Araştırma Makalesi
Comparison of 2013 and 2018 Chemistry Course Curricula in Terms of the Basic Elements of the Program
Öz
The purpose of this research was to examine the 2013 and 2018 secondary education chemistry course curricula in terms of the basic elements of the program. This research used document analysis which is one of the qualitative research methods. The analysis of the research consists of “general objectives”, “units”, “recommended topic titles”, “numbers of learning outcomes”, “course hours”, “learning-teaching processes”, and “measurement and evaluation” sections. As a result of the research, it was observed that in the 2013 chemistry course curriculum, 9th and 10th grades were determined as "basic level", 11th and 12th grades were determined as "advanced level," and it has been seen that the general objectives of both levels are included in the curriculum. During the four years, 90 topics in 18 units were proposed in the 2013 curriculum, while 77 topics in 19 units were proposed in the 2018 curriculum. It has been observed that general information about the implementation of the program is included in both the 2013 and 2018 chemistry curricula.
Anahtar Kelimeler
Kaynakça
- Ağlarcı Özdemir, O. (2021). Investigation of 2018 high school chemistry curriculum in terms of science high schools and other high school types. Journal of Uludağ University Faculty of Education, 34(1), 84-124. https://doi.org/10.19171/uefad.687511
- Aydın, A. (2006). A comparative study on secondary school chemistry curriculum of various countries and a new chemistry curriculum framework proposal for Turkey. Ahi Evran University Journal of Kırşehir Education Faculty, 7(2), 199-205.
- Aydın, A. (2008). Secondary education teachersʹ opinions about the chemistry curriculum implemented in secondary education in 1992. Education and Science, 33(148), 87-99.
- Ayyıldız, Y., Aydın, A., & Nakiboğlu, C. (2019). Examination of the 2018 chemistry curriculum’s learning outcomes according to original and revised Bloom’s taxonomy. Mehmet Akif Ersoy University Journal of Faculty of Education, 52, 340-376.
- Bowen, G. A. (2009). Document analysis as a qualitative research method. Qualitative Research Journal, 9(2), 27-40.
- Büyüköztürk, Ş., Kılıç Çakmak, E., Akgün, Ö. E., Karadeniz, Ş., & Demirel, F. (2008). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemleri. Pegem Akademi publishing.
- Demir, E. (2021). Comparison of 2018 chemistry curriculum and 2018 science high school chemistry curriculum in terms of basic elements. Journal of Turkish Chemical Society Section C: Chemistry Education (JOTCSC), 6(2), 171-208. https://doi.org/10.37995/jotcsc.989550
- Demir, E., & Nakiboğlu, C. (2021). Investigation of the 2018 science curriculum in the context of chemistry subjects. Journal of Turkish Chemical Society Section C: Chemistry Education (JOTCSC), 6(1), 23-70. https://doi.org/10.37995/jotcsc.882149
- Demir, E., Gacanoğlu, Ş., & Nakiboğlu, C. (2017). Evaluation of the 2017 chemistry curriculum in line with the teachers’ views on the 2013 chemistry curriculum. Journal of Turkish Chemical Society Section C: Chemistry Education (JOTCSC), 2(2), 135-184.
- Demircioğlu, G., & Kardeş, E. (2020). Turkey and Turkmenistan chemistry training course comparison programs. Ondokuz Mayıs University Journal of Education Faculty, 39(3), 100th Anniversary Education Symposium Special Issue, 137-154. DOI:10.7822/omuefd.673493
- Demircioğlu, G., Aslan, A., & Yadigaroğlu, M. (2015). Analysis of renewed chemistry curriculum aided by teachers’ perceptions. Journal of Research in Education and Teaching, 4(1), 135-146.
- Demirel, Ö. (2004). Kuramdan uygulamaya eğitimde program geliştirme. Pegem A publishing.
- Er, K. O., & Atıcı, S. (2016). A comparative investigation of the chemistry curricula of Finland and Turkey. Necatibey Faculty of Education Electronic Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 10(1), 238-259.
