Research Article
BibTex RIS Cite

Examining the 2018 Science Curriculum in the Context of the Basic Elements of the Curricula

Year 2024, Volume: 8 Issue: 17, 105 - 112, 29.04.2024

İbrahim Bozan

Abstract

The research aims to examine the science curriculum implemented in 2018 in terms of the four basic elements of the curriculum. In line with this purpose, 2018 science curriculum were evaluated in terms of objectives, content, learning-teaching process and measurement-evaluation elements. In this qualitative study, document analysis was used as one of the data collection methods. The data obtained in line with the research questions were presented under the themes of objectives, content, learning-teaching process and measurement-evaluation, which are the basic elements of curricula. According to the results of the study, it can be said that the 2018 curriculum is similar in approach to the previous curriculum. It is seen that the innovative thinking skill, which was not included in the old curriculums, is included in the 2018 curriculum. In the 2018 science curriculum, there were no examples of activities and explanations were given for some learning outcomes, while no explanation was given for others. It was observed that the 2018 curriculum was weaker than the previous curriculum in terms of measurement-evaluation dimension. It can be stated that the previous curriculum had a richer and more useful content for teachers.

Keywords

Curriculum elements Curriculum evaluation science curriculum 2018 curriculum

References

  • Akınoğlu, O. (2005). Psychological foundations of applied and changing education programs in Turkey. Marmara University Journal of Educational Sciences, 22(22), 31-45.
  • Albuz, A., & Demirci, B. (2018). A comparative theoretical framework analysis on the music course 2006 teaching program in primary education and 2018 teaching program in primary and secondary education. Journal of the Fine Arts Institute, (41), 86-95.
  • Arı, G. (2016). A critical view of acquisitions in oral communication learning areas of Turkish curriculum (1-8th grades). Sakarya University Journal of Education, 6(2), 235-253.
  • Ataş, R. & Bümen, N. T. (2023). An analysis of curriculum design principles in science curricula: 2005, 2013, 2018. Educational Academic Research, (49) , 91-107 .
  • Babadoğan, C. (1996). The Reflection of modern (prescriptive) instructional strategies on teaching-learning procedures. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Ankara University.
  • Bağcı Ayrancı, B., & Mutlu, H. H. (2017). Comparison of 2006, 2015 and 2017 Turkish lesson teaching programs. International Journal of Language Academy, 5(7), 119-130.
  • Gelen, İ., & Beyazıt, N. (2007). Comparing perceptions of the new primary school curriculum with the former curriculum. Educational Administration: Theory and Practice, 51(51), 457-476.
  • Bowen, G. A. (2009). Document analysis as a qualitative research method. Qualitative Research Journal, 9(2), 27-40. DOI 10.3316/QRJ0902027.
  • Caswell, H. L., & Campbell, D. S. (1937). Reading in curriculum development. AJN The American Journal of Nursing, 37(10), 1183.
  • Demirel, Ö. (2012). Eğitimde Program Geliştirme. (18. Baskı). Ankara: PegemA Yayıncılık.
  • Demirel, O. (2012). Curriculum development in education (18th ed.). Pegem Akademi Publishing.
  • Demirel, O. (2013) Curriculum development in education from theory to practice (20th ed.). Pegem Akademi Publishing.
  • Erden, M. (1998). Program evaluation in education (3rd ed.). Anı Publications.
  • Ertürk, S. (1984). Curriculum development in education. Hacettepe University Press.
  • Eskicumalı, A., Demirtaş, Z., Gür Erdoğan, D., & Arslan, S. (2014). Comparison of science and technology curriculum and renewed science curriculum. International Journal of Human Sciences, 11(1), 1077-1094.
  • Girgin, Y. (2011). Comparative progress level of republican era (1929-1930, 1949, 1981) secondary school Turkish teaching programs in terms of content, general and specific aims. Adnan Menderes University Journal of Educational Sciences, 2 (1), 11-26, http://dergi.adu.edu.tr/egitimbilimleri/
  • Hançerlioğlu, O. (2000). Encyclopedia of philosophy: Concepts and currents. Remzi Bookstore.
  • Karatay, R., Timur, S. ve Timur, B. (2013). Comparison of 2005 and 2013 science course curricula. Adiyaman University Journal of Social Sciences, 6(15), 233-264.
