Exploration of Pre-Service Science Teachers’ Perceptions towards Secondary School Science Curriculum

Abstract

This study aims to put forth how and to what degree pre-service science teachers can practice 2018 Secondary School Science Curriculum (SSSC). The study employs an illustrative case study design. Identified through purposive sampling, the participants of the study consist of 28 senior pre-service teachers studying at science teaching program at an education faculty. Document analysis, semi-structured observation form and researcher’s journal were used as data collection tools. The data were analyzed through descriptive analysis. The findings of the study reveal that there are some mismatches between the contents of 2018 SSSC and prospective teachers’ practices. It was found out that prospective teachers have deficiencies in the areas of using materials that fit with subjects, using evaluation methods in line with learning outcomes, making use of instructional technologies, knowledge of instructional approaches, methods and techniques, and stating lesson plan clearly. On the other hand, the pre-service teachers have positive behaviours regarding relating the subject with previous and subsequent lessons, securing the learning environment, relating the subject with other subjects in the field and knowledge of basic concepts of the subject.

Keywords

• Pre-service science teachers,intended curriculum,enacted curriculum,general competencies for teaching profession

References

1. Arias, A. M., Bismack, A. S., Davis, E. A., & Palincsar, A. S. (2016). Interacting With a Suite of Educative Features: Elementary Science Teachers’ Use of Educative Curriculum Materials. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 53(3), 422-449. doi:10.1002/tea.21250
2. Atasoy, Ş. (2018). Student Teachers' Informal Reasoning of Local Socioscientific Issues according to the Living Places. Fen Bilimleri Öğretimi Dergisi, 6(1), 60-72.
3. Atila, E. (2012). Science and technology teachers? perceptions and implementation of constructivist principles in science and technology curriculum. (Unpublished Doctoral Thesis), Atatürk University, Insitute of Education Sciences, Erzurum, TURKEY. (319674).
4. Ayas, A., & Çepni, S. (2016). Eğitimde Program Geliştirme ve Bazı Fen ve Teknoloji Programları. In S. Çepni (Ed.), Kuramdan Uygulamaya Fen ve Teknoloji Öğretimi (Vol. 13, pp. 16-51.). Ankara, Turkey. : Pegem Akademi Yayıncılık.
5. Babayiğit, Ö., & Erkuş, B. (2017). Effectiveness of Reinforcements and Punishments Which Primary School Teachers Use in Lessons. Kastamonu Education Journal, 25(2), 567-580.
6. Bahar, M., Yener, D., Yilmaz, M., Emen, H., & Gürer, F. (2018). The Changes of Standards in the 2018 Science Curriculum and Stem Integration. Bolu Abant Izzet Baysal University, Journal of Faculty of Education, 18(2), 702-735.
7. Balkan-Kıyıcı, F., & Aydoğdu, M. (2011). Determination of Pre-Service Science Teachers’ Levels of Relating the Scientific Knowledge to Their Daily Lives. Necatibey Faculty of Education Electronic Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 5(1), 43-61.
8. Baskan, G. A., Aydın, A., & Madden, T. (2006). Türkiye’deki Öğretmen Yetiştirme Sistemine Karşılaştırmalı Bir Bakış. Journal of Çukurova University Institute of Social Sciences, 15(1), 35-42.

9. Bayrak, N., & Doğan, S. (2018). Examination in Terms of Formative Measurement and Evaluation of Biology Teacher Feedbacks. Bolu Abant Izzet Baysal University, Journal of Faculty of Education, 18(2), 752-774.