- Gökalp, M. (2020). Eğitimde program geliştirme ve değerlendirme. Nobel academic publishing.
- İzci, E., &. Eroğlu, M. (2018). Evaluation of revised 9th grade chemistry curriculum according to teachers’ view. E-International Journal of Educational Research, 9(1), 14-35, DOI: 10.19160/ijer.322892
- Kalaycı, N., & Baysal, S. B. (2020). Comparative analysis of Social Studies curricula (2005-2017-2018). Afyon Kocatepe University Journal of Social Sciences, 22(1), 106-129.
- Keskin Alsan, T. (2020). Investigation of activity and evaluation tools in the textbooks by the learning outcomes of chemistry curriculum in terms of cognitive, affective, and psychomotor. Unpublished master’s thesis, İstanbul Aydın University and Yıldız Technical University, İstanbul.
- Küçükahmet, L. (2009). Program geliştirme ve öğretim. Nobel publication distribution. Ministry of National Education (2013). Ortaöğretim kimya dersi (9, 10, 11 ve 12. sınıflar) öğretim programı. Retrieved June 10, 2021, from http://talimterbiye.mebnet.net/Ogretim%20Programlari/lise/ana.html
- Ministry of National Education (2018). Ortaöğretim kimya dersi (9, 10, 11 ve 12. sınıflar) öğretim programı. Retrieved June 10, 2021, from https://mufredat.meb.gov.tr/ProgramDetay.aspx?PID=350
- Öztekin, A. (2013). Evaluation of secondary school 10th grade chemistry instructional curriculum. Unpublished doctoral’ s thesis. Balıkesir University, Balıkesir.
- Sak, R., Şahin Sak, İ. T., Öneren Şendil, Ç., & Nas, E. (2021). Document analysis as a research method. Kocaeli University Journal of Education, 4(1), 227-250. http://doi.org/10.33400/kuje.843306
- Seçken, N., & Kunduz, N. (2013). An evaluation of programs of ninth grade chemistry course. Hacettepe University Journal of Education, Special Issue (1), 344-358.
- Pekdağ, B. & Erol, H. (2013). The examination of secondary education chemistry curricula published between 1957-2007 in terms of the dimensions of rationale, goals, and subject-matter. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 13(1), 631- 659.
- Yıldırım, A., & Şimşek, H. (2018). Sosyal bilimler nitel araştırma yöntemleri. Seçkin publishing.
- Yıldırım, T. (2012). Views of chemistry teachers about the feasibility of the new high- school chemistry curriculum (Artvin Sample)). Unpublished master’s thesis. Atatürk University, Erzurum.
- Yörük, N., & Seçken, N. (2011). The compilation of implemented secondary school chemistry lesson curricula belonged to Republican era. Journal of the Institute of Science and Technology of Balıkesir University, 13(2), 7-34.
- Zorluoğlu, S. L., Güven, Ç., & Korkmaz, Z. S. (2017). Analysis of a sample according to the revised Bloom taxonomy: The draft line curriculum of secondary school chemistry 2017. Mediterranean Journal of Humanities, VII(2), 467-479.
- Zorluoğlu, S. L., Kızılaslan, A., & Sözbilir, M. (2016). School chemistry curriculum according to revised Bloom taxonomy. Necatibey Faculty of Education Electronic Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 10(1), 260-279.
