Analysis of the Science Course Curriculum Objectives and High School Entrance Examination Questions According to TIMSS Framework

Abstract

The aim of this study is to compare 2018 Science Course Curriculum (SCC), 2015 Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) and 2018 High School Entrance Examination (HSE) in terms of content domains, cognitive domains and learning objectives. Qualitative research method, was used in this study. Data were analyzed using document review matrices to determine the similarities and differences between the objectives of SCC, TIMSS and HSE. SCC outcomes and HSE science questions were also classified according to TIMSS cognitive domains. Results show that the learning objectives of the fields of Physics, Biology and Earth Sciences of TIMSS are compatible with those of all grade levels of SCC and that the objectives of Chemistry are compatible with those of the seventh and eighth grades. Most of HSE questions are compatible with the objectives of SCC, however, the latest revision in the curriculum has introduced some eighth grade objectives to other grade levels. HSE science questions measure higher-level skills than TIMSS science questions. The subject domain of the “Organisms and Life” of SCC has the most learning objectives in the levels of “knowing” and “reasoning” while the subject domain of the “Physical Events” has the most learning objectives in the levels of “applying.” Besides, the seventh-, fifth- and eighth-graders have the most objectives in the levels of “knowing,” “applying,” and “reasoning,” respectively. It is hoped that the results will contribute the literature in improvement of science curricula and interpretation of national and international exams.

Keywords

• TIMSS,high school entrance examination,science curriculum,cognitive domain,content domain

References

1. Abazaoglu, I., Yildizhan, Y., & Yildirim, O. (2014). TIMSS 2011 Turkiye 8. sinif fen bilimleri sonuclarinin degerlendirilmesi [An assessment of the results of TIMSS 2011 8th grade science in Turkey]. Journal of Research in Education and Teaching, 3(1), 278-288.
2. Afacan, O., & Nuhoglu, H. (2008). Canlilar bilimi konusunda TIMSS-R (1999) sorulari ile LGS (1999) sorularinin karsilastirmali analizi [A comparative analysis between TIMSS-R (1999) questions and LGS (1999) questions in life science]. Ahi Evran University Journal of Kirsehir Education Faculty, 9(1), 31-43.
3. Akoglu, A. (2011). Gokyuzu gozlemciligi [Sky-watching]. Ankara, Turkey: TUBITAK Popular Science Publications.
4. Akpinar, E. (2003). Ortaogretim Cografya dersleri yazili sinav sorularinin bilissel duzeyleri [Cognitive levels of the written exam questions of the secondary schools geography courses]. Erzincan University Journal of Education Faculty, 5(1), 13-21.
5. Akyurek, E., & Afacan, O. (2013). Ilkogretim 8. sinif ogrencilerinin hucre bolunmesi ve kalitim unitesindeki kavram yanilgilarinin tespiti ve anoloji ile kavramsal degisim metinleri kullanilarak giderilmesi [Determination and removal of 8th grade students’ misconceptions about the unit of “cell division and inheritance” by using analogy with conceptual change texts]. Ahi Evran University Journal of Kirsehir Education Faculty, 14(1), 175-193.
6. Arastaman, G., Fidan, Ozturk, I., & Fidan, T. (2018). Nitel arastirmada gecerlik ve guvenirlik: kuramsal bir inceleme [Validity and reliability in qualitative research: A theoretical analysis}. Yuzuncu Yil University Journal of Education Faculty, 15(1), 37-75. doi:10.23891/efdyyu.2017.61
7. Arikan, O. (2018). Investigation of the questions of OKS, SBS and TEOG science tests according to scientific process skills and critical thinking skills (Unpublished master's thesis). Kirikkale University, Kirikkale, Turkey.
8. Aslan, F. (2005). Comparing science education program of Turkey with science education program of Singapore according to TIMSS-R (Unpublished master's thesis). Hacettepe University, Ankara, Turkey.

9. Akay, E. (2017). Multilevel analysis of the factors affecting students' achievement in TEOG exams (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Eskisehir Osmangazi University, Eskisehir, Turkey.
10. Aydin, N., & Yilmaz, A. (2010). Yapilandirici yaklasimin ogrencilerin ust duzey bilissel becerilerine etkisi [The effect of constructivist approach in chemistry education on students' higher order cognitive skills]. Hacettepe University Journal of Education, 39(39), 57-68.
