Evaluating Turkish science curriculum with PISA scientific literacy framework

Abstract

Any society needs more scientifically literate citizens even if they do not follow a career in science. In the 2015 PISA assessment, Turkey ranked 34th among 35 OECD countries based on science literacy scores. The relatively unsuccessful results of Turkey from international level examinations like PISA has necessitated the questioning of various components of science education. One of these components is surely the science curriculum. Being aware of this, we investigated the primary and middle school Turkish science curriculum for the balance of science literacy aspects based on the PISA 2015 science literacy framework. This framework defines scientific literacy under four aspects, namely contexts, knowledge, competencies, and attitudes. The results revealed that the Turkish science curriculum does not adequately reflect all dimensions of science literacy and is dominated by the pure knowledge of the content of science. The curriculum developers should consider these two points in future curriculum revisions to increase our success in international examinations like PISA and to help raise scientifically literate students.

Keywords

• Science literacy,PISA 2015,Science curriculum,Science education

Türkiye’de uygulanan fen bilimleri dersi öğretim programının PISA fen okuryazarlığı çerçevesiyle değerlendirilmesi

Öz

Her toplumun -fen bilimleri alanında kariyer yapmayacak olsa bile- fen okuryazarı bireylere ihtiyacı vardır. Türkiye 2015 PISA uygulamasında fen okuryazarlığı puanına göre 35 OECD üyesi ülkeler arasında 34. sırada yer almıştır. PISA gibi uluslararası düzeyde uygulanan sınavlarda alınan görece başarısız sonuçlar, Türkiye’de fen eğitiminin farklı bileşenlerinin sorgulanmasını gerekli kılmıştır. Sınıf içi uygulamalara dönük bu bileşenlerden biri de kuşkusuz fen bilimleri dersi öğretim programıdır. Bu noktadan hareketle, bu çalışmada Türkiye’de uygulanan fen bilimleri dersi öğretim programının fen okuryazarlığı boyutlarını hangi ölçüde yansıttığı PISA 2015 Fen Okuryazarlığı Değerlendirme Çerçevesi kullanılarak araştırılmıştır. Bu çerçeve fen okuryazarlığını bağlamlar, bilgi, yeterlikler ve tutumlar olmak üzere dört boyutuyla tanımlamaktadır. Bulgular mevcut programın fen okuryazarlığın dört boyutunu dengeli bir şekilde vurgulamada yetersiz kaldığını ve programının daha çok içerik bilgisine yoğunlaştığını ortaya koymuştur. Gelecekte yapılacak program güncelleme ve geliştirme çalışmalarında bu iki noktanın göz önünde bulundurulması, hem PISA gibi uluslararası sınavlarda başarımızı artıracak, hem de fen okuryazarı öğrenciler yetiştirmede mesafeleri daha hızlı kat etmemize olanak sağlayacaktır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Fen okuryazarlığı,Fen bilimleri öğretim programı,PISA 2015,Fen eğitimi

References

1. Acat, M. B., Anılan, H., & Anagun, S. S. (2010). The problems encountered in designing constructivist learning environments in science education and practical suggestions. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 9(2), 212-220.
2. American Association for the Advancement of Science [AAAS]. (1989). Science for all Americans. New York: Oxford University Press.
3. American Association for the Advancement of Science [AAAS]. (1990). Science for all Americans. New York: Oxford University Press.
4. American Association for the Advancement of Science [AAAS]. (1993) Benchmarks for science literacy. New York: Oxford University Press.
5. Blandford, S. (2000). Managing professional development in schools. London: Routledge.
6. Bowen, G. A. (2009). Document analysis as a qualitative research method. Qualitative Research Journal, 9(2), 27-40. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3316/QRJ0902027
7. Carlson, M. O. B., Humphrey, G. E., & Reinhardt, K. (2003). Weaving science inquiry and continuous assessment: Using formative assessment to improve learning. California: Corwin Press.
8. Carlton, R. (1963). On scientific literacy. NEA Journal, 52(4) 33-35.

