National Science Curriculum Documents in Türkiye and The United States: Comparison in terms of Scope and Detail

Year 2022, Volume: 9 Issue: 5, 373 - 389, 01.09.2022

Güngör Yumuşak

https://doi.org/10.17275/per.22.119.9.5

Abstract

The processes of educational planning and program development at the local and national levels differ in centralized and decentralized educational systems. In Türkiye, there is a centralized education system, and curricula are created centrally to include all students. In the United States of America, there is a nationally disseminated curriculum framework for science education and a set of standards developed in accordance with these frameworks, while curriculum development continues at the local level based on these two national documents. Seeing how the curricula are designed in the different systems and what details they provide to teachers would be a source for designing curriculum development policies. The purpose of this study is to provide a comparative description of the scope of curriculum documents and the details of the information they contain in two different systems. The research is a comparative, holistic, multi-case study conducted by analyzing curriculum documents at the national level. As a result of the research, national curriculum documents for science education in the United States contain comprehensive descriptions of expected outcomes and content, even as curriculum development continues to occur at the local level. In contrast, Türkiye's science curriculum describes expected outcomes and content in less detail. The outcomes are discussed in terms of curriculum elements, system diversity, and literature.

Keywords

Comparative education, curricula in different systems, science curriculum, the scope of curriculum

Supporting Institution

YÖK

Thanks

The author thanks Jennifer Wilhelm (from University of Kentucky) , for helpful feedback on earlier drafts of this article.

