SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Manisa Celal Bayar Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi / 2026 / Cilt: 14 Sayı: 1

An Examination of Pre-Service Primary School Teachers’ Teaching Experiences Based on the Türkiye's Century Education Model Science Education Program

Sınıf Öğretmeni Adaylarının Türkiye Yüzyılı Maarif Modeli Fen Bilimleri Dersi Öğretim Programına Göre Öğretim Deneyimlerinin İncelenmesi

Sema Aydın-Ceran(SELÇUK ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0001-6847-2766
Mücahit Köse(Alanya Alaaddin Keykubat Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi)0000-0002-1938-6092
Pages
409–444
Publication Date
2026-06-24
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

The findings indicate that the pre-service teachers gained important experiences in teaching preparation, the implementation process, feedback, interaction with students, and professional awareness.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This qualitative research study aims to examine pre-service primary school teachers' experiences in the teaching process in line with the Science Curriculum restructured within the framework of the Türkiye Century Education Model.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The study was carried out in the fall semester of the 2024–2025 academic year within the scope of a science teaching course offered to third-year students enrolled in the primary school teaching program at a state university.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The findings indicate that the pre-service teachers gained important experiences in teaching preparation, the implementation process, feedback, interaction with students, and professional awareness.
🔬Design:Modeling & Simulation
📍Scope:2024–2025 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Sınıf öğretmeni adayları · İlkokulda fen öğretimi · Türkiye Yüzyılı Maarif Modeli

Abstract

This qualitative research study aims to examine pre-service primary school teachers' experiences in the teaching process in line with the Science Curriculum restructured within the framework of the Türkiye Century Education Model. Conducted as a case study, the research provides an in-depth analysis of pre-service teachers' experiences regarding lesson design, planning, and implementation in science teaching. The study was carried out in the fall semester of the 2024–2025 academic year within the scope of a science teaching course offered to third-year students enrolled in the primary school teaching program at a state university. During the 14-week process, the pre-service teachers prepared lesson plans in accordance with the fundamental principles of the Türkiye's Century Education Model Science Curriculum, conducted micro-teaching practices at the faculty, and subsequently implemented the instruction they had designed in a public primary school, thereby gaining authentic classroom experience.Data were collected from pre-service primary school teachers and primary school students through semi-structured interview forms and analyzed using content analysis. The findings indicate that the pre-service teachers gained important experiences in teaching preparation, the implementation process, feedback, interaction with students, and professional awareness. Additionally, primary students found pre-service teachers’ Maarif Model science lessons engaging, participatory, relevant, and exploratory.

Özet

Bu çalışma, Türkiye Yüzyılı Maarif Modeli çerçevesinde yeniden yapılandırılan Fen Bilimleri Dersi Öğretim Programı doğrultusunda, sınıf öğretmeni adaylarının öğretim süreci deneyimlerini incelemeyi amaçlayan nitel bir araştırmadır. Durum çalışması deseninde yürütülen bu araştırmada öğretmen adaylarının fen öğretiminde ders tasarımı, planlama ve uygulama sürecine ilişkin deneyimleri derinlemesine analiz edilmiştir. Çalışma 2024-2025 güz eğitim öğretim döneminde, bir devlet üniversitesinin sınıf öğretmenliği 3. sınıf öğrencileri ile fen öğretimi dersi kapsamında gerçekleştirilmiştir. Öğretmen adayları 14 haftalık süreçte Türkiye Yüzyılı Maarif Modeli Fen Öğretim Programı'nın temel ilkeleri doğrultusunda ders planları hazırlamış, fakültede mikro öğretim uygulamaları gerçekleştirmiş ve ardından tasarladıkları öğretimi bir devlet ilkokulunda uygulayarak gerçek sınıf deneyimi kazanmışlardır. Veriler sınıf öğretmen adayları ve ilkokul öğrencilerinden yarı yapılandırılmış görüşme formlarıyla toplanmış ve içerik analiziyle çözümlenmiştir. Bulgular, öğretmen adaylarının öğretim hazırlığı, uygulama süreci, geri bildirimler, öğrenciyle etkileşim ve mesleki farkındalık konularında kazanımlar elde ettiklerini göstermektedir. Ayrıca, ilkokul öğrencileri öğretmen adaylarının Maarif Model kapsamındaki fen öğretimi uygulamalarını ilgi çekici, derse katılımlarını teşvik edici, konuları günlük hayatla ilişkilendiren ve keşfetmeye yönelik uygulamalar olarak nitelendirmişlerdir.