11. Baran, E., Canbazoglu Bilici, S., & Mesutoglu, C. (2015). Fen, teknoloji, muhendislik ve matematik (FeTeMM) spotu gelistirme etkinligi [Science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) public service announcement (PSA) development. Journal of Inquiry Based Activities, 5(2), 60-69.
12. Basol, G., Balgalmis, E., Karli, M. G., & Oz, F. B. (2016). TEOG sinavi matematik sorularinin MEB kazanimlarina TIMSS seviyelerine ve yenilenen Bloom taksonomisine gore incelenmesi [Content analysis of TEOG mathematics items based on MONE attainments, TIMSS levels, and reformed Bloom Taxonomy]. Journal of Human Sciences, 13(3), 5945-5967.
13. Baysen, E. (2006). Ogretmenlerin sinifta sorduklari sorular ile ogrencilerin bu sorulara verdikleri cevaplarin duzeyleri [The levels of teacher questions and student answers]. Kastamonu Education Journal, 14(1), 21-28.
14. Baysura, D. O. (2017). An analysis of TIMSS mathematics items within the context of mathematics curriculum and TEOG mathematics items (Unpublished master's thesis). Yildiz Technical University, Istanbul, Turkey.
15. Berberoglu, G., & Kalender, I. (2005). Ogrenci basarisinin yillara, okul turlerine, bolgelere gore incelenmesi: OSS ve PISA analizi. [Investigation of student achievement across years, school types and regions: The SSE and PISA analyses]. Educational Sciences and Practice, 4(7), 21-35.
16. Boyuk, T. E. (2017). An analysis of science curriculum within the context of TEOG and TIMSS exams (Unpublished master's thesis). Yildiz Technical University, Istanbul, Turkey.
17. Buyukozturk, S., Cakan, M., Tan, S., & Atar, H. Y. (2014). TIMSS 2011 ulusal matematik ve fen raporu: 8. siniflar [TIMSS 2011 national math and science report: 8th grades]. Ankara, Turkey: Ministry of National Education Directorate General for Innovation and Educational Technology.
18. Buyuktokatli, N., & Bayraktar, S. (2014). Fen egitiminde alternatif olcme degerlendirme uygulamalari [Alternative Assessment Practices in Science]. Pegem Journal of Education and Instruction, 4(1), 103-126.
19. Cakmak, G. (2019). “Fiziksel bilimler” konu alanlarina gore Turkiye’nin TIMSS 2011 dorduncu sinif fen sorularinin degerlendirilmesi [Assessment of the fourth grade science questions of Turkey in the subject areas of physical science in TIMSS 2011]. Dicle University Journal of Ziya Gokalp Faculty of Education, 34, 83-89. doi:10.14582/DUZGEF.1903
20. Caliskan, N., Kahya, E., & Temli-Durmus, Y. (2018). An analysis of mathematics questions of the TPSE exam according to cognitive levels of TIMSS 2015. Journal of History Culture and Art Research, 7(5), 67-82.
21. Cepni, S., Ayvaci, H., & Keles, E. (2001). The comparison of science exam questions used at high schools and high school entrance exams regarding Bloom’s taxonomy. Proceedings of the Science Teaching Symposium in Turkey at Millennium (pp. 144-150). Istanbul, Turkey: Maltepe University.
22. Ciray, F., Kucukyilmaz E. A., & Guven M. (2015). Ortaokullar icin guncellenen fen bilimleri dersi ogretim programina iliskin ogretmen gorusleri [The views of teachers about the curriculum of science revised for secondary schools]. Dicle University Journal of Ziya Gokalp Faculty of Education, 25, 31-56.
23. Colak, M. (2017). Comparison of 2017 and 2013 science curriculum. Proceedings of 1st International Education Research and Teacher Education Congress (pp. 12-15). Usak, Turkey: Usak University.
24. Coruhlu Senel, T., & Cepni, S. (2015). “Gunes sistemi ve otesi: Uzay bilmecesi” unitesinde karsilasilan ogretmen problemleri ve yanilgilari: Bir ozel durum calismasi [Teachers’ problems and misconceptions related to “Solar system and beyond: Space puzzle” unit: A case study research]. Journal of Theoretical Educational Science, 8(2), 268-281. doi:10.5578/keg.7137
25. Delil, H. (2006). An analysis of Geometry problems in 6-8 grades Turkish mathematics textbooks (Unpublished master's thesis). Middle East Technical University, Ankara, Turkey.
