TÜRKİYE’DE GERÇEKLEŞEN FEN EĞİTİMİ REFORMUNUN GELECEĞİ: AŞILMASI GEREKEN ENGELLER

Öz

Bu çalışma Türk ortaöğretim biyoloji öğretmenlerinin bilim ve bilimin doğasına yönelik anlayışlarını tespit etmek ve bu anlayışların yeni ortaöğretim biyoloji programının vizyonu ve epistemolojik temelleri ile uyumlu olup olmadığını araştırmak amacı ile yapılmıştır. Bu amaçla, çalışmanın ilk kısmında eski ve yeni biyoloji öğretim programlarının vizyonları ve bilimin doğasına bakış açıları yaklaşımlardaki farklılığın boyutlarını ortaya koyabilmek için karşılaştırılmıştır. Bu analizi 113 hizmet-içi biyoloji öğretmeninin bilimin doğası ile ilgili anlayışlarının araştırıldığı bir çalışmanın sonuçları takip etmektedir. Bu çalışmanın sonuçları çalışmaya katılan öğretmenlerin genel olarak objectivist bir bilim anlayışına sahip olduklarını göstermektedir. Bu durum yeni öğretim programının başarılı bir şekilde uygulamaya konulmasının önündeki en önemli engel olarak durmaktadır. Çalışma yeni öğretim programının başarılı bir şekilde uygulanabilmesinin önündeki engellerle ilgili bir tartışma ile sona ermektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Öğretim programı reformu,biyoloji öğretmenleri,bilimin doğası

Horizon of Science Education Reform in Turkey: Challenges Ahead

Öz

This paper presents a research study aimed at providing an account on Turkish biology teachers‟ views on the nature of scientific inquiry and assessing if these views comfort the vision and epistemological foundations of the new secondary biology curriculum. To this end, the paper starts with a comparison of the visions and perspectives on the nature of scientific inquiry presented by the previous and the new biology curricula in order to document the scale of shift on understandings between the two. This analysis is followed by the results of a research study conducted on 113 practising biology teachers‟ views of the nature of scientific inquiry. The results indicated that understandings of current biology teachers are generally objectivist in nature which, arguably, constitutes the major barrier for the successful implementation of the curriculum reform as intended. Finally, the article will be concluded with a discussion on the challenges ahead for successful implementation of the new curriculum

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Curriculum reform,biology teachers,nature of science

Kaynakça

1. Abd-El-Khalick, F., Lederman, N. G., Bell, R. L., and Schwartz, R. S. (2001). Views of nature of science questionnaire (VNOS): Toward valid and meaningful assessment of learners‟ conceptions of nature of science. Annual International Conference of the Association for the Education of Teachers in Science (AETS), Costa Mesa, CA.
2. Aldridge, J., Taylor, P., and Chen, C.C. (1997). Development, validation and use of the Beliefs About Science and School Science Questionnaire. National Association of Research in Science Teaching Annual Conference, USA
3. Akerson, V.L., Abd-El-khalick, F., and Lederman, N.G. (2000). Influence of a reflective explicit activity-based approach on elementary teachers' conceptions of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 37(4), 295-317.
4. Avenstrup, R. (2007). The challenge of curriculum reform and implementation: Some implications of a constructivist approach. Ministry of National Education.
5. Bell, R. L., and Lederman, N. G. (2003). Understandings of the nature of science and decision making on science and technology based issues. Science Education, 87, 352– 377.
6. Bentley, M. L., and Fleury, S. C. (1998). Of starting points and destinations: Teacher education and the nature of science. In W. F. McComas (Ed.), The nature of science in science education: Rationales and strategies. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
7. Chen, C.C., Taylor, P.C. and Aldridge, J.M. (1997). Development of a questionnaire for assessing teachers‟ beliefs about science and science teaching in Taiwan and Australia. National Association of Research in Science Teaching Annual Conference, USA
8. Cotton, D. R. E. (2006). Implementing curriculum guidance on environmental education: The importance of teachers‟ beliefs. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 38, 67–83.

