Author :
Abstract
Türkiye’de Eğitim Fakültelerinin Sınıf Öğretmenliği Lisans Programında yer alan Fen ve Teknoloji Öğretimi I ve II dersleri öğretim programlarının amaçlar, içerik, öğrenme-öğretme süreci ve değerlendirme boyutlarına göre incelenmesi ve bir öğretim programı tasarısı ortaya koymak amaçlanmıştır. Durum çalışması yöntemi kullanılarak elde edilen veriler betimsel analiz ile çözümlenmiştir. 2013 yılında başlanan araştırma sürecinde Fen ve Teknoloji Öğretimi I ve II derslerine yönelik olarak herhangi bir öğretim programının var olmadığı, Sınıf Öğretmenliği Lisans Programında öğretim elemanlarınca uygulanan öğretim programının sınıf öğretmeni adaylarının gerekliliklerini tam olarak karşılayamadığı anlaşılmıştır. Bu doğrultuda araştırmacılar tarafından Sınıf Öğretmenliği Lisans Programı için bir Fen Öğretimi Dersleri Öğretim Programı Tasarısı geliştirilmiştir. Fen Öğretimi I ve II derslerine yönelik olarak Demirel’in DEPGEM modeli düzenlenerek tasarlanan öğretim programı, yapılandırmacı yaklaşımı ve öğrenci merkezli eğitimi ön plana çıkaran ilerlemecilik eğitim felsefesini temel almaktadır. Tasarlanan Fen Öğretimi Dersleri Öğretim Programı’nda bilişsel, duyuşsal ve psikomotor alanı dikkate alan 13 amaç ifadesine ve 80 öğrenme çıktısına, içerikte amaçlara uyumlu olarak 15 konu başlığına ve alt başlıklarına, öğrenme-öğretme sürecinde 17 ilkeye ve değerlendirme sürecinde 13 ilkeye yer verilmiştir.
Keywords
Abstract
The objective is to review the curricula for Science and Technology Teaching I and II courses included in the Undergraduate Programs for Primary School Teachers in Turkish Faculties of Education, with reference to their objectives, contents, learning-teaching process involved, and the assessment procedures, and to come up with a curriculum proposal for these courses. The data obtained through case study were reviewed through descriptive analysis. Through the study which commenced in 2013, it was observed that a definite curriculum did not exist with respect to Science and Technology Teaching I and II courses, and that the curricula implemented by the teaching staff as part of the Undergraduate Program for Primary School Teachers failed to meet the requirements expected of the prospective primary school teachers. In this context, the researchers developed a Curriculum Proposal for Science-Teaching Courses in the Undergraduate Program for Primary School Teachers. The curriculum designed with the implementation of Demirel's DEPGEM model, for Science-Teaching I and II courses is based on a progressive education philosophy emphasizing a constructivist approach and student-centric education. The Science-Teaching Curriculum thus designed entails the statement of 13 objectives and 80 learning outcomes with reference to cognitive, affective, and psycho-motor aspects, as well as 15 topics and their sub-headings in line with the objectives, along with 17 principles regarding the learning-teaching process and 13 principles regarding the assessment process.
Keywords
- The identification of requirements can be considered as the most time-consuming aspect of research, where, nonetheless, comprehensive findings are reached. The research sought to identify the requirements by employing a democratic perspective among the alternative perspectives to identifying requirements for the Science Teaching Curriculum proposal. The work on the identification of requirements commenced in the academic year 2013-2014, and were completed in 2014-2015. Within the framework of requirement identification efforts, literature survey and document review were carried out first, followed by observations and interviews to gather research data. The data was supported further with the researcher's journal.
- The document review efforts focused first on the web site of the Council of Higher Education (YÖK). The latest updates noted by YÖK led the researchers to the Teacher Training Undergraduate Programs of the Faculties of Education. The review of the pages presenting such programs, in turn, led to the conclusion that they contained only the names, descriptions, and contents of the courses. Furthermore, it was observed that a total of 73 universities offered Primary School Teacher Training Undergraduate Programs in their Faculties of Education during the academic year 2014-2015 (ÖSYM, 2014). In this context, the web pages regarding the Primary School Teacher Training Undergraduate Programs of YÖK as well as the Faculties of Education of the said set of universities were reviewed. Out of 73 state and private universities 49 were found to provide information on the aspects of a curriculum such as the objectives and contents of the Science and Technology Teaching I and II courses within the framework of the Primary School Teacher Training Undergraduate Programs offered by their Faculties of Education, whereas 24 universities did not. One can confidently state that a curriculum document providing an exhaustive description of the curricula for the Science and Technology Teaching I and II courses offered within the framework of the Primary School Teacher Training Undergraduate Programs, covering all four fundamental aspects of a curriculum, namely objectives, contents, learning-teaching process, and evaluation.
