Teacher Training Paradigms of Countries with High Science Performing: The Case of Singapore, Finland, South Korea and Türkiye in the Light of PISA and TALIS Data

Öz

This study aims to examine the teacher education paradigms of high-performing countries in science based on PISA and TALIS data. Conducted within the sample of Singapore, South Korea, Finland, and Türkiye, the research comparatively analyzes teacher competencies, professional development, and teacher education systems. The study is structured through a descriptive analysis method, drawing on data from the 2015–2022 PISA cycles and the 2018 TALIS results.The findings reveal that Singapore and South Korea stand out for their systematic mentoring frameworks, comprehensive professional development models, and the allocation of preparation time for teachers. Finland, on the other hand, enhances the quality of science teachers through graduate-level teacher education, practice schools, and research-based clinical models. Although Türkiye has implemented significant reforms in teacher education, it still exhibits areas for development, particularly in mentoring, the quality of professional development, and instructional planning time.TALIS data underscore that high science achievement is not solely a result of individual teacher efforts but is strongly associated with comprehensive and systematic teacher education policies. The study offers policy implications, particularly for Türkiye, by recommending the elevation of teacher education to the graduate level, the institutionalization of mentoring systems, and the alignment of professional development activities with classroom practices

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Science achievement
• teacher training
• TALIS
• PISA

Fen Başarısı Yüksek Ülkelerin Öğretmen Yetiştirme Paradigmaları: PISA ve TALIS Verileri Işığında Singapur, Finlandiya, Güney Kore ve Türkiye Örneği

Öz

Bu çalışma, PISA ve TALIS verileri ışığında fen başarısı yüksek ülkelerin öğretmen yetiştirme paradigmalarını incelemeyi amaçlamaktadır. Singapur, Güney Kore, Finlandiya ve Türkiye örnekleminde yürütülen araştırmada, öğretmen yeterlikleri, mesleki gelişim ve öğretmen yetiştirme sistemleri karşılaştırmalı olarak analiz edilmiştir. Betimsel analiz yöntemiyle yapılandırılan çalışmada, 2015–2022 PISA sonuçları ile 2018 TALIS verileri temel alınmıştır. Elde edilen bulgular, Singapur ve Güney Kore’nin sistematik mentorluk yapıları, kapsamlı mesleki gelişim sistemleri ve öğretmenlere sağlanan hazırlık zamanı gibi konularda öne çıktığını göstermektedir. Finlandiya’nın ise yüksek lisans düzeyinde öğretmen eğitimi, uygulama okulları ve araştırma temelli klinik modellerle fen öğretmenlerinin niteliğini artırdığı görülmektedir. Türkiye ise öğretmen yetiştirme sürecinde önemli reformlar gerçekleştirmekle birlikte mentorluk, mesleki gelişim niteliği ve planlama süreleri açısından hâlâ gelişim alanlarına sahiptir. TALIS verileri, yüksek fen başarısının sadece öğretmenlerin bireysel çabalarıyla değil, bütüncül ve sistematik öğretmen yetiştirme politikalarıyla sağlandığını ortaya koymaktadır. Çalışma, özellikle Türkiye için öğretmenlik mesleğini yüksek lisans düzeyine taşımayı, mentorluk sistemini kurumsallaştırmayı ve mesleki gelişimi sınıf içi uygulamalarla uyumlu hale getirmeyi önererek politika yapıcılar için çıkarımlar sunmaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Fen başarısı
• öğretmen yetiştirme
• TALIS
• PISA

