SWOT Analysis of the Recently Reformed Turkish Science Curriculum Based on Science Teachers’ Views

Öz

This study utilized SWOT analysis to determine science teachers' perspectives on the new 2018 Science Curriculum (TSC2018), while also examining the distribution of these views across different regions of Türkiye. Employing a phenomenological design, a qualitative research approach. Data were gathered through a SWOT analysis form. Participants shared their opinions on the form, discussing the strengths and weaknesses (internal factors) of the curriculum, as well as the opportunities and threats (external factors). 196 science teachers volunteered for the study. Results indicate that strengths of the curriculum were the most frequently mentioned, with themes such as the integration of values in education highlighted prominently. Furthermore, regional disparities in perceptions were identified for certain themes. These findings offer valuable insights for educators and policymakers, shedding light on both internal and external factors that could influence the curriculum's effectiveness. The study suggests the adoption of SWOT analysis as a tool for evaluating training programs from diverse perspectives.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Science Curriculum
• SWOT Analysis
• Curriculum Development
• Educational Programs
• Science Teachers

Fen Bilimleri Dersi Öğretim Programının Öğretmen Görüşlerine Göre SWOT Analizi

Öz

Bu çalışmada 2018 Fen Bilimleri Dersi Öğretim Programı hakkında fen bilimleri öğretmenlerinin görüşleri SWOT analizi kullanılarak tespit edilmiştir. Ayrıca, öğretmen görüşlerinin Türkiye'nin farklı bölgelerine göre dağılımı ortaya konulmuştur. Çalışma, nitel araştırma yöntemlerinden biri olan olgu bilim (fenomenoloji) deseninde yürütülmüştür. Çalışmanın verileri SWOT analiz formu kullanılarak toplanmıştır. Öğretmenler görüşlerini form üzerinde öğretim programının dâhili unsurları olan güçlü ve zayıf yönler ile harici unsurlar olan fırsatlar ve tehditler temaları altında ifade etmişlerdir. Çalışmaya 196 fen bilimleri öğretmeni gönüllü olarak katılmıştır. Sonuçlar, programının güçlü yönlerinin tüm temalar arasında en yüksek kod frekansına sahip olduğunu göstermektedir. Örneğin değerler eğitiminin entegrasyonu en fazla frekansa sahip olan kodlardan birisi olarak ortaya çıkmaktadır. Ayrıca, bu çalışma bazı kodlar için önemli bölgesel farklılıkları da ortaya koymaktadır. Çalışmanın sonuçları programın hedeflerine ulaşma potansiyeli üzerinde etkisi olabilecek dâhili ve harici unsurlara ilişkin uygulayıcılara ve politika geliştiricilere önemli bilgiler sağlamaktadır. Ayrıca, eğitim programlarının çeşitli açılardan değerlendirilmesi için SWOT analizinin kullanılması önerilmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Fen Öğretim Programı
• SWOT Analizi
• Program Geliştirme
• Eğitim Programı
• Fen Bilimleri Öğretmenleri

Kaynakça

1. Aksoy, G. (2019). Exploration of pre-service science teachers’ perceptions towards secondary school science curriculum. International Journal of Contemporary Educational Research, 6(1), 11–28. https://doi.org/10.33200/ijcer.543360
2. Allchin, D. (1999). Values in science: An educational perspective. Science & Education, 8(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008600230536
3. Alshammari, A. (2013). Curriculum implementation and reform: Teachers' views about Kuwait's new science curriculum. US-China Education Review A, 3(3), 181–186.
4. Ampartzaki, M., & Kalogiannakis, M. (2016). Astronomy in early childhood education: A concept-based approach. Early Childhood Education Journal, 44(2), 169–179. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-015-0706-5
5. Aydin, S., & Cakiroglu, J. (2010). Teachers’ views related to the new science and technology curriculum: Ankara case. Ilkogretim Online, 9(1), 301–315.
6. Bailey, J. M., & Slater, T. F. (2003). A review of astronomy education research. Astronomy Education Review, 2(2), 20–45.
7. Balamuralikrishna, R., & Dugger, J. C. (1995). SWOT analysis--A management tool for initiating new programs in vocational schools. Journal of Vocational and Technical Education, 12(1), 36–41.
8. Carnoy, M., Khavenson, T., & Ivanova, A. (2013). Using TIMSS and PISA results to inform educational policy: a study of Russia and its neighbours. Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education, 45(2), 248–271. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057925.2013.855002