Yıl 2022,
Cilt: 7 Sayı: 2, 153 - 182, 30.09.2022
Öz
Bu araştırmanın amacı, 2013 ve 2018 ortaöğretim kimya dersi öğretim programlarını programın temel ögeleri açısından incelemektir. Bu araştırmada nitel araştırma
yöntemlerinden biri olan doküman analizi kullanılmıştır. Araştırmanın analizi “genel amaçlar”, “üniteler”, “önerilen konu başlıkları”, “kazanım sayıları”, “ders saatleri”,
“öğrenme-öğretme süreçleri”, “ölçme ve değerlendirme” bölümlerinden oluşmaktadır. Araştırmanın sonucunda 2013 Kimya Dersi Öğretim Programı’nda 9 ve 10. sınıfların
“temel düzey”, 11 ve 12. sınıfların “ileri düzey” olarak belirlendiği ve her iki düzeye yönelik genel amaçların programda yer aldığı görülmüştür. 2018 öğretim programında ise
13 genel amacın programda yer aldığı belirlenmiştir. 2013 öğretim programında dört yıl boyunca toplam 155 kazanım ifadesi yer alırken, 2018 öğretim programında 127 kazanım
ifadesi yer almaktadır. Dört yıl boyunca 2013 öğretim programında toplam 18 ünitede 90 konu başlığı önerilirken, 2018 öğretim programında 19 ünitede 77 konu başlığı
önerilmiştir. Hem 2013 hem de 2018 kimya dersi öğretim programlarında programın uygulanmasına ilişkin genel bilgilere yer verilmiştir.
Anahtar Kelimeler
Kaynakça
- Ağlarcı Özdemir, O. (2021). Investigation of 2018 high school chemistry curriculum in terms of science high schools and other high school types. Journal of Uludağ University Faculty of Education, 34(1), 84-124. https://doi.org/10.19171/uefad.687511
- Aydın, A. (2006). A comparative study on secondary school chemistry curriculum of various countries and a new chemistry curriculum framework proposal for Turkey. Ahi Evran University Journal of Kırşehir Education Faculty, 7(2), 199-205.
- Aydın, A. (2008). Secondary education teachersʹ opinions about the chemistry curriculum implemented in secondary education in 1992. Education and Science, 33(148), 87-99.
- Ayyıldız, Y., Aydın, A., & Nakiboğlu, C. (2019). Examination of the 2018 chemistry curriculum’s learning outcomes according to original and revised Bloom’s taxonomy. Mehmet Akif Ersoy University Journal of Faculty of Education, 52, 340-376.
- Bowen, G. A. (2009). Document analysis as a qualitative research method. Qualitative Research Journal, 9(2), 27-40.
- Büyüköztürk, Ş., Kılıç Çakmak, E., Akgün, Ö. E., Karadeniz, Ş., & Demirel, F. (2008). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemleri. Pegem Akademi publishing.
- Demir, E. (2021). Comparison of 2018 chemistry curriculum and 2018 science high school chemistry curriculum in terms of basic elements. Journal of Turkish Chemical Society Section C: Chemistry Education (JOTCSC), 6(2), 171-208. https://doi.org/10.37995/jotcsc.989550
- Demir, E., & Nakiboğlu, C. (2021). Investigation of the 2018 science curriculum in the context of chemistry subjects. Journal of Turkish Chemical Society Section C: Chemistry Education (JOTCSC), 6(1), 23-70. https://doi.org/10.37995/jotcsc.882149
- Demir, E., Gacanoğlu, Ş., & Nakiboğlu, C. (2017). Evaluation of the 2017 chemistry curriculum in line with the teachers’ views on the 2013 chemistry curriculum. Journal of Turkish Chemical Society Section C: Chemistry Education (JOTCSC), 2(2), 135-184.
- Demircioğlu, G., & Kardeş, E. (2020). Turkey and Turkmenistan chemistry training course comparison programs. Ondokuz Mayıs University Journal of Education Faculty, 39(3), 100th Anniversary Education Symposium Special Issue, 137-154. DOI:10.7822/omuefd.673493
- Demircioğlu, G., Aslan, A., & Yadigaroğlu, M. (2015). Analysis of renewed chemistry curriculum aided by teachers’ perceptions. Journal of Research in Education and Teaching, 4(1), 135-146.
- Demirel, Ö. (2004). Kuramdan uygulamaya eğitimde program geliştirme. Pegem A publishing.
- Er, K. O., & Atıcı, S. (2016). A comparative investigation of the chemistry curricula of Finland and Turkey. Necatibey Faculty of Education Electronic Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 10(1), 238-259.