- During the efforts to identify requirements, the researcher made observations on the Science and Technology Teaching I and II as well as Science and Technology Laboratory Practices II courses offered to prospective primary school teachers at two distinct universities in the academic year 2013-2014. The lecturers offering the course during the observation process were found to have employed the curricula themselves had designed and published on the web sites of the universities. In a nutshell, the Primary School Teacher Training Undergraduate Programs offered by the Faculties of Education were found to be based on the curricula developed by the lecturers with reference to their own experiences and qualifications, whereas the list of contents published by YÖK and the teacher qualifications published by the Ministry of Education were found to be the only documents or records regarding the curricula. 3.Identification of Potential General Objectives
- Conclusions and Recommendations The Science and Technology Teaching I and II courses currently offered as part of the Primary School Teacher Training Undergraduate Programs by Faculties of Education in Turkey are understood not to be based on a specific curriculum. In this context, a Science Teaching Courses Curriculum proposal was developed, covering the courses included in the said undergraduate program. The program model applied for the Science Teaching Courses Curriculum proposal was designed as a flexible construct comprised of eleven stages, taking into account the stages the "Educational Curriculum Development Model (DEPGEM)" by Demirel; it is based on the fundamental elements of a curriculum comprised of objectives, content, learning-teaching process, and evaluation in line with the requirements identified. DEPGEM, in turn, is comprised of five sections –planning of curriculum development efforts, preparation of the draft curriculum or the commencement of the curriculum development activities, pilottrials of the curriculum at schools, implementation of the curriculum and a general assessment of the implementation– divided into fifteen stages. While DEPGEM was observed to commence with the process with the identification of needs as was the case with Taba-Tyler curriculum development model. The latter model is understood to help in the identification of requirements by employing five distinct resources. The model developed with a focus on the process for higher education employed a pragmatic philosophy and a constructivist approach, but tried, in contrast to DEPGEM, to achieve a cyclical nature for the curriculum, providing more room for filters and feedback-revisions. When compared against the curriculum development perspectives in the literature, the theoretical foundations of the curriculum development models in place in Turkey exhibit a more traditionalist and behaviorist perspective focusing on issue areas, academic, systematic, cognitive, transmitting and productbased curricula approaches based on planning, a systematic attitude, objectivity, rationality, objective and issue-area as well as specific elements based program outlooks and curriculum development insights (İşeri, 2015, p. 1420). The program model entailed in the present study, in turn, employs a inductive approach starting with the identification of requirements, exhibits a cyclical nature with feedback and revisions, and focuses on the learner rather than the issue area, and hence stands in contrast to the dominant paradigm in Turkey. The curriculum proposal thus prepared can be called a constructivist approach running in parallel to the primary school Science curriculum, and can be commended for the student-centric, and objective and process based approaches it exhibits. Recent years saw a focus on the constructivist approach requiring the structuring of all elements of the curriculum, based on new values regarding learning, putting to the forefront the process to enable best learning by the individual, and how to arrange the learning experiences for this purpose (EARGED, 2007, pp. 36-37). The constructivist approach regarding the program development process emphasize the need for the use of a rich learning environment and a wealth of materials, to render the information meaningful and useful through the learning-teaching process (Erdem and Demirel, 2002, pp. 8687).
- The proposal underlines the science literacy skills on part of the prospective teachers, and employs pragmatic philosophy in relation to the aim of raising individuals who can learn through experience. Alongside the pragmatic philosophy, other philosophical perspectives will also be taken into consideration through the process. One can argue that White's (1988 quoted by Demirel, 1992) views regarding the British education system runs in parallel to the philosophy of the program. According to white, the curriculum development activities reflect value analyses and ideologies, whereas their philosophical foundations extend to classical humanism, progressivism, and re-constructionism (Demirel, 1992, p. 35).
- The Science Teaching Courses Curriculum proposal entails 13 objective statements and 80 learning outcomes taking into account cognitive as well as affective and psychomotor (kinesthetic) aspects. These objectives were then categorized under three sections as "Shared Skills for Science Teaching I and II Courses", "Science Teaching I", and "Science Teaching II course". It can be said that the statements of purpose and learning outcomes are also overlapped with the curriculum of the science course published in 2018. Minor changes in the design may be made, such as emphasizing engineering and design skills expressions. Even though primary and secondary school science curriculum published in 2018 includes the purpose of taking into consideration the skills indicated in this draft for the addition of engineering and design skills (MEB, 2018) to the skills mentioned in 2013.
- opportunities at Faculties of Education, to render it effective. In 2018, the curriculum of the 25 undergraduate programs under the coordination of Council of Higher Education was updated (YÖK, 2018). The content of “Basic Science in Primary School” and “Science Teaching” courses and the contents of “Science and Technology Teaching I and II” courses are similar in Primary School Undergraduate Programs, which are put into practice as of 2018-2019 academic year. *Although the curriculum design is not fully covered in this study, the general outline of the curriculum design is presented. It is considered that the design will be an example for the instructors.