Kaynakça

1. Ataman, O., & Orhan, A. (2024). Comparative analysis of top-performıng countrıes in PISA and Türkiye’s teacher competences. Trakya Eğitim Dergisi, 14(1), 241-259. https://doi.org/10.24315/tred.1344790.
2. Avcı, B., & Yücel-Toy, B. (2018). Comparison of Norwegian and Turkish education systems and teacher training systems. Mediterranean Journal of Educational Research, 12(25), 39 - 59. https://doi.org/10.29329/mjer.2018.153.3.
3. Belge Can, H. (2019). Review of pedagogical content knowledge: The case of science education. Millî Eğitim, 48(224), (353-380).
4. Boran-Yılmaz, R., Erden, G., Sarıca, B., Yılmaz, Ö., Berat, G., & Akın, M. (2019). Teachers' training and assignment systems of successful countries in PISA. Academic Platform Journal of Education and Change, 2(2), 217-236.
5. Bybee, R., Fensham, P., & Laurie, R. (2009). Scientific literacy and context in PISA 2006 science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. 46(8), 862-864. Doi: 10.1002/tea.20332
6. Can-Aran, Ö. & Derman, İ. (2020). An investigation of science teacher education program in terms of science competencies of different countries. Erzincan University Journal of Education Faculty, 22(3), 723-749. https://doi.org/10.17556/erziefd.661722.
7. Canbazoglu,S., Demirelli, H. & Kavak, N. (2010). Investigation of the relationship between pre-service science teachers’ subject matter knowledge and pedagogical content knowledge regarding the particulate nature of matter, Elementary Education Online, 9(1). pp. 275–291.
8. Ceylan, E., Özdoğan Özbal, E., Sever, M., & Boyacı, A. (2020). Views of teachers and school principals in Turkey, teaching conditions: An analysis of responses from the 2018 TALIS Survey. Ankara: Ministry of National Education Publications.

