3), 2237-2261. [in Turkish]

Gokmenoglu, T., & Eret, E. (2011). Curriculum development in Turkey from the viewpoints of research assistants of curriculum and instruction department. Elementary Education Online, 10(2), 667-681.

Gomleksiz, M. N., & Bulut, I. (2007). Yeni fen ve teknoloji dersi öğretim programının uygulamadaki etkililiğinin değerlendirilmesi. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 32, 76-88. [in Turkish]

Gozutok, F. D., Akgun, O. E., & Karacaoglu, O. C. (2005). İlköğretim programlarının öğretmen yeterlikleri açısından değerlendirilmesi. Yeni İlköğretim Programlarını Değerlendirme Sempozyumu Bildiri Kitabi, (pp. 17-40). Ankara. [in Turkish]

Gozutok, F.D. (2003). Curriculum development in Turkey: In W.F. Pinar (Eds.), International Handbook of Curriculum Research, (pp. 607-622). London: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Gray, B. V. (1999). Science education in the developing world: Issues and considerations. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36 (3), 261-268.

Guo, C. J. (2007). Issues in Science Learning: An international Perspective. In Abell, S. K., & Lederman, N. G. (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Science Education (pp. 227-256). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Guskey, T. R. (2002). Professional development and teacher change. Teachers and Teaching: theory and practice, 8(3/4), 381-391.

Guven, S. (2008). Sınıf öğretmenlerinin yeni ilköğretim ders programlarının uygulanmasına ilişkin görüşleri. Milli Eğitim Dergisi, 177, (224-236). [in Turkish]

Haney, J. J., & McArthur, J. (2002). Four case studies of prospective science teachers’ beliefs concerning constructivist teaching practices. Science Education, 86, 783-802.

Hansen, K. H., & Olson, J. (1996). How teachers construe curriculum integration: The Science, Technology, Society (STS) movement as bildung. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 28(6), 669–682.

Henke, R. R., Chen, X., & Goldman, G. (1999). What happens in classrooms? Instructional practices in elementary and secondary schools, 1994–95. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.

Jaworski, B. (1998). Mathematics teacher research: Process, practice and the development of teaching. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 1, 3-31.

Jaworski, B. (2003). Research practice into/influencing mathematics teaching and learning development: Towards a theoretical framework based on co-learning partnerships. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 54(2/3), 249-282.

Jenkins, E.W. (2002). Linking school science education with action. In W.M. Roth & J. Desautels (Eds.), Science education as/for sociopolitical action. New York: Peter Lang.

Jones, M. G., Jones, B. D., Hardin, B., Chapman, L., & Yarbrough, T. (1999). The impact of high-stakes testing on teachers and students in North Carolina. The Phi Delta Kappan, 81(3), 199-203.

Kaufman, K. J. (2013). 21 Ways to 21st Century Skills: Why Students Need Them and Ideas for Practical Implementation. Kappa Delta Pi Record, 49(2), 78-83.

Krogh, L. B., & Thomsen, P. V. (2005). Studying students’ attitudes towards science from a cultural perspective but with a quantitative methodology: Border crossing into the physics classroom. International Journal of Science Education, 27(3), 281-302.

Laplante, B. (1997). Teachers’ beliefs and instructional strategies in science: Pushing analysis further. Science Education, 81, 277–294.

Lortie, D. C. (1975) School teacher: A sociological study. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Loucks-Horsley, S., Hewson, P. W., Love, N., & Stiles, K. E. (1998). Designing professional development for teachers of science and mathematics. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Luft, J.A., Roehrig, G.H., & Patterson, N.C. (2003). Contrasting landscapes: A comparison of the impact of different induction programs on beginning secondary science teachers’ practices, beliefs, and experiences. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40, 77–97.

Marshall, G. B. & Rossman, C. (2006). Designing Qualitative Research. London: Sage.

Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative Data Analysis. Thousands Oaks: Sage

MoNE, Ministry of National Education, (2004). İlköğretim fen ve teknoloji dersi (4. ve 5. sınıflar) öğretim programı. Talim ve Terbiye Kurulu Başkanlığı, Ankara. [in Turkish]

MoNE, Ministry of National Education, (2006). İlköğretim fen ve teknoloji dersi (6, 7 ve 8. siniflar) öğretim programı. Talim ve Terbiye Kurulu Başkanlığı, Ankara. [in Turkish]

MoNE, Ministry of National Education, (2011a). Ortaöğretim biyoloji dersi öğretim programı (9, 10, 11, ve 12. sınıflar). Talim ve Terbiye Kurulu Baskanligi, Ankara. [in Turkish]

MoNE, Ministry of National Education, (2011b). Ortaöğretim fizik dersi öğretim programı (9, 10, 11, ve 12. sınıflar). Talim ve Terbiye Kurulu Başkanlığı, Ankara. [in Turkish]

MoNE, Ministry of National Education, (2011c). Ortaöğretim kimya dersi öğretim programı (9, 10, 11, ve 12. sınıflar). Talim ve Terbiye Kurulu Başkanlığı, Ankara. [in Turkish]

MoNE, Ministry of National Education, (2013). Fen bilimleri dersi öğretim programı (3, 4, 5, 6, 7, ve 8. sınıflar). Talim ve Terbiye Kurulu Başkanlığı, Ankara. [in Turkish]

O’Brien, R. H. & Pianta, R. C. (2010). Public and private schools: Do classroom processes vary by school type?, The Elementary School Journal, 110(3), 409-419.