- REFERENCES Colburn, A. (2003). The Lingo of Learning 88 Education Terms Every Science Teacher Should Know. Virginia: National Science Teachers Association, NSTA Press. Correia, A. P. (2014). Creating curriculum within the context of an enterprise. In M. Gosper ve D. Ifenthaler. (Eds.). Curriculum Models for the 21st Century (p.113-134). New York: Springer Science+Business Media. Çelik, F. (2006). Türk eğitim sisteminde hedefler ve hedef belirlemede yeni yönelimler. Burdur Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 6 (11), 1-15. Davey, L. (1991). The application of case study evaluations. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 2 (9). (T. Gökçek, çev.). Durum çalışması değerlendirmelerinin uygulaması. İlköğretim Online, 8 (2). ç:1-3, Demirel, Ö. (1992). Türkiye’de program geliştirme uygulamaları. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 7, 27-43. Demirel, Ö. (2014). Eğitimde Program Geliştirme (21. bs.). Ankara: Pegem Akademi. Dibisa, S. G. (2010). Practice of curriculum development for primary education In Oromia Regional State. Yayımlanmamış yüksek lisans tezi, Addis Ababa University, Retrieved from, http://etd.aau.edu.et/dspace/ bitstream/123456789/2867/1/Sefera%20Thisis.pdf Driel, J. H. ve Abell, S. K. (2010). Promoting high quality in undergraduate university science teaching, M. F. Taşar ve G. Çakmakcı. (Eds.). Contemporary Science Education Research: Teaching (p.177-178). Ankara: Pegem Akademi. EARGED. (2007). Öğrenci Merkezli Eğitim Uygulama Modeli. Ankara: Milli Eğitim Basımevi. Retrieved from, http://www.aoa.edu.tr/ozder/files/ogrenci_merkezli_egitim_uygulama_modeli.pdf Eötvös Loránd University EDiTE team. (2014). Teacher Education And Teacher Education Policies In The European Union. Budapest Final Confrence and Seminar. 3rd-4rd July 2014. Erdem, E. ve Demirel, Ö. (2002). Program geliştirmede yapılandırmacılık yaklaşımı. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 23, 81-87. Ishemo, R., Kira, E. ve Komba, S. (2012). Curriculum Development and Evaluation: A handbook for universty student teachers. Saarbrücken: Lap Lambert Academic Pulishing. İşeri, A. (2015). Türkiye’de uygulanan program geliştirme modellerinin Eleştirel Teori açısından ideoloji sorunu. International Journal of Human Sciences, 12(1), 1408-1439. doi: 10.14687/ijhs.v12i1.3053. Kavak, Y., Aydın, A. ve Akbaba Altun, S. (2007). Öğretmen Yetiştirme ve Eğitim Fakülteleri (1982-2007): Öğretmenin Üniversitede Yetiştirilmesinin Değerlendirilmesi. Ankara: Meteksan A.Ş. Lunenberg, F. C. (2011a). Curriculum development: Deductive models. Schooling, 2 (1), 1-7. Lunenberg, F. C. (2011b). Curriculum development: Inductive models. Schooling, 2 (1), 1-8. MEB. (2005). İlköğretim Fen ve Teknoloji Dersi (6, 7 ve 8. Sınıflar) Öğretim Programı ve Kılavuzu. Ankara: Devlet Kitapları Müdürlüğü. MEB. (2013). İlköğretim Kurumları (İlkokullar ve Ortaokullar) Fen Bilimleri Dersi (3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ve 8. Sınıflar) Öğretim Programı. Ankara. MEB. (2018). Fen Bilimleri Dersi Öğretim Programı (İlkokul ve Ortaokul 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ve 8. Sınıflar). Ankara. Oliva, P. F. (2005). Developing the Curriculum (6th ed.). Boston: Pearson Education, Inc. Ornstein, A. C. ve Hunkins, F. P. (2009). Curriculum: Foundations, Principles, and Issues (5th ed.). United States of America: Pearson Education. ÖSYM. (2014). Öğrenci Seçme ve Yerleştirme Sistemi (ÖSYS) Yükseköğretim Programları ve Kontenjanları Kılavuzu. Retrieved from, http://dokuman.osym.gov.tr/pdfdokuman/2014/OSYS/2014-OSYSKONTKILAVUZU 23062014.pdf Özcan, M. (2011). Bilgi Çağında Öğretmen Eğitimi, Nitelikleri ve Gücü: Bir Reform Önerisi (1.bs.). Ankara: Önka Kağıt Ürünleri Matbaa Sanayi Ltd. Şti. Sezgin, S. İ. (2000). Mesleki ve Teknik Eğitimde Program Geliştirme (4. bs.). Ankara: Nobel Yayın Dağıtım. Türkmen, L. (2007). The history of Development of Turkish Elementary Teacher Education and the place of science courses in curriculum. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 3 (4), 327341. Tyler, R. W. (2013). Basic Principles of Curriculum and Instruction. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Yin, R. K. (2012). Applications of Case Study Research (3rd ed.). United States of America: Sage Publications. YÖK. (2018). Sınıf öğretmenliği lisans programı. Retrieved from, http://www.yok.gov.tr/documents/10279/ 41805112/Sinif_Ogretmenligi_Lisans_Programi.pdf