10. Baysura, Ö. D., Altun, S., & Yücel-Toy, B. (2016). Perceptions of Teacher Candidates regarding Project-Based Learning. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 62(3), 15-36. doi:10.14689/ejer.2016.62.3
11. Bulunuz, M., Tapan-Broutin, M. S., & Bulunuz, N. (2016). Pre-Service Teacher Scientific Behavior: Comparative Study of Paired Science Project Assignments. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 62(195-218.). doi:10.14689/ejer.2016.62.12
12. Büyüktokatli, N., & Bayraktar, Ş. (2014). Alternative Assessment Practices in Science. Pegem Journal of Education & Instruction, 4(1), 103-126. doi:10.14527/pegegog.2014.006
13. Can, H. (2015). Sources of Teaching Efficacy Beliefs in Pre-service Science Teachers. Elementary Education Online, 14(1), 333-348. doi:10.17051/io.2015.84390
14. CoHE. (1998). Fen Bilgisi Öğretmenliği Lisans Programı. Retrieved from http://www.yok.gov.tr/documents/10279/49665/fen_bilgisi/f385bc78-22df-497d-bfca-7aee80c75c22
15. CoHE. (2018a). Department of Elementary Science Education Curriculum. Retrieved from http://www.yok.gov.tr/documents/10279/41805112/Fen_Bilgisi_Ogretmenligi_Lisans_Programi.pdf
16. CoHE. (2018b). Öğretmen Yetiştirme Lisans Programları. Retrieved from http://www.yok.gov.tr/documents/10279/41805112/AA_Sunus_+Onsoz_Uygulama_Yonergesi.pdf
17. Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research Design Qualitative, Quantitative and Mixed Methods Approaches (Vol. 4). USA: Sage Publications.
18. Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2018). Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing Among Five Approaches (Vol. 4). USA: Sage Publications.
19. Çakır, N. K., & Sarıkaya, M. (2018). Evaluation of Science Process Skills of Pre-Service Science Teachers. Turkish Studies, 13(4), 859-884. doi:10.7827/TurkishStudies.12823
20. Çelik, S., & Bayrakçeken, S. (2014). Pre‐Service Science Teachers’ Attitudes Toward Project Based Learning Approach. Sakarya University Journal of Education Faculty (SUJEF), 27, 7-24.
21. Çıray, F., Küçükyılmaz, E. A., & Güven, M. (2015). The Views of Teachers about the Curriculum of Science Revised for Secondary Schools Dicle University Journal of Ziya Gökalp Faculty of Education, 25, 31-56. doi:10.14582/DUZGEF.566
22. Delen, İ., & Uzun, S. (2018). Evaluating STEM Based Learning Environments Created by Mathematics Pre-Service Teachers. Hacettepe University Journal of Education, 33(3), 617-630. doi:10.16986/HUJE.2018037019
23. Demiral, Ü., & Türkmenoğlu, H. (2018). The Relationship of Preservice Science Teachers’ Decision Making Strategies and Content Knowledge in Socio-Scientific Issues. Journal of Uludag University Faculty of Education, 31(1), 309-340.
24. Demirhan, E., Önder, İ., & Beşoluk, Ş. (2018). The Change in Scientific Creativity and Academic Achievement of Prospective Science Teachers by Years. Kastamonu Education Journal, 26(3), 685-696. doi:10.24106/kefdergi.373323
25. Deniz, S., & Tican, C. (2017). An Investigation of Pre-Service Teachers’ Teacher Self-Efficacy Beliefs and Opinions for their Professional Anxieties. Bolu Abant Izzet Baysal University, Journal of Faculty of Education, 17(4), 1838-1859.
26. Dursun, B., & Özmen, N. (2018). Science Preservice Teachers’ Views on Nature of Science and Technology. Journal of Educational Sciences Research (JESR), 8(1), 55-71. doi:10.22521/jesr.2018.81.2
27. Ekiz, D. (2003). Eğitimde Araştırma Yöntem ve Metodlarına Giriş (Nitel, Nicel ve Eleştirel Kuram Metodolojileri). Ankara, TURKEY: Anı Yayıncılık.
28. Elmalı, Ş., & Kıyıcı, F. B. (2018). Prospective Science Teachers’ Tendecies of Reflective Thinking and Views About Reflective Thinking. Elementary Education Online, 17(3), 1706-1718. doi:10.17051/ilkonline.2018.466423
29. Emrahoğlu, N., & Öztürk, A. (2010). The Effect of Metacognition on the Prospective Science Teachers’ Academic Achievement: An Ex Post Facto Research. Journal of Çukurova University Institute of Social Sciences, 19(2), 18-30.
