Fen Müfredatlarında Sürdürülebilirlik ve Problem Çözme Becerileri Türkiye ve Singapur'un QDA Miner Karşılaştırması

Abstract

Bu araştırma, küresel eğitim yaklaşımlarının odağında yer alan sürdürülebilirlik yetkinlikleri ile üst düzey bilişsel becerilerin fen eğitimi programlarındaki yerini incelemek amacıyla Türkiye Yüzyılı Maarif Modeli ile Singapur ortaöğretim fen bilimleri öğretim programlarını karşılaştırmalı olarak analiz etmeyi amaçlamaktadır. Nitel araştırma yöntemlerinden doküman analizi desenine dayalı olarak yürütülen çalışmada, her iki ülkenin güncel öğretim programları tematik olarak değerlendirilmiştir. Tematik kodlama ve içerik analizleri, QDA Miner nitel veri analiz yazılımı aracılığıyla gerçekleştirilmiştir. Analizler, her iki programda da sürdürülebilirlik ve üst düzey bilişsel becerilere açık biçimde yer verildiğini ortaya koymakta; Singapur’un uygulama temelli ve sorgulayıcı yaklaşımlara daha fazla vurgu yaptığı görülmektedir. Türkiye öğretim programı ise stratejik düzeyde tanımlanmış bir vizyona sahip olmasına rağmen, uygulama boyutunda gelişime açık alanlar barındırmaktadır. Elde edilen bulgular, her iki programın güçlü yönlerini ve geliştirilmesi gereken yönlerini karşılaştırmalı biçimde ortaya koymakta; müfredat geliştirme, öğretmen eğitimi ve ölçme-değerlendirme sistemleri açısından çeşitli öneriler sunmaktadır. Çalışma, sürdürülebilirlik odaklı fen eğitiminin pedagojik temellerine ışık tutarak, eğitim sistemlerinin 21. yüzyıl becerilerine uyumunu değerlendirme açısından anlamlı katkılar sağlayabilmektedir.

Keywords

• Karşılaştırmalı Eğitim
• Sürdürülebilirlik
• Problem Çözme
• Fen Bilimleri Müfredatı
• Türkiye Eğitim Modelinin Yüzyılı

Sustainability and Problem-Solving Skills in Science Curricula A QDA Miner Comparison of Türkiye and Singapore

Abstract

This study aims to conduct a comparative analysis between the Century of Türkiye Education Model Science Curriculum (2024, Grades 3–8) and Singapore’s Science Syllabus (2023 implementation, Primary 3–6 and Lower Secondary 1–2) to examine the role of sustainability competencies and higher-order cognitive skills, which are at the forefront of global educational approaches. In this study, a qualitative document analysis was conducted to thematically evaluate the current curricula of both countries. Thematic coding and content analysis were performed using the QDA Miner qualitative data analysis software. The analysis revealed that sustainability and higher-order cognitive skills are explicitly included in both curricula but with distinct pedagogical priorities. Singapore’s curriculum exhibited a significantly greater emphasis on practice-based and inquiry-based higher-order skills, such as Decision Making (56.0% vs. Türkiye’s 44.0%) and Problem Solving (54.8% vs. Türkiye’s 45.2%). Conversely, the Turkish curriculum placed a stronger emphasis on the theoretical dimensions of sustainability, specifically Future-Oriented Thinking (59.1% vs. Singapore’s 40.9%) and Systems Thinking (53.7% vs. Singapore’s 46.3%). Although the Turkish curriculum has a vision defined at the strategic level, the findings suggest that its implementation could benefit from integrating more explicit, step-by-step guidance and case studies to match its strong theoretical foundation. Overall, the findings reveal the strengths and areas for improvement of both programmes, offering valuable insights for curriculum development, teacher education, and assessment systems. By shedding light on the pedagogical foundations of sustainability-oriented science education, the study contributes significantly to understanding how educational systems are adapting to the demands of 21st-century skills.