9. Cansiz, M., & Turker, N. (2011). Scientific literacy investigation in science curricula: The case of Turkey. Western Anatolia Journal of Educational Sciences, Special Issue, 359-366.
10. Collins, A. (1998). National science education standards: A political document. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35(7), 711-727. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199809)35:7<711: AID-TEA3>3.0.CO;2-O
11. Duggan S., & Gott, R. (2002). What sort of science education do we really need? International Journal of Science Education, 24(7), 661-679. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690110110133
12. Durant, J. R. (1993). What is scientific literacy? In J. R. Durant & J. Gregory (Eds.), Science and culture in Europe (pp. 129– 137). London: Science Museum.
13. Durant, J. R., Evans, G., & Thomas, G. P. (1989). The public understanding of science. Nature, 340(6228), 11–14. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/340011a0
14. Eurydice (2018). Basic characteristics of education system: Turkey overview. Retrieved September, 10, from https://eacea.ec.europa.eu/national-policies/eurydice/content/turkey_cs.
15. Fensham, P. J. (2008). Science education policy-making. Paris: UNESCO.
16. Fensham, P. J. (2009) Real world contexts in PISA science: Implications for context-based science education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(8), 884–896. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20334
17. Gallagher, J. (1971). A broader base for science teaching. Science Education, 55(3), 329-338. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.3730550312
18. Hurd, P. D. (1958). Science literacy: Its meaning for American schools. Educational Leadership, 16(1), 13-16.
19. Kesidou, S., & Roseman, J. E. (2002). How well do middle school science programs measure up? Findings from project 2061's curriculum review. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(6), 522-549. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.10035
20. Kirk, K. (2018). What is the affective domain anyway? Retrieved May 8, 2018, from https://serc.carleton.edu/NAGTWorkshops/affective/intro.html
21. Kolstø, S. D. (2001). Scientific literacy for citizenship: Tools for dealing with controversial socio-scientific issues. Science Education, 85(3), 291-310. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.1011
22. Millar, R. (1996). Toward a science curriculum for public understanding. School Science Review, 77(280), 7-18.
23. Miller, J. D. (1995). Scientific literacy for effective citizenship,” in R. E. Yager (ed.), Science/Technology/Society as reform in science education, pp. 185-204. New York: State University of New York Press.
24. Miller, J. D. (1998). The measurement of civic scientific literacy. Public Understanding of Science 7(3), 203-223. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1088/0963-6625/7/3/001
25. Ministry of National Education [MoNE] (2004). Fen ve teknoloji dersi programı, ilköğretim 4. –5. sınıf [Science and technology curriculum, 4th and 5th grades]. Ankara.
26. Ministry of National Education [MoNE] (2013). Fen bilimleri dersi öğretim programı, 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. ve 8. sınıflar) [Science curriculum, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, and 8th grades]. Ankara.
27. Ministry of National Education [MoNE] (2017). Fen bilimleri dersi öğretim programı, 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. ve 8. sınıflar) [Science curriculum, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, and 8th grades]. Ankara.
28. National Research Council [NRC]. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
29. Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development [OECD]. (2013). PISA 2012 results: What makes schools successful? Resources, policies and practices (Volume IV). Paris: OECD Publishing. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264201156-en
30. Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development [OECD]. (2016). PISA 2015 results (Volume I): Excellence and equity in education. Paris: OECD Publishing. DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264266490-en
31. Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development [OECD]. (2017). PISA 2015 Assessment and analytical framework: Science, reading, mathematic, financial literacy and collaborative problem solving. Paris: OECD Publishing. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264281820-en
32. Rillero, P. (1998). Process skills and content knowledge. Science Activities, 35(3), 3-4. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00368129809600910
33. Roberts, D. A. (2007). Scientific literacy/science literacy. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Science Education (pp. 729-780). London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
34. Rutherford, F. J., & Ahlgren, A. (1990). Science for all Americans. New York: Oxford University Press.
35. Rudolph, J. L., & Horibe, S. (2015). What do we mean by science education for civic engagement? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 53(6), 805–820. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21303
36. Şad, S. N. (2012). Investigation of parental involvement tasks as predictors of primary students' Turkish, math, and science & technology achievement. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 48, 135-154.
37. Van Driel, J., Beijaard, D., & Verloop, N. (2001). Professional development and reform in science education: The role of teachers’ practical knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(2), 137-158. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/1098-2736(200102)38:2<137: AID-TEA1001>3.0.CO;2-U
38. Yager, R. (1986). Searching for excellence. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 23(3), 209-217. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660230305
39. Yorulmaz, Y. İ., Çolak, İ., & Ekinci, C. E. (2017). An evaluation of PISA 2015 achievements of OECD countries within income distribution and education expenditures. Turkish Journal of Education, 6(4), 169-185. DOI: 10.19128/turje.329755