30. Ercan, O., Coştu, F., & Coştu, B. (2018). Identifying Pre-Service Science Teachers’ Difficulties About Graph Drawings. Kastamonu Education Journal, 26(6), 1929-1938. doi:10.24106/kefdergi.2227
31. Erdem, E., & Soylu, Y. (2013). Prospective Teachers’ Opinions about CSSE and Field Examination. Journal of Institute of Social Sciences, 4(1), 223-236.
32. Eskicumalı, A., Demirtaş, Z., Erdoğan, D. G., & Arslan, S. (2014). The Comparison df the Science and Technology Curriculum and Renewed Science Curriculum. International Journal of Human Sciences, 11(1), 1077-1094. doi:10.14687/ijhs.v11i1.2664
33. Evrekli, E., İnel, D., Balım, A. G., & Kesercioğlu, T. (2009). Fen Öğretmen Adaylarının Yapılandırmacı Yaklaşıma Yönelik Tutumlarının İncelenmesi. Journal of Uludag University Faculty of Education, 22(2), 673-687.
34. Filiz, S. B., & Aydın, E. (2018). The Problems of Classroom Teachers: A Study Based on the Experiences of Classroom Teachers. Cukurova University Faculty of Education Journal, 47(2), 538-565. doi:10.14812/cuefd.375676
35. Gelbal, S., & Kelecioğlu, H. (2007). Teachers’ Proficiency Perceptions of About the Measurement And Evaluation Techniques and The Problems They Confront Hacettepe University Journal of Education, 33, 135-145.
36. Güneş, G., & Baki, A. (2011). Reflections from application of the fourth grade mathematics course curriculum. Hacettepe University Journal of Education, 41, 192-205,.
37. Hacıömeroğlu, G., & Taşkın, Ç. Ş. (2010). Preservice Teachers’ Attitudes towards Teaching Profession in Primary and Secondary Education. Kırşehir Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi (KEFAD), 11(1), 77-90.
38. Hằng, N. V. T., Bulte, A. M. W., & Pilot, A. (2017). Interaction of Vietnamese Teachers with a Social Constructivism-Based Primary Science Curriculum in a Framework Appropriate for a Confucian Heritage Culture. Asia-Pacific Science Education, 3(2), 1-33. doi:10.1186/s41029-017-0013-0
39. Hastürk, H. G. (2017). Fen Bilimleri Dersi Öğretim Programı. In H. G. Hastürk (Ed.), Teoriden Pratiğe Fen Bilimleri Öğretimi (Vol. 1, pp. 2-30.). Ankara, TURKEY: Pegem Akademi Yayıncılık.
40. Hıdır, M., & Körhasan, N. D. (2018). Examination of the Analogies in Science Textbooks and Opinions of Science Educators about the Effective Use of Analogies. Necatibey Faculty of Education Electronic Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 12(2), 415-453.
41. Kan, A. Ü., & Murat, A. (2018). Investigation of Prospective Science Teachers’ 21st Century Skill Competence Perceptions and Attitudes Toward STEM. International Online Journal of Educational Sciences, 10(4), 251-272. doi:10.15345/iojes.2018.04.014
42. Karaman, P., & Karaman, A. (2016). 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
43. Kavcar, C. (1987). Türk Dili ve Edebiyatı Öğretimi. Ankara University Journal of Faculty of Educational Sciences, 20(1), 261-273. doi:10.1501/Egifak_0000001077
44. Kutluca, A. Y., Yılmaz, A., & İbiş, E. (2018). Examination of Teacher Candidates’ Critical Thinking Attitudes in Terms of Various Variables. Kastamonu Education Journal, 26(4), 2045-2055. doi:10.24106/kefdergi.2309
45. Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic Inquiry. USA: Sage Publications.