26. Delil, A., & Yolcu-Tetik, B. (2015). 8. sinif merkezi sinavlardaki matematik sorularinin TIMSS-2015 bilissel alanlarina gore analizi [An analysis of Turkish eighth grade high stakes mathematics examination questions based on TIMSS 2015 framework]. Celal Bayar University Journal of Social Sciences, 13(4), 165-184. doi:10.18026/cbusos.87313
27. Delil, A. (2019). How fifth graders are assessed through central exams in Turkey: A comparison with TIMSS 2019 assessment framework. International Online Journal of Educational Sciences, 11(3), 222-234. doi: 10.15345/iojes.2019.03.015
28. Deveci, I., Konus, F. Z., & Aydiz, M. (2018). 2018 yili fen bilimleri dersi ogretim programi kazanimlarinin yasam becerileri acisindan incelenmesi [Investigation in terms of life skills of the 2018 science curriculum learning outcomes]. Cukurova University Faculty of Education Journal, 47(2), 765-797. doi: 10.14812/cuefd.413514
29. Dindar, H., & Demir, M. (2006). Besinci sinif ogretmenlerinin fen bilgisi dersi sinav sorularinin Bloom taksonomisine gore degerlendirilmesi [Evaluation of fifth grade primary teachers’ questions in science exams according to Blooms taxonomy]. Journal of Gazi Education Faculty, 26(3), 87-96.
30. Dogan, Y. (2010). Fen ve teknoloji dersi programinin uygulanmasi surecinde karsilasilan sorunlar [The problems encountered during the implementation of science and technology curriculum]. Yuzuncu Yil University Journal of Education Faculty, 7(1), 86-106.
31. Dogan, Y., & Burak, D. (2018). 4. sinif fen bilimleri dersi kazanimlarinin revize edilmis Bloom taksonomisine gore incelenmesi [An investigation of the 4th grade science course’s acquisitions according to the revised Bloom’s taxonomy]. Mediterranean Journal of Educational Research, 12(23), 34-56. doi: 10.29329/mjer.2018.138.3
32. Duman, M. S., & Avci, G. (2016). Sekizinci sinif ogrencilerinin maddenin halleri ve isi unitesine yonelik kavram yanilgilari [Misconceptions of eighth grade students' on the unit of states of matter and heat]. Usak University Journal of Educational Research, 2(3), 129-165. doi: 10.29065/usakead.256383
33. Educational Research and Development Directorate (2003). Ucuncu uluslararasi matematik ve fen bilgisi calismasi ulusal rapor [Third international mathematical and science study national report]. Ankara, Turkey: MoNE Publishing.
34. Eroglu, S., & Bektas, O. (2016). STEM egitimi almis fen bilimleri ogretmenlerinin STEM temelli ders etkinlikleri hakkindaki gorusleri. [Ideas of science teachers took STEM education about STEM based activities]. Journal of Qualitative Research in Education, 4(3), 43-67. doi: 10.14689/issn.2148-2624.1.4c3s3m
35. Eroglu, D., & Sarar-Kuzu, T. (2014). Turkce ders kitaplarindaki dilbilgisi kazanimlarinin ve sorularinin yenilenmis Bloom taksonomisine gore degerlendirilmesi [The evaluation of the grammar acquisitions and questions in Turkish course books with respect to new Bloom taxonomy]. Baskent University Journal of Education, 1(1), 72-80.
36. Fraenkel, J. R., & Wallen, N. E. (1996). How to design and evaluate research in education (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Mc Graw Hill Higher Education.
37. Gomleksiz, M. N., & Bulut, I. (2007). Yeni fen ve teknoloji dersi ogretim programinin uygulamadaki etkililiginin degerlendirilmesi [An assessment of the implementation of new science and technology curriculum]. Hacettepe University Journal of Education, 32(32), 76-88.
38. Gunduz, Y. (2009). Ilkogretim 6, 7 ve 8. sinif fen ve teknoloji sorularinin olcme araclarina ve Bloom’un bilissel alan taksonomisine gore analizi [Analysis of primary school 6, 7 and 8th grades science and technology questions according to measurement scales and Bloom’s taxonomy of the cognitive domain]. Yuzuncu Yil University Journal of Education Faculty, 6(2), 150-165.
39. Gunes, M. H., & Gunes, T. (2005). Ilkogretim ogrencilerinin biyoloji konularini anlama zorluklari ve nedenleri [Difficulties and their reasons in learning biology concepts in primary school students]. Gazi Universitesi Journal of Kirsehir Education Faculty, 6(2), 169-175.