9. Davis, K. S. (2003). „„Change is hard‟‟: What science teachers are telling us about reform and teacher learning of innovative practices. Science Education, 87, 3–20.
10. DeBoer, G. E. (1991). A history of ideas in science education: implications for practice. New York: Teachers College.
11. Eichinger, D. C., Abell, S. K., and Dagher, Z. R. (1997). Developing a graduate level science education course on the nature of science. Science & Education, 6, 417– 429.
12. Fullan, M. G. (1991). The new meaning of educational change. London: Cassell Educational Limited Wellington House.
13. Huffman, D. (2006). Reforming pedagogy: Inservice teacher education and instructional reform. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 17, 121–136.
14. Hurd, P. D. (1998). Scientific literacy: new minds for a changing world. Science Education, 82, 407-416.
15. Irez, S. (2006). Are we prepared?: An assessment of preservice science teacher educators‟ beliefs about nature of science. Science Education, 90(6), 1113 – 1143.
16. Irez, S. (2009). Nature of science as depicted in turkish biology textbooks. Science Education, 93, 422-447
17. Irez, S., and Han, C. (2010) Educational reforms as paradigm shifts: utilizing kuhnian lenses to understand teacher resistance to educational reform . 14th IOSTE Symposium, Bled, Slovenia, June 13 – 18
18. Kang, N. H. (2008). Learning to teach science: Personal epistemologies, teaching goals, and practices of teaching. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24, 478–498.
19. Kuhn, T. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
20. Lakatos, I. (1970). Falsification and the methodology of scientific research programmes. In Lakatos, I. and Musgrave, A. (Eds), Criticism and the growth of knowledge,. New York: Cambridge University Press. pp.91-196
21. Lakin, S., and Wellington, J. (1994). Who will teach the „nature of science‟?: Teachers‟ views of science and their implications for science education. International Journal of Science Education, 16(2), 175– 190.
22. Lederman, N. G. (1992). Students‟ and teachers‟ conceptions of the nature of science: A review of the research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29(4), 331– 359.
23. McComas,W. F. (1998). The principal elements of the nature of science: Dispelling the myths. InW. F. McComas (Ed.), The nature of science in science education: Rationales and strategies (pp. 53 – 70). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
24. McComas,W. F., Clough, M. P., and Almozroa, H. (1998). The role and character of the nature of science in science education. In W. F. McComas (Ed.), The nature of science in science education: Rationales and strategies (pp. 3 – 39). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
25. Meichtry, Y. J. (1999). The nature of science and scientific knowledge: Implications for a preservice elementary methods course. Science & Education, 8, 273– 286.
26. Ministry of National Education, (1998). Lise biyoloji 1, 2, 3 dersi ögretim programı (Secondary School Biology Curriculum 1-3rd grades). Tebligler Dergisi, 61(2485).
27. Ministry of National Education, (2007). Talim ve Terbiye Kurulu Başkanlıgı, Ortaöğretim 9-12. Sınıflar Biyoloji Dersi Öğretim Programı (Board of Education, Secondary School Biology Curriculum 9-12nd grades). Ankara: MEB Basımevi.
28. Millar, R. and Osborne, J. (1998). Beyond 2000: science education for the future (the report of a seminar series funded by the nuffield foundation). London: King's College London.
29. Mueller, C. L.,and Wavering, M. J. (1999, January). Science interns‟ beliefs about the nature of science and teaching. Annual International Conference of the Association for the Education of Teachers in Science, Austin, TX.
30. Roberts, D. A. (1982). Developing the concept of “curriculum emphases” in science education. Science Education, 66(2), 243-260.
31. Rousseau, C. K. (2004). Shared beliefs, conflict, and a retreat from reform: The story of a professional community of high school mathematics teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 20, 783–796.
32. Ryder, J. (2001). Identifying science understanding for functional scientific literacy: Implications for school science education. Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association (AERA), Seattle, WA.
33. Tairab, H. H. (2001). Pre-Service teachers' views of the nature of science and technology before and after a science teaching methods course. Research in Education, 65, 81-87.
34. Van Veen, K., Sleegers, P., and Van de Ven, P. H. (2005). One teacher‟s identity, emotions, and commitment to change: A case study into the cognitive-affective processes of a secondary school teacher in the context of reforms. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21, 917–934.
35. Woolfolk Hoy, A., and Burke-Spero, R. (2005). Changes in teacher efficacy during the early years of teaching: A comparison of four measures. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21, 343–356.