46. McMillan, J. H., & Schumacher, S. (2001). Research in Education (Vol. 5). USA: Addison Wesley Longman, Inc.
47. Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative Research and Case Study Applications in Education: Revised and Expanded from Case Study Research in Education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
48. Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldana, J. (2014). Qualitative Data Analysis A Methods Sourcebook (Vol. 3). USA: Sage Publications.
49. MoNE. (2017). General Competencies for Teaching Profession. Retrieved from http://oygm.meb.gov.tr/meb_iys_dosyalar/2018_06/29111119_TeachersGeneralCompetencies.pdf
50. MoNE. (2018a). 2023 Eğitim Vizyonu. Retrieved from http://2023vizyonu.meb.gov.tr/doc/2023_EGITIM_VIZYONU.pdf
51. MoNE. (2018b). Fen Bilimleri Dersi Öğretim Programı (İlkokul ve Ortaokul 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ve 8. Sınıflar). Retrieved from http://mufredat.meb.gov.tr/ProgramDetay.aspx?PID=325
52. MoNE. (2018c). Uygulama Öğrencilerinin Milli Eğitim Bakanlığına Bağlı Eğitim Öğretim Kurumlarında Yapacakları Öğretmenlik Uygulamasına Ilişkin Yönerge. Retrieved from https://oygm.meb.gov.tr/meb_iys_dosyalar/2018_06/25172143_YYnerge.pdf
53. Newton, D. P. (1988). Relevance And Science Education. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 20(2), 7-12. doi:10.1111/j.1469-5812.1988.tb00139.x
54. Önal, N. T., Büyük, U., & Saraçoğlu, S. (2017). Scientific Process Skill Levels of Pre-Service Science Teachers. Marmara University Atatürk Education Faculty Journal of Educational Sciences, 47(47), 69-84. doi:10.15285/maruaebd.292043
55. Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative Research & Evaluation Methods (Vol. 4). USA: Sage Publications.
56. Pekbay, C., & Kaptan, F. (2014). Improvement of Pre-Service Science Teachers’ Awareness on the Effectiveness of Laboratory Method in Science Education: A Qualitative Study. Karaelmas Journal of Educational Sciences, 2(1), 1-11.
57. PISA. (2015). PISA Turkey Performance. Retrieved from http://www.compareyourcountry.org/pisa/country/TUR?lg=en
58. Sağlam-Arslan, A., Devecİoğlu-Kaymakçı, Y., & Arslan, S. (2009). Problems Concerning Alternative Evaluation Methods: The Case of Science and Tehnology Teachers Ondokuz Mayis University Journal of Education Faculty, 28(1), 1-12.
59. Saka, M. (2019). Evulations of Science Teachers Regarding the Classes of School Experience and Teaching Practices. Elementary Education Online, 18(1), 127-148. doi:10.17051/ilkonline.2019.527173
60. Selvi, M., & Yakışan, M. (2004). Misconceptions about Enzymes in University Students. Gazi University Journal of Gazi Education Faculty (GUJGEF), 24(2), 173-182.
61. Stuckey, M., Hofstein, A., Mamlok-Naaman, R., & Eilks, I. (2013). The Meaning of "Relevance" in Science Education and Its Implications for the Science Curriculum. Studies in Science Education, 49(1), 1-34. doi:10.1080/03057267.2013.802463
62. Şenol, F. B., Akyol, T., & Can-Yaşar, M. (2018). Teacher Candidates’ Assertiveness Levels in terms of Different Variables. Journal of Theoretical Educational Science, ICSE-2018(Special Issue), 146-165. doi:10.30831/akukeg.429106
63. Talışık, E. (2016). The Investigation of Relation Between Perceived Professional Proficiency, Professional Satisfaction and Burnout Levels of In-Service Music Teachers. Mehmet Akif Ersoy University Journal of Education Faculty, 1(37), 1-14.