OECD (2011). PISA in Focus. Private schools: Who benefits? Paris: OECD.

Paik, S., Zhang, M., Lundeberg, M. A., Eberhardt, J., Shin, T. S. & Zhang, T. (2011). Supporting science teachers in alignment with state curriculum standards through professional development: Teachers’ preparedness, expectations, and their fulfillment. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 20, 422-434, doi: 10.1007/s10956-011-9308-1.

Pajares, M. F. (1992). Teachers’ beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up a messy construct. Review of Educational Research, 62(3), 307-332.

Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative Research & Evaluation Methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Petrosino, J. A. (2004). Integrating curriculum, instruction, and assessment in Project-based instruction: A case study of an experienced teacher. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 13(4), 447-460.

Roehrig, G. H. & Luft J. A. (2004). Constraints experienced by beginning secondary science teachers in implementing scientific inquiry lessons. International Journal of Science Education, 26(1), 3-24.

Roehrig, G. H., Kruse, R. A., & Kern, A. (2007) Teacher and school characteristics and their influence on curriculum implementation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(7), 883-907.

Ross, J. A., McDougall, D., & Hogaboam-Gray, A. (2002).Research on reform in mathematics education, 1993-2000, Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 48(2), 122-138.

Savasci, F. & Berlin, D. F. (2012). Science teacher beliefs and classroom practice related to constructivism in different school settings. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 23, 65–86.

Scott, F. B. (1994). Integrating curriculum implementation and staff development. The Clearing House, 67(3) 157-160.

Siry, C. & Kremer, I. (2011). Children explain the rainbow: Using young children’s ideas to guide science curricula. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 20, 643-655, doi: 10.1007/s10956-011-9320-5.

Smith, L. K. & Southerland, S. A. (2007). Reforming practice or modifying reforms?: Elementary teachers’ response to the tools of reform. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(3), 396-423.

Sonmezer, M. G. & Eryaman, M. Y. (2008). A comparative analysis of job satisfaction levels of public and private school teachers. Journal of Theory and Practice in Education, 4(2), 189-212.

Taneri, O. P. & Engin-Demir, C. (2011). Quality of education in rural schools: A needs assessment study (Ankara Kalecik Sample), International Online Journal of Educational Sciences, 3(1), 91-112.

Tobin K. (2003). Issues and Trends in the Teaching of Science. In B. Fraser & K. Tobin (Eds.), International Handbook of Science Education (pp. 129-151). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Press.

Troudi, S. & Alwan, F. (2010). Teachers’ feelings during curriculum change in the United Arab Emirates: Opening Pandora’s box. Teacher Development, 14(1), 107-121.

Tutkun, O. F., & Aksoyalp, Y. (2010). 21. Yuzyilda Ogretmen Yetistirme Egitim Programinin Boyutlari. Selcuk Universitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitusu Dergisi, 24, 361-370.

Unal, F., & Unal, M. (2010). Türkiye’de ortaöğretim müfredatlarının gelişimi. Sosyal Bilimler Araştırmaları Dergisi, 1, 110-125. [in Turkish]

Van den Akker, J. (2003). The science curriculum: Between ideals and outcomes. In B. Fraser & K. Tobin (Eds.), International Handbook of Science Education (pp. 421–447). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Press.

Van den Akker, J. (2004). Curriculum perspectives: An introduction. In J. van den Akker, W. Kuiper & U. Hameyer (Eds.). Curriculum landscape and trends. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Voogt, J., Erstad, O., Dede, C., & Mishra, P. (2013). Challenges to learning and schooling in the digital networked world of the 21st century. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 29(5), 403–413.

Ward, B. A. & Tikinoff, W. J. (1982) Collaborative Research: Implications of research for practice. Washington, DC, National Institute of Education.

Yerrick, R., Parke, H., & Nugent, J. (1997). Struggling to promote deeply rooted change: The‘‘filtering effect’’ of teachers’ beliefs on understanding transformational views of teaching science. Science Education, 81, 137–159.

Yıldırım, A. & Simsek, H. (2008). Sosyal Bilimlerde Nitel Araştırma Yöntemleri. Ankara: SeçkinYayıncılık. [in Turkish]