Evaluating Turkish science curriculum with PISA scientific literacy framework

Yıl 2019, , 217 - 236, 31.07.2019

Nurcan Cansız Mustafa Cansız

https://doi.org/10.19128/turje.545798

Cited By: 6

Öz

Any society needs more
scientifically literate citizens even if they do not follow a career in
science. In the 2015 PISA assessment, Turkey ranked 34th among 35
OECD countries based on science literacy scores. The relatively unsuccessful
results of Turkey from international level examinations like PISA has
necessitated the questioning of various components of science education. One of
these components is surely the science curriculum. Being aware of this, we investigated
the primary and middle school Turkish science curriculum for the balance of
science literacy aspects based on the PISA 2015 science literacy framework.
This framework defines scientific literacy under four aspects, namely contexts,
knowledge, competencies, and attitudes. The results revealed that the Turkish
science curriculum does not adequately reflect all dimensions of science
literacy and is dominated by the pure knowledge of the content of science. The
curriculum developers should consider these two points in future curriculum
revisions to increase our success in international examinations like PISA and
to help raise scientifically literate students.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Science literacy, PISA 2015, Science curriculum, Science education

Türkiye’de uygulanan fen bilimleri dersi öğretim programının PISA fen okuryazarlığı çerçevesiyle değerlendirilmesi

Öz

Her toplumun -fen bilimleri
alanında kariyer yapmayacak olsa bile- fen okuryazarı bireylere ihtiyacı
vardır. Türkiye 2015 PISA uygulamasında fen okuryazarlığı puanına göre 35 OECD
üyesi ülkeler arasında 34. sırada yer almıştır. PISA gibi uluslararası düzeyde
uygulanan sınavlarda alınan görece başarısız sonuçlar, Türkiye’de fen
eğitiminin farklı bileşenlerinin sorgulanmasını gerekli kılmıştır. Sınıf içi uygulamalara
dönük bu bileşenlerden biri de kuşkusuz fen bilimleri dersi öğretim
programıdır. Bu noktadan hareketle, bu çalışmada Türkiye’de uygulanan fen
bilimleri dersi öğretim programının fen okuryazarlığı boyutlarını hangi ölçüde
yansıttığı PISA 2015 Fen Okuryazarlığı Değerlendirme Çerçevesi kullanılarak
araştırılmıştır. Bu çerçeve fen okuryazarlığını bağlamlar, bilgi, yeterlikler
ve tutumlar olmak üzere dört boyutuyla tanımlamaktadır. Bulgular mevcut
programın fen okuryazarlığın dört boyutunu dengeli bir şekilde vurgulamada
yetersiz kaldığını ve programının daha çok içerik bilgisine yoğunlaştığını
ortaya koymuştur. Gelecekte yapılacak program güncelleme ve geliştirme
çalışmalarında bu iki noktanın göz önünde bulundurulması, hem PISA gibi
uluslararası sınavlarda başarımızı artıracak, hem de fen okuryazarı öğrenciler
yetiştirmede mesafeleri daha hızlı kat etmemize olanak sağlayacaktır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Fen okuryazarlığı, Fen bilimleri öğretim programı, PISA 2015, Fen eğitimi