64. Tas, Y. (2016). The Contribution of Perceived Classroom Learning Environment and Motivation to Student Engagement in Science. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 31(1), 557–577. doi:10.1007/s10212-016-0303-z
65. Tatar, N., & Bağrıyanık, K. E. (2012). Opinions of Science and Technology Teachers about Outdoor Education. Elementary Education Online, 11(4), 883-896.
66. Tekbıyık, A., & Akdeniz, A. R. (2008). Teachers’ Views about Adoption and Application of Primary Science and Technology Curriculum. Necatibey Faculty of Education Electronic Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 2(2), 23-37.
67. TIMSS. (2015). TIMSS 2015 International Results in Science. Retrieved from http://timss2015.org/timss-2015/science/student-achievement/#side
68. Topsakal, S. (2006). Fen Öğretimi (Vol. 2). Ankara, TURKEY: Nobel Akademik Yayıncılık.
69. Toraman, S., & Alcı, B. (2013). Science and Technology Teachers’ Opinions About Renewed Science Lesson Curriculum Ekev Akademi Dergisi, 17(56).
70. Töman, U., & Çimer, S. O. (2014). Investigation By Skills of Pre-Service Science Teachers' Reflective Thinking From Journals. Journal of Computer and Education Research, 2(4), 166-190.
71. Turan, A., & Kocakülah, M. S. (2017). Determination of the Levels of Selfefficacy Beliefs Related to the Inquiry Based Teaching of Prospective Science Teachers. Journal of Theory and Practice in Education, 13(4), 551-569.
72. Uzal, G., Erdem, A., & Ersoy, Y. (2015). A Study on Teaching Activities Performed by a Group of Mathematics and Science Teachers in Classrooms. Buca Faculty of Education Journal, 40, 64-85.
73. Ünal, A., & Kılıç, M. S. (2016). Analysis of Pre-Service Science Teachers’ Anxiety Situations towards Laboratory. The Western Anatolia Journal of Educational Sciences (WAJES), 7(14), 21-32.
74. Yalçın, P., Altun-Yalçın, S., Akar, M. S., & Sağırlı, M. Ö. (2018). The Effects of Teaching Applications with Real Life Content on the Levels of Pre-Service Teachers' Abilities to Associate Daily Life with Astronomy and Electrical Learning Topics. Pegem Journal of Education & Instruction, 8(2), 229-252. doi:10.14527/pegegog.2018.010
75. Yazıcı, E. K., & Özmen, H. (2015). The View of Teachers about Applicability of Activities and Experiments Found in Science and Technology Curriculum. Amasya Education Journal, 4(1), 92-117.
76. Yeşilyurt, E. (2012). Measurement and Assessment Methods Used at Science and Technology Lesson and the Difficulties Encountered. Turkish Studies, 7(2), 1183-1205.
77. Yeşilyurt, E. (2013). Assessment of Learning Environments of Pre-Service Teachers In Terms of Constructivist Approach (An Education Faculty Sample). Gazi University Journal of Gazi Education Faculty (GUJGEF), 33(1), 1-29.
78. Yıldırım, A., & Şimşek, H. (2016). Sosyal Bilimlerde Nitel Araştırma Yöntemleri (Vol. 10). Ankara, TURKEY: Seçkin Yayıncılık.
79. Yıldırım, E. G., Köklükaya, A. N., & Aydoğdu, M. (2016). Teaching Methods and Techniques Preferences of the Science Teacher Candidates and Reasons of this Preference. e-Kafkas Journal of Educational Research, 3(1), 15-25.
80. Yıldırım, M., Sürmeli, H., Benzer, E., & Şahin, F. (2007). The Assessing of Thoughts of Prospective Science Teachers about Teaching Profession. Marmara University Atatürk Education Faculty Journal of Educational Sciences, 25(25), 185-196.
81. Yin, R. K. (2018). Case Study Research and Applications Design and Methods (Vol. 6). USA: Sage Publications.
82. Yurdatapan, M., Benzer, E., & Güven, İ. (2014). Evaluation of Healthy Lifestyle Behaviours of Science Teaching Students. Journal of Milli Eğitim Education and Social Sciences, 44(201), 183-202.