  • Küçükahmet, L. (2009). Teaching principles and methods (23rd ed.). Nobel Publications.
  • MEB (2005). Elementary science and technology curriculum and guide. Board of Education and Discipline, Directorate of State Books Printing House.
  • MEB (2018). Elementary science course curriculum and guide. Board of Education and Discipline, Directorate of State Books Printing House.
  • Merriam, S. B. (2013). Qualitative research. A guide to design and implementation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
  • Miles, M. B., & Hubermann, M. A. (1994). Qualitative analysis: An expand source book. (2nd. ed.) Sage Publications.
  • Nilsen, S. (2017). Special education and general education–coordinated or separated? A study of curriculum planning for pupils with special educational needs. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 21(2), 205-217. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2016.1193564
  • Oğuz, A., & Akhun, B. (2015). A comparative study of two national curricula: 1992 art-craft and 2006 visual arts curricula. Pamukkale University Journal Of Education, 38, 207-218.
  • Öksüz, C. (2015). Primary school mathematics curricula evaluation scale. Pamukkale University Journal of Education, 37, 21- 36.
  • Öncül, R. (2000). Dictionary of Education and Educational Sciences. Ministry of National Education Publishing House.
  • Patton, M, Q. (2015). Nitel araştırma ve değerlendirme yöntemleri. (Çev. M.Bütün, S. B. Demir). Ankara: Pegem Akademi
  • Sağlamöz, F. & Soysal, Y. (2021). Exploration of 2018 primary and elementary sciences course teaching programs outcomes according to the revised bloom taxonomy. Istanbul Aydin University Journal of Education, 7 (1) , 111-145 .
  • Selvi, H. (2018). Primary education social studies course comparison of old (2005) and new (2018) teaching programs (Unpublished master's thesis). Kütahya Dumlupınar University.
  • Sönmez, V., & Alacapınar, F. G. (2015). Program evaluation in education with examples. Anı Publications.
  • Tay, B., & Baş, M. (2015). Comparison of 2009 and 2015 life sciences course curricula. Bayburt University Journal of Education, 10(2), 341-374.
  • Toma, R. B., & Meneses Villagrá, J. Á. (2019). Validation of the single-items spanish-school science attitude survey (s-ssas) for elementary education. PLoS ONE, 14(1), 1-18. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0209027
  • Varış, F. (1996). Curriculum development in education: Theory and techniques. Alkım Publications.
  • Yalçın, N., Bilican, S., Kezer, F., & Yalçın, Ö. (2009, May 1-3). Nature of articles at Hacettepe University: Content analysis (Paper presentation). 1st International Turkey Educational Research Congress, Çanakkale, Turkey.
  • Yıldırım, A., & Şimşek, H. (2016). Qualitative research methods in the social sciences. (10th ed.). Seçkin Publications.

Examining the 2018 Science Curriculum in the Context of the Basic Elements of the Curricula

Year 2024, Volume: 8 Issue: 17, 105 - 112, 29.04.2024

İbrahim Bozan

Abstract

The research aims to examine the science curriculum implemented in 2018 in terms of the four basic elements of the curriculum. In line with this purpose, 2018 science curriculum were evaluated in terms of objectives, content, learning-teaching process and measurement-evaluation elements. In this qualitative study, document analysis was used as one of the data collection methods. The data obtained in line with the research questions were presented under the themes of objectives, content, learning-teaching process and measurement-evaluation, which are the basic elements of curricula. According to the results of the study, it can be said that the 2018 curriculum is similar in approach to the previous curriculum. It is seen that the innovative thinking skill, which was not included in the old curriculums, is included in the 2018 curriculum. In the 2018 science curriculum, there were no examples of activities and explanations were given for some learning outcomes, while no explanation was given for others. It was observed that the 2018 curriculum was weaker than the previous curriculum in terms of measurement-evaluation dimension. It can be stated that the previous curriculum had a richer and more useful content for teachers.