Kaynakça

• Acat, M. B., Anılan, H., & Anagun, S. S. (2010). The problems encountered in designing constructivist learning environments in science education and practical suggestions. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 9(2), 212-220.
• American Association for the Advancement of Science [AAAS]. (1989). Science for all Americans. New York: Oxford University Press.
• American Association for the Advancement of Science [AAAS]. (1990). Science for all Americans. New York: Oxford University Press.
• American Association for the Advancement of Science [AAAS]. (1993) Benchmarks for science literacy. New York: Oxford University Press.
• Blandford, S. (2000). Managing professional development in schools. London: Routledge.
• Bowen, G. A. (2009). Document analysis as a qualitative research method. Qualitative Research Journal, 9(2), 27-40. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3316/QRJ0902027
• Carlson, M. O. B., Humphrey, G. E., & Reinhardt, K. (2003). Weaving science inquiry and continuous assessment: Using formative assessment to improve learning. California: Corwin Press.
• Carlton, R. (1963). On scientific literacy. NEA Journal, 52(4) 33-35.
• Cansiz, M., & Turker, N. (2011). Scientific literacy investigation in science curricula: The case of Turkey. Western Anatolia Journal of Educational Sciences, Special Issue, 359-366.
• Collins, A. (1998). National science education standards: A political document. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35(7), 711-727. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199809)35:7<711: AID-TEA3>3.0.CO;2-O
• Duggan S., & Gott, R. (2002). What sort of science education do we really need? International Journal of Science Education, 24(7), 661-679. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690110110133
• Durant, J. R. (1993). What is scientific literacy? In J. R. Durant & J. Gregory (Eds.), Science and culture in Europe (pp. 129– 137). London: Science Museum.
• Durant, J. R., Evans, G., & Thomas, G. P. (1989). The public understanding of science. Nature, 340(6228), 11–14. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/340011a0
• Eurydice (2018). Basic characteristics of education system: Turkey overview. Retrieved September, 10, from https://eacea.ec.europa.eu/national-policies/eurydice/content/turkey_cs.
• Fensham, P. J. (2008). Science education policy-making. Paris: UNESCO.
• Fensham, P. J. (2009) Real world contexts in PISA science: Implications for context-based science education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(8), 884–896. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20334
• Gallagher, J. (1971). A broader base for science teaching. Science Education, 55(3), 329-338. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.3730550312
• Hurd, P. D. (1958). Science literacy: Its meaning for American schools. Educational Leadership, 16(1), 13-16.
• Kesidou, S., & Roseman, J. E. (2002). How well do middle school science programs measure up? Findings from project 2061's curriculum review. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(6), 522-549. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.10035
• Kirk, K. (2018). What is the affective domain anyway? Retrieved May 8, 2018, from https://serc.carleton.edu/NAGTWorkshops/affective/intro.html
• Kolstø, S. D. (2001). Scientific literacy for citizenship: Tools for dealing with controversial socio-scientific issues. Science Education, 85(3), 291-310. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.1011
• Millar, R. (1996). Toward a science curriculum for public understanding. School Science Review, 77(280), 7-18.
• Miller, J. D. (1995). Scientific literacy for effective citizenship,” in R. E. Yager (ed.), Science/Technology/Society as reform in science education, pp. 185-204. New York: State University of New York Press.
• Miller, J. D. (1998). The measurement of civic scientific literacy. Public Understanding of Science 7(3), 203-223. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1088/0963-6625/7/3/001
• Ministry of National Education [MoNE] (2004). Fen ve teknoloji dersi programı, ilköğretim 4. –5. sınıf [Science and technology curriculum, 4th and 5th grades]. Ankara.
• Ministry of National Education [MoNE] (2013). Fen bilimleri dersi öğretim programı, 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. ve 8. sınıflar) [Science curriculum, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, and 8th grades]. Ankara.
• Ministry of National Education [MoNE] (2017). Fen bilimleri dersi öğretim programı, 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. ve 8. sınıflar) [Science curriculum, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, and 8th grades]. Ankara.
• National Research Council [NRC]. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
• Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development [OECD]. (2013). PISA 2012 results: What makes schools successful? Resources, policies and practices (Volume IV). Paris: OECD Publishing. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264201156-en
• Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development [OECD]. (2016). PISA 2015 results (Volume I): Excellence and equity in education. Paris: OECD Publishing. DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264266490-en
• Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development [OECD]. (2017). PISA 2015 Assessment and analytical framework: Science, reading, mathematic, financial literacy and collaborative problem solving. Paris: OECD Publishing. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264281820-en
• Rillero, P. (1998). Process skills and content knowledge. Science Activities, 35(3), 3-4. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00368129809600910
• Roberts, D. A. (2007). Scientific literacy/science literacy. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Science Education (pp. 729-780). London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
• Rutherford, F. J., & Ahlgren, A. (1990). Science for all Americans. New York: Oxford University Press.
• Rudolph, J. L., & Horibe, S. (2015). What do we mean by science education for civic engagement? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 53(6), 805–820. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21303
• Şad, S. N. (2012). Investigation of parental involvement tasks as predictors of primary students' Turkish, math, and science & technology achievement. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 48, 135-154.
• Van Driel, J., Beijaard, D., & Verloop, N. (2001). Professional development and reform in science education: The role of teachers’ practical knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(2), 137-158. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/1098-2736(200102)38:2<137: AID-TEA1001>3.0.CO;2-U
• Yager, R. (1986). Searching for excellence. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 23(3), 209-217. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660230305
• Yorulmaz, Y. İ., Çolak, İ., & Ekinci, C. E. (2017). An evaluation of PISA 2015 achievements of OECD countries within income distribution and education expenditures. Turkish Journal of Education, 6(4), 169-185. DOI: 10.19128/turje.329755