9. Castano Rodriguez, C. (2016). Which values regarding nature and other species are we promoting in the Australian science curriculum? Cultural Studies of Science Education, 11, 999–1021. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-015-9675-7
10. Chou, C. C., Yih, J. M., Wong, C. P., Chang, H. T., Chen, M. H., Chang, H. W., Lai, H. Y., & Lin, C. Y. (2012). SWOT analysis of operation strategies of the world’s Top 20 carriers. Applied Mechanics and Materials, 178(181), 2863–2866. https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMM.178-181.2863
11. Chowdhury, M. (2016). Emphasizing morals, values, ethics, and character education in science education and science teaching. Malaysian Online Journal of Educational Sciences, 4(2), 1–16.
12. Coble, K., Conlon, M., & Bailey, J. M. (2018). Investigating undergraduate students’ ideas about the curvature of the Universe. Physical Review Physics Education Research, 14(1), 010144. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.14.010144
13. Corrigan, D., & Smith, K. (2015). The role of values in teaching and learning science. International Perspectives on Inclusive Education, 7, 99–117. https://doi.org/10.1108/S1479-363620150000007012
14. Demir, K., & Çetin, P. S. (2023). 2018 Fen bilimleri dersi öğretim programının 21. yüzyıl becerileri açısından incelenmesi. Anadolu Öğretmen Dergisi, 7(1), 25–43. https://doi.org/10.35346/aod.1279320
15. Duschl, R. A., & Bybee, R. W. (2014). Planning and carrying out investigations: An entry to learning and to teacher professional development around science and engineering practices. International Journal of STEM Education, 1(1), 12. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-014-0012-6
16. Ervural, B. C., Zaim, S., Demirel, O. F., Aydin, Z., & Delen, D. (2018). An ANP and fuzzy TOPSIS-based SWOT analysis for Turkey’s energy planning. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 82, 1538–1550. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2017.06.095
17. Göksel, I. (2013). Female labor force participation in Turkey: The role of conservatism. Women's Studies International Forum, 41, 45–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wsif.2013.04.006
18. Gurel, E., & Tat, M. (2017). SWOT analysis: a theoretical review. Journal of International Social Research, 10(51), 994–1006. http://dx.doi.org/10.17719/jisr.2017.1832
19. Hill, T., & Westbrook, R. (1997). SWOT analysis: It's time for a product recall. Long Range Planning, 30(1), 46–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0024-6301(96)00095-7
20. Kajanus, M., Leskinen, P., Kurttila M., & Kangas J. (2012). Making use of MCDS methods in SWOT analysis-lessons learnt in strategic natural resources management. Forest Policy and Economics, 20, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2012.03.005
21. Kim, T., Cho, J. Y., & Lee, B. G. (2013). Evolution to smart learning in public education: A case study of Korean public education. In IFIP WG 3.4 International Conference on Open and Social Technologies for Networked Learning (pp. 170–178). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.
22. Komalasari, M. D., & Apriani, A. N. (2023). Integration of the living values education program (LVEP) in the Merdeka Curriculum. Elementary School: Jurnal Pendidikan dan Pembelajaran ke-SDan, 10(1), 61–69.
23. Krajcik, J. S., & Sutherland, L. M. (2010). Supporting students in developing literacy in science. Science, 328(5977), 456–459. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1182593
24. Kurnaz, M. A., Bozdemir, H., Deniz Altunoğlu, B., & Çevik, E. E. (2016). Analysis of national articles published in astronomy subject areas. Erzincan University Journal of Education Faculty, 18(2), 1398–1417. https://doi.org/10.17556/jef.02610
25. Leach, J. (2002). Teachers’ views on the future of the secondary science curriculum. School Science Review, 83(304), 43–50.
26. Lederman, N.G., & Lederman, J.S. (2014). Research on teaching and learning of nature of science. In N. G.
27. Lederman & S. K. Abell (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education, Volume II (pp. 600-620). Routledge.
28. Lee, S. F., Lo, K. K., Leung, R. F., & Ko, A. S. O. (2000). Strategy formulation framework for vocational education: integrating SWOT analysis, balanced scorecard, QFD methodology and MBNQA education criteria. Managerial Auditing Journal, 15(8), 407–423. https://doi.org/10.1108/02686900010353999
29. Martin, M. O., Mullis, I. V. S., Foy, P., & Hooper, M. (2016a). TIMSS 2015 international results in science. Chestnut Hill: TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center, Boston College.http://timssandpirls.bc.edu/timss2015/internationalresults/
30. Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı. (2016a). Uluslararası öğrenci değerlendirme programı, PISA 2015 Ulusal Raporu.https://pisa.meb.gov.tr/eski%20dosyalar/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/PISA2015_UlusalRapor.pdf
31. Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı. (2016b). TIMSS 2015 ulusal matematik ve fen bilimleri ön raporu 4. ve 8. sınıflar, https://odsgm.meb.gov.tr/meb_iys_dosyalar/2017_06/23161945_timss_2015_on_raporu.pdf
32. Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı .(2018a). Fen bilimleri dersi öğretim programı (ilkokul ve ortaokul 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ve 8. sınıflar) öğretim programı. https://mufredat.meb.gov.tr/Dosyalar/201812312311937-FEN%20B%C4%B0L%C4%B0MLER%C4%B0%20%C3%96%C4%9ERET%C4%B0M%20PROGRAMI2018.pdf
33. Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı. (2018b). Eğitim 2023 Vizyonu. https://tegm.meb.gov.tr/www/2023-vizyonu/icerik/23
34. Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı. (2019a). PISA 2018 Türkiye ön raporu. https://pisa.meb.gov.tr/eski%20dosyalar/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/PISA_2018_Turkiye_On_Raporu.pdf
35. Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı. (2019b). Milli eğitim istatistikleri örgün eğitim 2018-2019. https://sgb.meb.gov.tr/meb_iys_dosyalar/2019_09/30102730_meb_istatistikleri_orgun_egitim_2018_2019.pdf
36. Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı. (2022). PISA Türkiye Raporu https://pisa.meb.gov.tr/meb_iys_dosyalar/2024_03/21120745_26152640_pisa2022_rapor.pdf
37. Monaco, M., & Martin, M. (2007). The millennial student: A new generation of learners. Athletic Training Education Journal, 2(2), 42–46. https://doi.org/10.4085/1947-380X-2.2.42
38. Mullis, I. V., Martin, M. O., Foy, P., Kelly, D. L., & Fishbein, B. (2020). TIMSS 2019 international results in mathematics and science. https://www.skolporten.se/app/uploads/2020/12/timss-2019-highlights-1.pdf
39. Next Generation Science Standards Lead States (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states. The National Academies Press.
40. Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development. (2016). PISA 2015 results (Volume I): Excellence and equity in education, PISA. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264266490-en
41. Orhan, A. T. (2018). A comparative analysis of the science curricula applied in Turkey between 2000 and 2017. International Journal of Higher Education, 7(6), 13-25. https://doi.org/10.5430/ijhe.v7n6p13
42. Percy, J. R. (2006). Teaching astronomy: Why and how? The Journal of the American Association of Variable Star Observers, 35(1), 248–254.
43. Pick, A. M., Begley, K. J., & Augustine, S. (2017). Changes in teaching strategies to accommodate a new generation of learner: A case study. Pharmacy Education, 17(1), 95–99.
44. Rachid, G. & Fadel, M.E., (2013). Comparative SWOT analysis of strategic environmental assessment systems in the Middle East and North Africa region. Journal of Environmental Management, 125, 85–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2013.03.053
45. Rautalin, M., & Alasuutari, P. (2009). The uses of the national PISA results by Finnish officials in central government. Journal of Education Policy, 24(5), 539–556. https://doi.org/10.1080/02680930903131267
46. Romero-Gutierrez, M., Jimenez-Liso, M. R., & Martinez-Chico, M. (2016). SWOT analysis to evaluate the programme of a joint online/onsite master's degree in environmental education through the students’ perceptions. Evaluation and Program Planning, 54, 41–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2015.10.001
47. Sarı, E. (2005). Value preferences of prospective teachers: A case of Giresun faculty of education. Journal of Values Education, 3(10). 73–88.
48. Sharp, J. G. (1999). Young children's ideas about the earth in space. International Journal of Early Years Education, 7(2), 159–172. https://doi.org/10.1080/0966976990070204
49. Silver, C., & Lewins, A. (2014). Using software in qualitative research: A step-by-step guide. SAGE.
50. Tan, S. K. (1997). Moral values and science teaching: A Malaysian school curriculum initiative. Science & Education, 6(6), 555–572. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008613709213
51. Türk Eğitim Derneği Düşünce Kuruluşu. (2013). 2005 ve 2013 fen programları ve felsefi temelleri üzerine. https://tedmem.org/blog/2005-ve-2013-fen-programlari-ve-felsefitemelleri-uzerine 15/11/2020
52. Tekbıyık, A. (2018). Foundations of science teaching and curricula. A. Tekbıyık, & G. Çakmakcı (Eds.), Science teaching and STEM activities (pp. 1-14). Nobel Yayınevi.
53. Tekbıyık, A., & Akdeniz, A. R. (2008). İlköğretim fen ve teknoloji dersi öğretim programını kabullenmeye ve uygulamaya yönelik öğretmen görüşleri. Necatibey Eğitim Fakültesi Elektronik Fen ve Matematik Eğitimi Dergisi, 2(2), 23-37.
54. Titscher, S., Vetter, E., Wodak, R., & Meyer, M. (2000). Methods of text and discourse analysis: In search of meaning. SAGE Publications Ltd.
55. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. (1993). Strategies and methods for teaching values in the context of science and technology. UNESCO Principal Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific, Thailand.
56. Van Manen, M. (2023). Phenomenology of practice: Meaning-giving methods in phenomenological research and writing. Routledge.
57. Zavalsız, Y. S. (2014). University students’ perception of values. (The Exemplar of Karabük University). Electronic Turkish Studies, 9(2), 1739–1762. https://.doi.org/10.7827/TurkishStudies.6394