40. Incikabi, L., Mercimek, O., Ayanoglu, P., Aliustaoglu, F., & Tekin, N. (2016). Ortaokul matematik dersi ogretim programi kazanimlarinin TIMSS bilissel alanlarina gore degerlendirilmesi [An evaluation of middle school mathematics teaching programs based on TIMSS cognitive domains]. Ilkogretim Online, 15(4), 1149-1163. doi: 10.17051/io.2016.54792
41. Kaptan, F., & Korkmaz, H. (1999). Ilkogretimde fen bilgisi ogretimi (ilkogretimde etkili ogretme ve ogrenme ogretmen el kitabi, modul 7) [Science teaching in elementary education (effective teaching and learning in elementary level teacher handbook)]. Ankara, Turkey: MoNE Publishing.
42. Karahan, E., Canbazoglu-Bilici, S., & Unal, A. (2015). Integration of media design processes in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) education. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 60, 221-240. doi: 10.14689/ejer.2015.60.15
43. Karaman, P., & Karaman, A. (2016). Fen bilimleri ogretmenlerinin yenilenen fen bilimleri ogretim programina yonelik gorusleri [Opinions of science teachers about the revised science education program]. Erzincan University Journal of Education Faculty, 18(1), 243-269. doi: 10.17556/jef.65883
44. Keser, O. F. (2005). Recommendations towards developing educational standards to improve science education in Turkey. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 4(1), 46–53.
45. Kirindi, T., & Ulu, M. (2017). Fen bilimleri dersi ogretim programinin ogretmen goruslerine gore degerlendirilmesi [Evaluation of science course curriculum according to the teacher view]. Gazi Journal of Educational Science, 3(3), 55-71.
46. Lee, Y., Kim, M., & Yoon, H. (2015). The intellectual demands of the intended primary science curriculum in Korea and Singapore: An analysis based on revised bloom's taxonomy. International Journal of Science Education, 37(13), 2193-2213.
47. Mayer, R. E. (2002). Rote versus meaningful learning. Theory into Practice, 41(4), 226-232. doi: 10.1207/s15430421tip4104_4
48. Ministry of National Education (2018). Fen bilimleri dersi ogretim programi (Ilkokul ve ortaokul 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ve 8. siniflar) [Science course curriculum (Primary and secondary school 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8th grades)]. Retrieved from http://mufredat.meb.gov.tr/ProgramDetay.aspx?PID=325
49. Mullis, I. V. S., & Martin, M. O. (Eds.) (2014). TIMSS advanced 2015 assessment frameworks. Boston College, TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center. Retrieved from http://timssandpirls.bc.edu/timss2015-advanced/frameworks.html
50. Ozcan, H., & Duzgunoglu, H. (2017). Fen bilimleri dersi 2017 taslak ogretim programina iliskin ogretmen gorusleri [Teachers' Views on Science Draft Curriculum 2017]. International Journal of Active Learning, 2(2), 28-47.
51. Pektas, M., Incikabi, L., & Yaz, O. (2015). An analysis of middle school science textbooks in terms of TIMSS program framework. Adiyaman University Journal of Educational Sciences, 5(1), 29-48. doi:10.17984/adyuebd.08288
52. Provasnik, S., Malley, L., Stephens, M., Landeros, K., Perkins, R., & Tang, J. H. (2016). Highlights from TIMSS and TIMSS Advanced 2015: Mathematics and science achievement of U.S. students in Grades 4 and 8 and in advanced courses at the end of high school in an international context (NCES Report No. 2017-002). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics.
53. Reddy V. (2005). Cross-national achievement studies: Learning from South Africa’s participation in the trends in international mathematics and science study (TIMSS). A Journal of Comparative and International Education, 35(1), 63-77.
54. Seven, M., & Engin, A. (2008). Ogrenmeyi etkileyen faktorler [Factors affecting learning]. Ataturk University Journal of Graduate School of Social Sciences, 12(2), 189-212.
55. Sensoy, S., Tanberkan H., Suna, H. E., Eroglu, E., & Altun, U. (2018). 2018 liselere gecis sistemi [2018 high school entrance system]. Ministry of National Education. Retrieved from https://www.meb.gov.tr/meb_iys_dosyalar/2018_12/17094056_2018_lgs_rapor.pdf
56. Thomson, S., Wernert, N., O’Grady, E., & Rodrigues, S. (2017). TIMSS 2015: Reporting Australia’s results. Melbourne, Australia: Australian Council for Educational Research (ACER).