🔖

Cite This Article

Aydın-Ceran, S., Köse, M. (2026). An Examination of Pre-Service Primary School Teachers’ Teaching Experiences Based on the Türkiye's Century Education Model Science Education Program. Manisa Celal Bayar Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, Cilt: 14 Sayı: 1, 409–444. https://doi.org/10.52826/mcbuefd.1894165

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (92)

  1. Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2012). Teaching with and about nature of science, and science teacher knowledge domains. Science & Education, 22(9), 2087–2107. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-012-9520-2
  2. Abell, S. K., & Bryan, L. A. (1997). Reconceptualizing the elementary science methods course using a reflection orientation. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 8(3), 153–166. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1009483431600
  3. Ak, B. S., & Köse, M. (2024). 2024 Fen Bilimleri Dersi Öğretim Programı Hakkında Öğretmen Görüşlerinin İncelenmesi. Akademik Platform Eğitim ve Değişim Dergisi, 7(2), 132-169. https://doi.org/10.55150/apjec.1582677
  4. Anderson, D., & Moeed, A. (2017). Working alongside scientists: Impacts on primary teacher beliefs and knowledge about science and science education. Science & Education, 26(3–4), 271–298. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-017-9902-6
  5. Appleton, K. (2008). Developing Science Pedagogical Content Knowledge Through Mentoring Elementary Teachers. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 19(6), 523–545. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-008-9109-4
  6. Ausubel, D. P. (1968). Educational psychology: A cognitive view. Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
  7. Bartos, S. A., & Lederman, N. G. (2014). Teachers' knowledge structures for nature of science and scientific inquiry: Conceptions and classroom practice. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 51(9), 1150-1184. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21168
  8. Baştürk, A., & Demir, M. (2016). Sınıf öğretmenlerinin bilimsel süreç becerilerinin kazandırılmasına yönelik görüşlerinin belirlenmesi. International Journal of Field Education, 2(1), 1-19.
  9. Beauchamp, C., & Thomas, L. (2009). Understanding teacher identity: An overview of issues in the literature and implications for teacher education. Cambridge journal of education, 39(2), 175-189. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057640902902252
  10. Becker, C., Lauterbach, G., Spengler, S., Dettweiler, U., & Mess, F. (2017). Effects of regular classes in outdoor education settings: A systematic review on students' learning, social and health dimensions. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 14(5), 485. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph14050485
  11. Bennett, J., Lubben, F., & Hogarth, S. (2007). Bringing science to life: A synthesis of the research evidence on the effects of context-based and STS approaches to science teaching. Science Education, 91(3), 347–370. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20186
  12. Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (Eds.). (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school (Expanded ed.). National Academy Press.
  13. Brinkmann, S. (2014). 14 Unstructured and Semi-Structured Interviewing. The Oxford handbook of qualitative research, 277.
  14. Bryan, L. A. (2003). Nestedness of beliefs: Examining a prospective elementary teacher's belief system about science teaching and learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(9), 835–868. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.10113
  15. Bybee, R. W., Taylor, J. A., Gardner, A., Van Scotter, P., Powell, J. C., Westbrook, A., & Landes, N. (2006). The BSCS 5E instructional model: Origins and effectiveness. Colorado Springs, Co: BSCS, 5(88-98).
  16. Bybee, R. W. (2017). NGSS and the next generation of science teachers. Journal of science teacher education, 25(2), 211-221. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-014-9381-4
  17. Cheek, A. E., Idol, W. A., Jones, J. L., & Holden, K. B. (2019). Infusing technology throughout teacher preparation programs to support preservice teacher development. The Journal of Special Education Apprenticeship, 8(2), 8. https://doi.org/10.58729/2167-3454.1093
  18. Clarke, D., & Hollingsworth, H. (2002). Elaborating a model of teacher professional growth. Teaching and teacher education, 18(8), 947-967. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0742-051X(02)00053-7
  19. Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2018). Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing among Five Approaches (4th ed.). Washington DC: Sage Publications.
  20. Carbonneau, K. J., Marley, S. C., & Selig, J. P. (2013). A meta-analysis of the efficacy of teaching mathematics with concrete manipulatives. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105(2), 380–400. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0031084
  21. Darling-Hammond, L. (2017). Teacher education around the world: What can we learn from international practice?. European journal of teacher education, 40(3), 291-309. https://doi.org/10.1080/02619768.2017.1315399
  22. Darling-Hammond, L., Hyler, M. E., & Gardner, M. (2017). Effective teacher professional development. Learning Policy Institute. https://learningpolicyinstitute.org/product/teacher-prof-dev
  23. Duit, R., & Treagust, D. F. (2003). Conceptual change: A powerful framework for improving science teaching and learning. International Journal of Science Education, 25(6), 671–688. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690305016