Keywords

• Science Curriculum
• Sustainability
• Problem Solving
• Comparative Education
• The Century of Türkiye Education Model
• Singapore

References

1. Alatlı, B. K. (2020). Investigation of students' science literacy performances with stepwise linear modelling: PISA 2015 Türkiye and Singapore comparison. Education and Science, 45(202). https://doi.org/10.15390/EB.2020.8188
2. Asigigan, S. I., & Samur, Y. (2021). The effect of gamified STEM practices on students' intrinsic motivation, critical thinking disposition levels, and perception of problem-solving skills. International Journal of Education in Mathematics, Science, and Technology, 9(2), 332-352. https://doi.org/10.46328/ijemst.1157
3. Aydın, A., & Kıvanç, Z. (2022). Similarities of achievements for STEM activities in science curricula: Türkiye physical events / New Zealand physical world. Hacettepe University Journal of Faculty of Education, 37(1), 11-34. https://doi.org/10.16986/HUJE.2020060878
4. Bayırlı, A. (2020). Comparison of Singapore education system with Turkish education system and implications for Türkiye. International Journal of Academy of Social Sciences, 4(4), 1103-1131. https://doi.org/10.47994/usbad.830544
5. Boncukçu, G., & Gök, G. (2023). A problem-based learning activity to learn about sustainable development. Science Activities, 60(4), 185-200. https://doi.org/10.1080/00368121.2023.225835
6. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
7. Chu, W. W., Ong, E. T., Ayop, S. K., Mohd Azmi, M. S., Abdullah, A. S., Abd Karim, N. S., & Tho, S. W. (2021). Innovative use of smartphone for audio STEM practical kit: pilot application for secondary school classroom. Research in Science and Technological Education , 41 (3), 1008-1030. https://doi.org/10.1080/02635143.2021.1978963
8. Ertan Özen, N., & Kaplan, K. (2023). 21st century skills in Türkiye, Alberta, Korea and Singapore curricula. Pamukkale University Journal of Faculty of Education, 59, 322-339. https://doi.org/10.9779.pauefd.1182195