Keywords

Curriculum elements curriculum evaluation science curriculum 2018 curriculum.

References

  • Akınoğlu, O. (2005). Psychological foundations of applied and changing education programs in Turkey. Marmara University Journal of Educational Sciences, 22(22), 31-45.
  • Albuz, A., & Demirci, B. (2018). A comparative theoretical framework analysis on the music course 2006 teaching program in primary education and 2018 teaching program in primary and secondary education. Journal of the Fine Arts Institute, (41), 86-95.
  • Arı, G. (2016). A critical view of acquisitions in oral communication learning areas of Turkish curriculum (1-8th grades). Sakarya University Journal of Education, 6(2), 235-253.
  • Ataş, R. & Bümen, N. T. (2023). An analysis of curriculum design principles in science curricula: 2005, 2013, 2018. Educational Academic Research, (49) , 91-107 .
  • Babadoğan, C. (1996). The Reflection of modern (prescriptive) instructional strategies on teaching-learning procedures. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Ankara University.
  • Bağcı Ayrancı, B., & Mutlu, H. H. (2017). Comparison of 2006, 2015 and 2017 Turkish lesson teaching programs. International Journal of Language Academy, 5(7), 119-130.
  • Gelen, İ., & Beyazıt, N. (2007). Comparing perceptions of the new primary school curriculum with the former curriculum. Educational Administration: Theory and Practice, 51(51), 457-476.
  • Bowen, G. A. (2009). Document analysis as a qualitative research method. Qualitative Research Journal, 9(2), 27-40. DOI 10.3316/QRJ0902027.
  • Caswell, H. L., & Campbell, D. S. (1937). Reading in curriculum development. AJN The American Journal of Nursing, 37(10), 1183.
  • Demirel, Ö. (2012). Eğitimde Program Geliştirme. (18. Baskı). Ankara: PegemA Yayıncılık.
  • Demirel, O. (2012). Curriculum development in education (18th ed.). Pegem Akademi Publishing.
  • Demirel, O. (2013) Curriculum development in education from theory to practice (20th ed.). Pegem Akademi Publishing.
  • Erden, M. (1998). Program evaluation in education (3rd ed.). Anı Publications.
  • Ertürk, S. (1984). Curriculum development in education. Hacettepe University Press.
  • Eskicumalı, A., Demirtaş, Z., Gür Erdoğan, D., & Arslan, S. (2014). Comparison of science and technology curriculum and renewed science curriculum. International Journal of Human Sciences, 11(1), 1077-1094.
  • Girgin, Y. (2011). Comparative progress level of republican era (1929-1930, 1949, 1981) secondary school Turkish teaching programs in terms of content, general and specific aims. Adnan Menderes University Journal of Educational Sciences, 2 (1), 11-26, http://dergi.adu.edu.tr/egitimbilimleri/
  • Hançerlioğlu, O. (2000). Encyclopedia of philosophy: Concepts and currents. Remzi Bookstore.
  • Karatay, R., Timur, S. ve Timur, B. (2013). Comparison of 2005 and 2013 science course curricula. Adiyaman University Journal of Social Sciences, 6(15), 233-264.
  • Küçükahmet, L. (2009). Teaching principles and methods (23rd ed.). Nobel Publications.
  • MEB (2005). Elementary science and technology curriculum and guide. Board of Education and Discipline, Directorate of State Books Printing House.
  • MEB (2018). Elementary science course curriculum and guide. Board of Education and Discipline, Directorate of State Books Printing House.
  • Merriam, S. B. (2013). Qualitative research. A guide to design and implementation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
  • Miles, M. B., & Hubermann, M. A. (1994). Qualitative analysis: An expand source book. (2nd. ed.) Sage Publications.
  • Nilsen, S. (2017). Special education and general education–coordinated or separated? A study of curriculum planning for pupils with special educational needs. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 21(2), 205-217. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2016.1193564
  • Oğuz, A., & Akhun, B. (2015). A comparative study of two national curricula: 1992 art-craft and 2006 visual arts curricula. Pamukkale University Journal Of Education, 38, 207-218.
  • Öksüz, C. (2015). Primary school mathematics curricula evaluation scale. Pamukkale University Journal of Education, 37, 21- 36.
  • Öncül, R. (2000). Dictionary of Education and Educational Sciences. Ministry of National Education Publishing House.
  • Patton, M, Q. (2015). Nitel araştırma ve değerlendirme yöntemleri. (Çev. M.Bütün, S. B. Demir). Ankara: Pegem Akademi
  • Sağlamöz, F. & Soysal, Y. (2021). Exploration of 2018 primary and elementary sciences course teaching programs outcomes according to the revised bloom taxonomy. Istanbul Aydin University Journal of Education, 7 (1) , 111-145 .
  • Selvi, H. (2018). Primary education social studies course comparison of old (2005) and new (2018) teaching programs (Unpublished master's thesis). Kütahya Dumlupınar University.
  • Sönmez, V., & Alacapınar, F. G. (2015). Program evaluation in education with examples. Anı Publications.
  • Tay, B., & Baş, M. (2015). Comparison of 2009 and 2015 life sciences course curricula. Bayburt University Journal of Education, 10(2), 341-374.
  • Toma, R. B., & Meneses Villagrá, J. Á. (2019). Validation of the single-items spanish-school science attitude survey (s-ssas) for elementary education. PLoS ONE, 14(1), 1-18. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0209027
  • Varış, F. (1996). Curriculum development in education: Theory and techniques. Alkım Publications.
  • Yalçın, N., Bilican, S., Kezer, F., & Yalçın, Ö. (2009, May 1-3). Nature of articles at Hacettepe University: Content analysis (Paper presentation). 1st International Turkey Educational Research Congress, Çanakkale, Turkey.
  • Yıldırım, A., & Şimşek, H. (2016). Qualitative research methods in the social sciences. (10th ed.). Seçkin Publications.
There are 36 citations in total.