- Gökalp, M. (2020). Eğitimde program geliştirme ve değerlendirme. Nobel academic publishing.
- İzci, E., &. Eroğlu, M. (2018). Evaluation of revised 9th grade chemistry curriculum according to teachers’ view. E-International Journal of Educational Research, 9(1), 14-35, DOI: 10.19160/ijer.322892
- Kalaycı, N., & Baysal, S. B. (2020). Comparative analysis of Social Studies curricula (2005-2017-2018). Afyon Kocatepe University Journal of Social Sciences, 22(1), 106-129.
- Keskin Alsan, T. (2020). Investigation of activity and evaluation tools in the textbooks by the learning outcomes of chemistry curriculum in terms of cognitive, affective, and psychomotor. Unpublished master’s thesis, İstanbul Aydın University and Yıldız Technical University, İstanbul.
- Küçükahmet, L. (2009). Program geliştirme ve öğretim. Nobel publication distribution. Ministry of National Education (2013). Ortaöğretim kimya dersi (9, 10, 11 ve 12. sınıflar) öğretim programı. Retrieved June 10, 2021, from http://talimterbiye.mebnet.net/Ogretim%20Programlari/lise/ana.html
- Ministry of National Education (2018). Ortaöğretim kimya dersi (9, 10, 11 ve 12. sınıflar) öğretim programı. Retrieved June 10, 2021, from https://mufredat.meb.gov.tr/ProgramDetay.aspx?PID=350
- Öztekin, A. (2013). Evaluation of secondary school 10th grade chemistry instructional curriculum. Unpublished doctoral’ s thesis. Balıkesir University, Balıkesir.
- Sak, R., Şahin Sak, İ. T., Öneren Şendil, Ç., & Nas, E. (2021). Document analysis as a research method. Kocaeli University Journal of Education, 4(1), 227-250. http://doi.org/10.33400/kuje.843306
- Seçken, N., & Kunduz, N. (2013). An evaluation of programs of ninth grade chemistry course. Hacettepe University Journal of Education, Special Issue (1), 344-358.
- Pekdağ, B. & Erol, H. (2013). The examination of secondary education chemistry curricula published between 1957-2007 in terms of the dimensions of rationale, goals, and subject-matter. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 13(1), 631- 659.
- Yıldırım, A., & Şimşek, H. (2018). Sosyal bilimler nitel araştırma yöntemleri. Seçkin publishing.
- Yıldırım, T. (2012). Views of chemistry teachers about the feasibility of the new high- school chemistry curriculum (Artvin Sample)). Unpublished master’s thesis. Atatürk University, Erzurum.
- Yörük, N., & Seçken, N. (2011). The compilation of implemented secondary school chemistry lesson curricula belonged to Republican era. Journal of the Institute of Science and Technology of Balıkesir University, 13(2), 7-34.
- Zorluoğlu, S. L., Güven, Ç., & Korkmaz, Z. S. (2017). Analysis of a sample according to the revised Bloom taxonomy: The draft line curriculum of secondary school chemistry 2017. Mediterranean Journal of Humanities, VII(2), 467-479.
- Zorluoğlu, S. L., Kızılaslan, A., & Sözbilir, M. (2016). School chemistry curriculum according to revised Bloom taxonomy. Necatibey Faculty of Education Electronic Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 10(1), 260-279.
Toplam 28 adet kaynakça vardır.
Ayrıntılar
| Birincil Dil | İngilizce |
|---|---|
| Konular | Eğitim Üzerine Çalışmalar |
| Bölüm | Araştırma makaleleri |
| Yazarlar | |
| Yayımlanma Tarihi | 30 Eylül 2022 |
| Gönderilme Tarihi | 10 Mart 2022 |
| Kabul Tarihi | 21 Haziran 2022 |
| Yayımlandığı Sayı | Yıl 2022 Cilt: 7 Sayı: 2 |