9. Fraenkel, J., Wallen, N., & Hyun, H. (2023). How to design and evaluate research in education (11th ed.). McGraw-Hill Education. https://www.mheducation.com/highered/product/How-to-Design-and-Evaluate-Research-in-Education-Fraenkel.html
10. Gorski, A.-T., Ranf, E.-D., Badea, D., Halmaghi, E.-E., & Gorski, H. (2023). Education for sustainability-Some bibliometric insights. Sustainability, 15(20), 14916. https://doi.org/10.3390/su152014916
11. Gök, B., & Sayıcı, E. (2022). A comparative study of primary science curricula: The case of Türkiye, Singapore, Estonia. West Anatolian Journal of Educational Sciences, 13(2), 871-891. https://doi.org/10.51460/baebd.1064766
12. International Labour Organization. (2021). Global framework on core skills for life and work in the 21st century. https://www.ilo.org/publications/global-framework-core-skills-life-and-work-21st-century
13. Karaarslan Semiz, G., & Teksöz, G. (2024). Tracing system thinking skills in science curricula: A case study from Türkiye. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 22, 515-536. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-023-10383-w
14. Karalı, Y., Palancıoğlu, V. & Aydemir, H. (2021). Comparison of Türkiye and Singapore primary school science programmes, Inonu University Journal of the Faculty of Education, 22(1), 866-888. DOI: 10.17679/inuefd.883126
15. Kim, H., & Care, E. (2020). Capturing 21st century skills: Analysis of assessments in selected sub-Saharan African countries. UNESCO Office in Dakar and The Brookings Institution. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000374052
16. Luckin, R., Issroff, K., Miller, K., Berkowitz, M., & Bier, M. C. (2021). Future of Education and Skills 2030: Conceptual Learning Framework (EDU/EDPC(2018)45/ANN2). Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5e26d2d6fcf7d67bbd37a92e/t/5e411f365af4111d703b7f91/1581326153625/Education-and-AI.pdf
17. Martaningsih, S. T., Maryani, I., Prasetya, D. S., Purwanti, S., Sayekti, I. C., Aziz, N. A. A., & Siwayanan, P. (2022). STEM problem-based learning module: A solution to overcome elementary students' poor problem-solving skills. Pegem Journal of Education and Instruction, 12(4), 340-348. https://doi.org/10.47750/pegegog.12.04.35
18. Ministry of Education Singapore. (2021). Science syllabus: Lower secondary (Express/Normal Academic). https://www.moe.gov.sg/-/media/files/secondary/syllabuses/science/2021-science-lower-secondary-expressnormalacademic-syllabus.pdf
19. Ministry of Education Singapore. (2024). Science teaching & learning syllabus: Primary three to six (Standard/Foundation) (Implementation starting with 2023 Primary Three cohort). https://www.moe.gov.sg/-/media/files/primary/syllabus/primary-science-syllabus-2023_may24.pdf
20. Ministry of National Education. (2024). Science curriculum (3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, and 8th grades): Türkiye Century Education Model. Board of Education and Discipline. https://mufredat.meb.gov.tr
21. Ministry of National Education. (2024). Türkiye Century Education Model: Common text. https://tymm.meb.gov.tr/ortak-metin
22. Ministry of National Education. (2023). PISA 2022 Türkiye report. General Directorate of Measurement, Evaluation and Examination Services. https://pisa.meb.gov.tr/meb_iys_dosyalar/2024_03/21120745_26152640_pisa2022_rapor.pdf
23. Ministry of National Education. (2024). TIMSS 2023 Türkiye report. General Directorate of Measurement, Evaluation and Testing Services. https://odsgm.meb.gov.tr/meb_iys_dosyalar/2024_12/04111224_timss_2023_rapor_0412.pdf
24. Morgado, S., Leite, L., Dourado, L., & Varela, P. (2025). Solving STEM-relevant problems: A study with prospective primary school teachers. Education Sciences, 15(2), 169. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci15020169
25. Muhammad Ariff, J., Jufri Haikal, N. F. N., Abd Aziz, N., & W. Zamri, W. F. H. B. (2024). A comparative study on approaches in engineering education systems in Malaysia, Singapore and Finland. ASEAN Journal of Engineering Education, 8(1), 41-48. https://doi.org/10.11113/ajee2024.8n1.157
26. Nguyen, T. P. L. (2023). Integrating circular economy into STEM education: A promising pathway toward circular citizenship development. Frontiers in Education, 8, 1063755. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2023.1063755
27. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (2022). Are Students Ready to Take on Environmental Challenges? https://doi.org/10.1787/8abe655c-en.
28. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (2023). PISA 2022 Results (Volume I): The State of Learning and Equity in Education. https://doi.org/10.1787/53f23881-en.
29. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (2018). Education Policy Outlook 2018: Putting student learning at the centre. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264301528-en
30. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (2018). Education and Skills 2030: Conceptual Learning Framework-Progress report of the OECD 2030 learning framework: 6th Informal Working Group (IWG) meeting, 23-25 October 2017, Paris, France (Report No. EDU/EDPC (2017)25). https://one.oecd.org/document/EDU/EDPC(2017)25/en/pdf
31. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (2024). PISA 2022 results (Volume III): Creative Minds, Creative Schools. https://doi.org/10.1787/765ee8c2-en.
32. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (2024). PISA 2022 results (Volume V): Learning strategies and attitudes for life (PISA, No. V). OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/c2e44201-en
33. Provalis Research (2025). QDA Miner (Version 8.0) [Computer software]. https://provalisresearch.com/products/qualitative-data-analysis-software/
34. Provalis Research (2020). QDA Miner 6 user guide. https://q9j3s8w6.delivery.rocketcdn.me/Documents/QDAMiner6.pdf
35. Silva, P. C., Rodrigues, A. V., & Vicente, P. N. (2023). Science curriculum for primary education: A comparative analysis between Portugal, England, United States, Australia and Singapore. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 31(97). https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.31.8192
36. Sucuoğlu, H., Yasemin, D., & Yılmaz, T. (2023). Comparison of mathematics and science curriculum objectives, textbook questions and LGS questions. Çukurova University Journal of Faculty of Education, 52(2), 302-350. https://doi.org/10.14812/cuefd.1187141
37. Tan, L. S., Koh, E., Lee, S. S., Ponnusamy, L. D., & Tan, K. C. K. (2017). The complexities in fostering critical thinking through school-based curriculum innovation: Research evidence from Singapore. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 37(4), 517-534. https://doi.org/10.1080/02188791.2017.1389694
38. Tan, O. S., Low, E. L., Tay, E. G., & Yan, Y. K. (2021). Introduction. In O. S. Tan, E. L. Low, E. G. Tay, & Y. K. Yan (Eds.), Singapore Math and Science Education Innovation: Empowering Teaching and Learning through Policies and Practice: Singapore and International Perspectives (Vol. 1). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-1357-9_1
39. Tan, O.S. (2021). Singapore Math and Science Education: The Larger Picture Beyond PISA Achievements and "Secret" Factors. In Tan, O.S., Low, E.L., Tay, E.G., Yan, Y.K. (eds) Singapore Math and Science Education Innovation. Empowering Teaching and Learning through Policies and Practice: Singapore and International Perspectives, vol 1. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-1357-9_2
40. Teo, T. W., & Choy, B. H. (2021). STEM Education in Singapore. In: Tan, O.S., Low, E.L., Tay, E.G., & Yan, Y.K. (eds) Singapore Math and Science Education Innovation. Empowering Teaching and Learning through Policies and Practice: Singapore and International Perspectives, vol 1. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-1357-9_3
41. Trott, C. D., & Weinberg, A. E. (2020). Science education for sustainability: Strengthening children's science engagement with climate change learning and action. Sustainability, 12(16), 6400. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12166400
42. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. (2017). Education for sustainable development goals: Learning objectives. https://doi.org/10.54675/CGBA9153
43. Ülçay, O. (2024). Türkiye century education model evaluation. National Journal of Education, Society and World, 1(2), 70-75. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.11097248
44. van Laar, E., van Deursen, A. J. A. A. M., van Dijk, J. A. G. M., & de Haan, J. (2017). The relation between 21st-century skills and digital skills: A systematic literature review. Computers in Human Behaviour, 72, 577-588. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.03.010
45. Varlık, S. (2025). Research literacy, socio-scientific reasoning, and problem-solving skills in science teachers. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 24(2), 377-389. https://doi.org/10.33225/jbse/25.24.377
46. Weng, K. H., & Eng, G. T. (2021). K-12 school mathematics curriculum: Insights on development, renewal and future orientation. In O. S. Tan, E. L. Low, E. G. Tay, & Y. K. Yan (Eds.), Singapore math and science education innovation: Empowering teaching and learning through policies and practice: Singapore and international perspectives (Vol. 1, pp. 107-135). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-1357-9_7
47. Williams, M., Wiggins, R. D., & Vogt, W. P. (2021). Beginning quantitative research. SAGE Publications.
48. Yazıcıoğlu, Ö. (2017). Comparison of Türkiye, Singapore and Kazakhstan science teaching programmes. [Master's thesis] Kastamonu University.
49. Yazıcıoğlu, Ö., & Pektaş, M. (2018). A comparison of the middle school science programmes in Türkiye, Singapore and Kazakhstan. International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education, 11(2), 143-150. https://doi.org/10.26822/iejee.2019248588
50. Yeo, J., Chen, W., Tan, T. T. M., & Lee, Y. J. (2021). Innovative science and STEM pedagogies in Singapore. In O. S. Tan, E. L. Low, E. G. Tay, & Y. K. Yan (Eds.), Singapore math and science education innovation: Empowering teaching and learning through policies and practice: Singapore and international perspectives, Volume 1, pp. 201-218). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-1357-9_11
51. Yeo, J., Tan, K.C.D. (2021). Science Education in Singapore. In: Tan, O.S., Low, E.L., Tay, E.G., Yan, Y.K. (eds) Singapore Math and Science Education Innovation. Empowering Teaching and Learning through Policies and Practice: Singapore and International Perspectives, Volume 1, Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-1357-9_6