  24. Dönmez, İ., & Gülen, S. (2023). Science curricula and science teachers training in Turkey: Past, present and future. Necatibey Faculty of Education Electronic Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 17(2), 929-962. https://doi.org/10.17522/balikesirnef.1371492
  25. Eshach, H. (2007). Bridging in-school and out-of-school learning: Formal, non-formal, and informal education. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 16(2), 171–190. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-006-9027-1
  26. Erbaş, A. A. (2025). Sınıf Öğretmeni Adaylarının Türkiye Yüzyılı Maarif Modeline İlişkin Okuryazarlıklarının Geliştirilmesi. Yükseköğretim ve Bilim Dergisi, 15(2), 322–333. https://doi.org/10.5961/higheredusci.1722555
  27. Feiman-Nemser, S. (2001). From preparation to practice: Designing a continuum to strengthen and sustain teaching. Teachers college record, 103(6), 1013-1055. https://doi.org/10.1177/016146810110300601
  28. Fereday, J., & Muir-Cochrane, E. (2006). Demonstrating rigor using thematic analysis: A hybrid approach of inductive and deductive coding and theme development. International journal of qualitative methods, 5(1), 80-92. https://doi.org/10.1177/160940690600500107
  29. Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, A. H. (2004). School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of educational research, 74(1), 59-109. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543074001059
  30. Franke, U., Backfisch, I., Scherzinger, L., Tolou, A., Thyssen, C., Brahm, T.,. & Lachner, A. (2024). Do prompts and strategy instruction contribute to pre-service teachers’ peer-feedback on technology-integration? Educational technology research and development, 72(6), 3117-3138.
  31. Fullan, M. (2007). The new meaning of educational change (4th ed.). Teachers College Press.
  32. Furtak, E. M., Seidel, T., Iverson, H., & Briggs, D. C. (2012). Experimental and quasi-experimental studies of inquiry-based science teaching: A meta-analysis. Review of educational research, 82(3), 300-329. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654312457206
  33. Gilbert, J. K. (2004). Models and modelling: Routes to more authentic science education. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 2(2), 115–130. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-004-3186-4
  34. Gilbert, J. K. (2006). On the nature of "context" in chemical education. International Journal of Science Education, 28(9), 957–976.
  35. Greig, A. D., MacKay, T., & Taylor, J. (2012). Doing research with children: A practical guide.
  36. Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Competing paradigms in qualitative research. Handbook of qualitative research, 2(163-194), 105.
  37. Harlen, W. (Ed.). (2010). Principles and big ideas of science education. Association for science education.
  38. Harlen, W., & Qualter, A. (2018). The teaching of science in primary schools. David Fulton Publishers.
  39. Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of educational research, 77(1), 81-112. https://doi.org/10.3102/003465430298
  40. Hatton, N., & Smith, D. (1995). Reflection in teacher education: Towards definition and implementation. Teaching and Teacher Education, 11(1), 33–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/0742-051X(94)00012-U
  41. Hidi, S., & Renninger, K. A. (2006). The four-phase model of interest development. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 111–127. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep4102_4
  42. Iliasova, L., Nekrasova, I., Mena, J., & Estrada-Molina, O. (2025, July). Microteaching on pre-service teachers' education: literature review. In Frontiers in Education (Vol. 10, p. 1562975). Frontiers Media SA. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2025.1562975
  43. Kimmons, R., & Veletsianos, G. (2015). Teacher professionalization in the age of social networking sites. Learning, Media and Technology, 40(4), 480-501. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2014.933846
  44. Kind, V. (2009). Pedagogical content knowledge in science education: perspectives and potential for progress. Studies in science education, 45(2), 169-204. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057260903142285
  45. Koenig, K., & Schen, M. (2012). Explicitly Targeting Pre-service Teacher Scientific Reasoning Abilities and Understanding of Nature of Science through an Introductory Science Course. Science Educator, 21(2).
  46. Korthagen, F. A. (2010). How teacher education can make a difference. Journal of education for teaching, 36(4), 407-423. https://doi.org/10.1080/02607476.2010.513854
  47. Korthagen, F. A., & Vasalos, A. (2005). Levels in reflection: Core reflection as a means to enhance professional growth. Teachers and teaching, 11(1), 47-71.
  48. Krajcik, J., & Merritt, J. (2012). Engaging students in scientific practices: What does constructing and revising models look like in the science classroom?. Science Teacher, 79(3).
  49. Krippendorff, K. (2018). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology (4th ed.). SAGE.
  50. Kvale, S., & Brinkmann, S. (2015). Interviews. Sage.
  51. Lederman, N. G., Abd‐El‐Khalick, F., Bell, R. L., & Schwartz, R. S. (2002). Views of nature of science questionnaire: Toward valid and meaningful assessment of learners' conceptions of nature of science. Journal of research in science teaching, 39(6), 497-521.
  52. Lederman, N. G., & Lederman, J. S. (2014). Research on teaching and learning of nature of science. In N. G. Lederman & S. K. Abell (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (Vol. II, pp. 600–620). Routledge.