9. Cho, H.-H., Cho, Y. S., Kwon, S. M., Park, D., Kang, Y. J., Kim, H., & Ko, Y. J. (2006). An exploration of the research on the curriculum and pedagogical content knowledge for secondary science teacher education. Journal of Research in Curriculum Instruction, 10(2), 281-301.
10. Çetinkaya, M., Taş, E., & Ergun, M. (2014). Comparison of Science Teacher Education Programmes in Türkiye and Finland. Mustafa Kemal Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 10(24), 113-130.
11. Darling-Hammond, L., Wei, R., & Andree, A. (2010). How high-achieving countries develop great teachers. Stanford Center for Opportunity Policy in Education. ttp://www.oup.hu/howhigh_doug.pdf.
12. Demirel Yazıcı, S., & Cemaloğlu, N. (2022). A comparative examination of Turkey's teacher profile with OECD countries. Manisa Celal Bayar University Journal of Social Sciences, 20(3), 15-40. https://doi.org/10.18026/cbayarsos.1068214
13. EDU/EPDC (2024). Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2024, May 24). Re-thinking future education in Korea: Towards student agency and well-being [For official use]. Directorate for Education and Skills, Education Policy Committee.
14. EDUFI-Finnish National Agency for Education. (2022). Finnish education in a nutshell. https://www.oph.fi/en/statistics-and-publications/publications/finnish-education-nutshell
15. Ergun, M., & Avcı, S. (2013). Comparative analysis of science teacher education programs in the Netherlands and Türkiye. Ondokuz Mayis University Journal of Education Faculty, 32(1). https://doi.org/10.7822/egt107.
16. Gess-Newsome, J., Taylor, J. A., Carlson, J., Gardner, A. L., Wilson, C. D., & Stuhlsatz, M. A. M. (2019). Teacher pedagogical content knowledge, practice, and student achievement. International Journal of Science Education, 41(7), 944–963. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2016.1259530
17. Ghani, M. A., & Smith, P. A. (2023). Exploring the predictors of teachers’ teaching autonomy: A three-level international study. Teaching and Teacher Education, 130, 103919. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2023.103919
18. Göçen-Kabaran, G., & Görgen, İ. (2016). Comparative analysis of teacher education systems in South Korea, Hong Kong, Singapore and Türkiye. Bartın University Journal of Faculty of Education, 5(2), 478-495. https://doi.org/10.14686/buefad.v5i2.5000171265
19. Gül, A. C. (2016). Comparison of teacher training and selection systems of Türkiye, China, Finland, Japan and the Netherlands. Adnan Menderes University Faculty of Education Journal of Educational Sciences, 7(2), 63-72.
20. Gültekin, M., & Özenç-İra, G. (2019). Classroom teacher training systems in the United States, Japan, Singapore and Finland. International Journal of New Trends in Arts, Sports &Science Education, 8(4), 126-140.
21. Im, S., Yoo, J., & Pak, S.-J. (2001). A comparative study on science teacher education system. Journal of the Korean Association for Research in Science Education, 21(5), 855-866.
22. Im, S., Yoon, H.-G., & Cha, J. (2016). Pre-service science teacher education system in South Korea: Prospects and challenges. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 12(7), 1863–1880. https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2016.1533a
23. Jeong, E. (2020). Education reform for the future: A case study of Korea, International Journal of Education and Development using Information and Communication Technology (IJEDICT), 16 (3) (Special Issue), pp. 66-81
24. Keller, M. M., Neumann, K., & Fischer, H. E. (2016). The impact of physics teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge and motivation on students’ achievement and interest. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 54(5), 586–614. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21378.
25. Kind, V. (2009). Pedagogical content knowledge in science education: Perspectives and potential for progress. Studies in Science Education, 45(2), 169–204.
26. Koyuncu, M.S. (2025). Investigaing the relationship between teachers' self effıciency, job satisfaction and teaching practices: 2018 TALIS latent profile analysis, International Journal of Education Technology and Scientific Researches, 10(30), 1-11. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.35826/ijetsar.768.
27. Kraft, M., D. Blazar, & D. Hogan (2018), “The effect of teacher coaching on instruction and achievement: A meta-analysis of the causal evidence”, Review of Educational Research,88(4) pp. 547-588, https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654318759268.
28. Laugksch, R. C. (2000). Scientific literacy: A Conceptual overwiew. Science Education, 84(1), 71-94.
29. Lederman, N.G., Lederman, J.S., & Antink, A. (2013). Nature of science and scientific inquiry as contexts for the learning of science and achievement of scientific literacy. International Journal of Education in Mathematics, Science and Technology, 1(3), 138-147.
30. Lee, J.-K. (2025) The origin and evolution of education fever in South Korea: In terms of the cultural history of Korea. ERIC. ERIC Number: ED672325 https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED672325.pdf
31. Liu, E., Liu, C., & Wang, J. (2015). Pre-service science teacher preparation in China: Challenges and promises. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 26(1), 29-44. doi: 10.1007/s10972 014-9404-1.
32. Loh, J., & Hu, G. (2019). Teacher education in Singapore. In G. Noblit (Ed.), Oxford research encyclopedia of education. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/ACREFORE/9780190264093.013.293
33. Magnusson, S., Krajcik, J., & Borko, H. (1999). Nature, sources, and development of pedagogical content knowledge for science teaching. In J. Gess-Newsome & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Examining PCK (pp. 95–132). Springer.
34. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. Sage Publications.
35. MoNE(2005). Primary school science and technology curriculum (Grades 6, 7, and 8). Ankara: MEB Publishing.
36. MoNE (2013). Primary school science curriculum (Grades 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8). Ankara: MEB Publishing.
37. MoNE (2016). PISA 2015 National report of Türkiye. Ministry of National Education, Directorate General for Measurement, Assessment, and Examination Services. Ankara.
38. MoNE (2017). General competencies for teaching profession. Ankara.
39. MoNE (2018). Primary school science curriculum (Grades 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8). Ankara: MEB Publishing House. Retrieved from http://mufredat.meb.gov.tr/ProgramDetay.aspx?PID=143
40. MoNE (2019). Preliminary assessment report of PISA 2018, MEB Publications, Ankara. https://pisa.meb.gov.tr/www/raporlar/icerik/5
41. MoNE (2024a). Science Course Curriculum (Grades 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8): Century of Türkiye Education Model. Ankara: MoNE.
42. MoNE (2024b). PISA 2022 OECD country summaries. Directorate General for Measurement, Assessment, and Examination Services. Ankara.
43. Mete, Y. A. (2013). Teacher education and appointment policies in New Zealand, South Korea, Japan and Finland. Journal of Turkish Studies, 8(12), 859-878. https://doi.org/10.7827/TurkishStudies.5916.
44. MOE (2025). Overview of teacher education program. Sejong: MOE. https://english.moe.go.kr/main.do?s=english
45. Mostafa, T., & Pál, J. (2018). Science teachers’ satisfaction: Evidence from the PISA 2015 teacher survey (OECD Education Working Paper No. 168). OECD Publishing. https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/1ecdb4e3-en.
46. Niemi, H & Lavonen, J. (2020). Teacher education in Finland: Persistent efforts for high-quality teachers. in L Lefty & J W Fraser (eds), Teaching the World's Teachers. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, pp. 153-178.
47. NTU (2023). National Institute of Education: Science teacher education. Nanyang Technological University. https://www.nie.edu.sg/
48. OECD. (2009). Creating effective teaching and learning environments: First results from TALIS. OECD Publishing.
49. OECD (2016). PISA 2015 results (Volume I): Excellence and equity in education. Paris: OECD Publishing.
50. OECD (2018), Equity in education: Breaking down barriers to social mobility, PISA, OECD Publishing, Paris. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264073234-en
51. OECD (2019). TALIS 2018 results (Volume I): Teachers and school leaders as lifelong learners, TALIS, OECD Publishing, Paris. https://doi.org/10.1787/1d0bc92a-en
52. OECD (2020). TALIS 2018 Results (Volume II): Teachers and school leaders as valued professionals, TALIS, OECD Publishing, Paris. https://doi.org/10.1787/19cf08df-en.
53. Orakçı, Ş. (2015). An analysis of teacher education systems of Shanghai, Hong Kong, Singapore, Japan and South Korea. Asian Journal of Instruction, 3(2), 26-43.
54. OYGM (2018). TALIS contents. Directorate General for Teacher Training and Education, MoNE. https://oygm.meb.gov.tr/www/talis-2018/icerik/1122
55. Ökten, Ş. (2019). An investigation of the changes in PISA reading-mathematics-science literacy scores by using multivariate-multilevel modeling. Unpublished Master's Thesis. Hacettepe University, Ankara.
56. ÖMK (2024). Teaching Profession Law. https://resmigazete.gov.tr/eskiler/2024/10/20241018-1.htm
57. Özerbaş, M. A., & Safi, B. N. (2022). The comparative examination of the countries that have become successful TIMSS and PISA and the Turkish teacher training systems. Journal of Kırşehir Education Faculty, 23(2), 1960-1992.
58. Patton. M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
59. Redecker, C.(2017). European framework for the digital competence of educators: DigCompEdu. Publications Office of the European Union, doi:10.2760/178382.
60. Sahlberg, P. (2010). The Secret to Finland’s success: Educating teachers, Stanford Center for Opportunity Policy in Education. Research Brief.
61. Sahlberg, P. (2011). Finnish lessons: what can the world learn from educational change in Finland?. New York:
62. Teachers College Press. [Book review] - In: CEPS Journal 1 (2011) 3, S. 167-170. https://www.pedocs.de/volltexte/2015/11098/pdf/CEPSJ_2011_3_Franko_Rezension_Sahlberg_Finnish_lessons_what_can.pdf.
63. Sanders, W., & J. Rivers (1996). Cumulative and residual effects of teachers on future student academic achievement. Knoxville: University of Tennessee Value Added Research and Assessment Centre.
64. Saracaloğlu, A. S., & Ceylan, V. K. (2016). Teacher education in different countries: The cases of the USA, South Korea, Ireland, Singapore, and Turkey. 4th International Curriculum and Instruction Congress, Antalya, October 27–30, 2016. Full Text Book. 746-762. (e-ISBN: 978-605-318-761-5) Doi: 10.14527/9786053187615.
65. Tan, A.-L. (2018). Journey of science teacher education in Singapore: Past, present and future. Asia-Pacific Science Education, 4(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41029-017-0018-8.
66. Uluman Mert, M. (2023). Examining teachers' opinions on assessment of learning and feedback with TALIS 2018 data: The example of Finland, Singapore and Türkiye. Kocaeli University Journal of Education, 6(2), 598-616. http://doi.org/10.33400/kuje.1335232.
67. Yener, D., Yılmaz, M., & Gölcük, Z. (2021). Comparison of 2007 and 2018 science teacher training programs and suggestions for new programs. Turkish Studies - Education, 16(3), 1773-1794. https://dx.doi.org/10.47423/TurkishStudies.51417
68. Yıldırım, A., & Şimşek, H. (2021). Qualitative research methods in the social sciences (12th ed.). Ankara: Seçkin Publishing.
69. YÖK (2018). Undergraduate teacher education programs. Ankara University Printing House.