References

• Aksit, N. (2007). Educational reform in Turkey. International Journal of Educational Development, 27 (2), 129-137.
• Aykaç, N., Çelebi Uzgur, B. (2016). Evaluation of Information Technologies and Software Lesson Curriculum According to Teachers' Views (Aegean Region Example). Mustafa Kemal University Journal of Social Sciences Institute, 13 (34), 0-0. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/mkusbed/issue/24545/ 259970
• Bruner, JS (1961). Toward a Theory of Instruction. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• Bybee, RW (2014). NGSS and the next generation of science teachers. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 25 (2), 211-221.
• Çıray, F., Küçükyılmaz, EA, & Güven, M. (2015). Teachers' Views on the Updated Science Course Curriculum for Secondary Schools, Dicle University Journal of Ziya Gökalp Education Faculty. 25 (2015), 31-56
• DeBoer, J. (2012). Centralization and Decentralization in American Education Policy, Peabody Journal of Education, 87: 4, 510 513, DOI: 10.1080 / 0161956X.2012.705153
• Demircioğlu, G., Aslan, A. & Yadigaroğlu, M. (2015). Analysis of the Renewed Chemistry Curriculum with Teachers' Views. Journal of Education and Training Research, 4 (1), 135-146.
• Demirel, Ö. (2010). Program Development in Education From Theory to Practice. Ankara: Pegem Akademi.
• Doğanay, A. (2008). Evaluation of New Social Studies Program in the Light of Contemporary Social Studies. Ç.Ü. Journal of the Institute of Social Sciences, Volume 17, Issue 2, 2008, pp.77-96
• Durukan, E. (2008). Primary Education Second Stage (2005) General Objectives-Goal / Achievements Relationship in Turkish Language Curriculum Journal of International Social Research, 1 (4).
• Eskicumalı, A., Demirtaş, Z., Erdoğan, DG & Arslan, S. (2014). The Comparison of the Science nd Technology Curriculum and Renewed Science Curriculum, International Journal of Human Sciences, 11 (1), p. 1077-1094.
• Göçer, A. & Aktürk, Y. (2015). Primary and Secondary School Teachers 'Perceptions towards Teachers' Guide Book: Metaphor Analysis. International Journal of Turkish Educational Sciences. 186-199.
• Gözütok, D. (2003). Program Development Studies in Turkey. Journal of National Education. Edition 160.
• Güneş, T., Varol, C, Güneş, O. (2016). Evaluation of using book and student's workbooks used in science lessons according to students' opinions. International Journal of Social Sciences and Education Research, 2 (2), 374-386. DOI: 10.24289 / ijsser.279051
• Haubrich, H. (1991). Centralization or Decentralization of Geography Curricula: an International Perspective. Geography, Vol. 76, No. 3 (July 1991), pp. 209-217. https://www.jstor.org/stable/405720 82
• Hardy, I. & Campbell, T. (2020). Developing and Supoorting the Next Generation Science Standarts: The role of policy entrepreneurs. Science education. Vol. 104, Issue 3. 479-499
• Karamustafaoğlu, S., Salar, U., & Celep, A. (2016). Teachers' Views Regarding Seconday School Grade 5 Science Textbook. Gazi Journal of Educational Sciences, 1(2).
• Kaya, E., Çetin, PS & Yıldırım, A. (2014). Transformation of Centralized Curriculum into Classroom Practice: An Analysis of Teachers' Experiences. International Journal of Curriculum and Instructional Studies, 2 (3).
• Küçükahmet, L. (2009). Curriculum Development and Teaching. (24th ed.). Ankara: Nobel Publication.
• Marzano, RJ, Pickering, D., & McTighe, J. (1993). Assessing Student Outcomes: Performance Assessment Using the Dimensions of Learning Model. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, 1250 N. Pitt St., Alexandria, VA 22314.
• Malley, L., Neidorf, T., Arora, A. & Kroeger, T. (2015). United States-Overview of Education System. http://timssandpirls.bc.edu Access Date: 18. 10.2017
• MoNE (2005). Primary Science and Technology Lesson (Grades 4 and 5) Curriculum. www.meb.gov.tr/TTKB.
• MoNE (2013). Primary Education Institutions (Primary and Secondary School) Science 3-4-5-6-7-8 Curriculum (Date of Access: 25.04.2016) .www.meb.gov.tr / TTKB.
• MoNE (2018). Science Curriculum. Ankara: MEB. mufredat.meb.gov.tr Professional Competency Board Turkey Qualifications Framework. Access Date: January 10, 2020.
• National Research Council - NRC (2012). A Framework for K-12 Science Education: Practices, Crosscutting Concepts, and Core Ideas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/13165.
• NGA & CCSSO (2010). Common Core State Standards. National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, Council of Chief State School Officers, Washington DC http://www.corestandards.org/. Access date: 10/2014
• NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next Generation Science Standards: For States, By States. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
• Nunalall S. (2012). The effect of continuous curriculum policy changes on the Professional lives of foundation phase in post-apartheid South Africa. MEd dissertation. Durban: University of KwaZulu-Natal.
• OECD (2015). “Turkey” in Education Policy Outlook 2015: Making Reforms Happen, Paris: OECD Publishing.
• Opertti, R., Kang, H., & Magni, G. (2018). Comparative Analysis of the National Curriculum Frameworks of Five Countries: Brazil, Cambodia, Finland, Kenya and Peru. UNESCO International Bureau of Education
• Özçelik, DA (1998). Education Programs and Teaching. Ankara: OSYM Publications
• Reiser, BJ (2013). What Professional Development Strategies Are Needed for Successful Implementation of the Next Generation Science Standards?. Invitational Research Symposium on Science Assessment, September.
• Sonmez, V. (2012). Teacher's Handbook in Curriculum Development. Ankara: Anı Publication
• Stabback, P. (2016). What Makes a Quality Curriculum? In-Progress Reflection No.2. Accessed from the UNESCO digital library. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000243975. Access date: 01-02.2020
• Tyler, WR (1949). Basic Principles of Education Curriculum and Instruction. Translated by: (M. Emin Rüzgar, Berna Aslan, 2014). Pegem A Sagittarius: Ankara
• Uşun, S. (2012). Curriculum Evaluation in Education. Processes, Approaches, Models. Ankara: Anı Publication
• Varıs, F. (1996). Curriculum Development in Education: Theories, Techniques. Ankara: Alkim Publishing.
• Vitikka E., Krokfors L., Hurmerinta E. (2012) The Finnish National Core Curriculum. Niemi H., Toom A., Kallioniemi A. (eds) Miracle of Education in. SensePublishers
• Vural, M. (2003). Primary School Program. Erzurum: Yakutiye Publications.
• Wiggins, G. & McTighe, J. (2005). Understanding By Design. ASCD.
• Yıldırım, A. & Şimşek, H. (2016). Qulitative Reseach Methods in Socvial Sciences. Ankara: Seçkin Publication.
• Yıldırım, A. (2003). Instructional Planning in a Centralized School System: Lessons of a Study Among Primary School Teachers in Turkey. International Review of Education 49, 525–543. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1026361208399