57. Tobin, M., Lietz, P., Nugroho, D., Vivekanandan, R., & Nyamkhuu, T. (2015). Using large-scale assessments of students’ learning to inform education policy: Insights from the Asia-Pacific region. Melbourne, Australia: ACER and Bangkok, Thailand: UNESCO.
58. Tokcan, H. (2005). Sosyal bilgiler 6. sinif ders kitaplari unite degerlendirme sorularinin sosyal bilgiler programina gore kapsam gecerliligi ve Bloom’un bilissel alan taksonomisine gore analizi [The content validity of social sciences books used in 6th grades of primary schools with respect to unit evaluation questions and Bloom’s cognitive taxonomy]. Turkish Journal of Social Research, 9(1), 79-100.
59. Turkoguz, S., Balim, A., & Bardakci, V. (2019). TIMSS 2011 fen bilimleri testinin 2016 Izmir ve 2011 Turkiye verilerinin karsilastirilmasi [A comparison of 2016 Izmir and 2011 Turkey data by TIMSS 2011 science test]. Journal of the Human and Social Science Researches, 8(1), 64-90.
60. Turnuklu, A. (2000). Egitim bilim arastirmalarinda etkin olarak kullanilabilecek nitel bir arastirma teknigi: Gorusme [A qualitative research technique that can be used effectively in educational science research: Interview]. Educational Administration: Theory and Practice 6 (4): 543–559.
61. Ulutan, E. (2018). Investigation of the variables affecting the students' TEOG science achievement with multilevel regression model (Unpublished master's thesis). Hacettepe University, Ankara, Turkey.
62. Ural-Keles, P. (2018). 2017 Fen bilimleri dersi ogretim programi hakkinda besinci sinif fen bilimleri ogretmenlerinin gorusleri [Opinions of fifth grade science teachers about the 2017 science curriculum]. Journal of Qualitative Research in Education, 6(3), 121-142.
63. Yildirim, A. (1999). Nitel arastirma yontemlerinin temel ozellikleri ve egitim arastirmalarindaki yeri ve onemi [Qualitative research methods]. Education and Science Journal, 23(112), 7-17.
64. Yildirim, B., & Altun, Y. (2015). STEM egitim ve muhendislik uygulamalarinin fen bilgisi laboratuar dersindeki etkilerinin incelenmesi [Investigating the effect of STEM education and engineering applications on science laboratory lectures]. El-Cezeri Journal of Science and Engineering, 2(2), 28-40.
65. Yildirim, A., & Simsek, H. (2011). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel arastirma yontemleri [Qualitative research methods in social sciences] (8th ed.). Ankara, Turkey: Seckin.
66. Yildirim, A., Ozgurluk, B., Parlak, B., Gonen, E., & Polat, M. (2016). TIMSS 2015 ulusal matematik ve fen bilimleri on raporu 4. ve 8. siniflar [TIMSS 2015 national math and science preliminary report 4th and 8th grades]. Ankara, Turkey: Ministry of Education Directorate General for Measurement, Assessment and Examination Services.
67. Yildirim, H. H., Yildirim, S., & Ceylan, E. (2017). Turkiye Perspektifinden TIMSS 2015 Sonuclari [Results of TIMSS 2011 from Turkey’s perspective]. Ankara, Turkey: TEDMEM.
68. Zorluoglu, S. L., Kizilaslan, A., & Sozbilir, M. (2016). Ortaogretim kimya dersi ogretim programi kazanimlarinin yapilandirilmis Bloom taksonomisine gore analizi ve degerlendirilmesi [High school chemistry curriculum according to revised Bloom Taxonomy]. Necatibey Faculty of Education, Electronic Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 10(1), 260-279. doi:10.17522/nefefmed.22297
69. Zorluoglu, L. S., Sahinturk, A., & Bagriyanik, K. E. (2017). 2013 yili fen bilimleri ogretim programi kazanimlarinin yenilenmis Bloom taksonomisine gore analizi ve degerlendirilmesi [Analysis and evaluation of science course curriculum learning outcomes of the year 2013 according to the revised Bloom taxonomy]. Bartin University Journal of Faculty of Education, 6(1), 1-15. doi:10.14686/buefad.267190