Details

Primary Language English
Subjects Educational Psychology
Journal Section Eğitim Bilimleri
Authors

İbrahim Bozan 0000-0002-7666-6664

Publication Date April 29, 2024
Submission Date October 27, 2023
Acceptance Date April 28, 2024
Published in Issue Year 2024 Volume: 8 Issue: 17

Cite

APA Bozan, İ. (2024). Examining the 2018 Science Curriculum in the Context of the Basic Elements of the Curricula. Disiplinlerarası Eğitim Araştırmaları Dergisi, 8(17), 105-112.
 Download Cover Image

The Aim of The Journal

The Journal of Interdisciplinary Educational Researches (JIER) published by the Interdisciplinary Educational and Research Association (JIER)A) is an internationally eminent journal.

JIER, a nonprofit, nonprofit NGO, is concerned with improving the education system within the context of its corporate objectives and social responsibility policies. JIER, has the potential to solve educational problems and has a strong gratification for the contributions of qualified scientific researchers.

JIER has the purpose of serving the construction of an education system that can win the knowledge and skills that each individual should have firstly in our country and then in the world. In addition, JIER serves to disseminate the academic work that contributes to the professional development of teachers and academicians, offering concrete solutions to the problems of all levels of education, from preschool education to higher education.

JIER has the priority to contribute to more qualified school practices. Creating and managing content within this context will help to advance towards the goal of being a "focus magazine" and "magazine school", and will also form the basis for a holistic view of educational issues. It also acts as an intermediary in the production of common mind for sustainable development and education