  53. Loughran, J. J. (2006). Developing a pedagogy of teacher education: Understanding teaching and learning about teaching. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203019672
  54. Loughran, J. J. (2002). Effective reflective practice: In search of meaning in learning about teaching. Journal of Teacher Education, 53(1), 33–43. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487102053001004
  55. Luft, J. A., & Roehrig, G. H. (2007). Capturing science teachers' epistemological beliefs: The development of the Teacher Beliefs Interview. Electronic Journal of Science Education, 11(2), 38–63.
  56. Magnusson, S., Krajcik, J., & Borko, H. (1999). Nature, sources, and development of pedagogical content knowledge for science teaching. In Examining pedagogical content knowledge: The construct and its implications for science education (pp. 95-132). Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands.
  57. Mayer, R. E. (2009). Multimedia learning (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511811678
  58. McGregor, D. (2012). Dramatising science learning: Findings from a pilot study to re-invigorate elementary science pedagogy for five- to seven-year-olds. International Journal of Science Education, 34(8), 1145–1165. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2012.660751
  59. Millî Eğitim Bakanlığı (2024a). Türkiye Yüzyılı Maarif Modeli Fen bilimleri dersi (3,4,5,6,7 ve 8. Sınıflar) öğretim programı. Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı Yayınları.
  60. Millî Eğitim Bakanlığı (2024b). Türkiye Yüzyılı Maarif Modeli Öğretim Programları Ortak Metni. Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı Yayınları.
  61. Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers college record, 108(6), 1017-1054.
  62. Mukuka, A., & Alex, J. K. (2024). Review of research on microteaching in mathematics teacher education: Promises and challenges. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 20(1), em2381. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/13941
  63. Murphy Odo, D. (2023). Perceptions of preservice English teachers regarding peer reaction video feedback on their microteaching. Sage Open, 13(4),1-13. https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440231210652
  64. Navarro-Ibáñez, M., & Cárdenas, V. G. (2026). Teacher self-efficacy and mentorship: Exploring the roles of Cooperating Teachers and University Supervisors in practicum experiences of preservice teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 176, 105531. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2026.105531
  65. National Research Council (NRC). (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. National Academies Press.
  66. Osborne, J., & Dillon, J. (2008). Science education in Europe: Critical reflections (Vol. 13). London: The Nuffield Foundation.
  67. Osborne, J., Simon, S., & Collins, S. (2003). Attitudes towards science: A review of the literature and its implications. International journal of science education, 25(9), 1049-1079. https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069032000032199
  68. Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative research & evaluation methods: Integrating theory and practice (4th ed.). SAGE Publications.
  69. Park, S., & Oliver, J.S. (2008). Revisiting the Conceptualisation of Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK): PCK as a Conceptual Tool to Understand Teachers as Professionals. Res Sci Educ 38, 261–284. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-007-9049-6
  70. Punch, S. (2002). Research with children: The same or different from research with adults? Childhood, 9(3), 321–341. https://doi.org/10.1177/0907568202009003005
  71. Rivet, A. E., & Krajcik, J. S. (2008). Contextualizing instruction: Leveraging students' prior knowledge and experiences to foster understanding of middle school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(1), 79–100. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20203
  72. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American psychologist, 55(1), 68.
  73. 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). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  74. Saldana, J. (2011). Fundamentals of qualitative research. Oxford university press.
  75. Saraç, E., & Cappellaro, E. (2015). Sınıf öğretmenleri ve sınıf öğretmeni adaylarının bilimin doğasına ilişkin görüşleri. Akdeniz İnsani Bilimler Dergisi, 5(2), 331-349. https://doi.org/10.13114/MJH.2015214576
  76. Schreier, M. (2012). Qualitative content analysis in practice. SAGE.
  77. Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. Basic Books.
  78. Scott, P. H., Asoko, H. M., & Driver, R. (1992). Teaching for conceptual change: A review of strategies. In R. Duit, F. Goldberg, & H. Niedderer (Eds.), Research in physics learning: Theoretical issues and empirical studies (pp. 310–329). Kiel, Germany: IPN.
  79. Sherin, M. G., & Van Es, E. A. (2009). Effects of video club participation on teachers' professional vision. Journal of teacher education, 60(1). https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487108328155
  80. Shulman, L. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard educational review, 57(1), 1-23.
  81. Sorensen, P., Newton, L., & McCarthy, S. (2012). Developing a science teacher education course that supports student teachers’ thinking and teaching about the nature of science. Research in Science & Technological Education, 30(1), 29–47. https://doi.org/10.1080/02635143.2012.671767
  82. Tomlinson, C. A. (2001). How to Differentiate Instruction in Mixed-Ability Classrooms. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.
  83. Torun, B., & Karamustafaoğlu, O. (2025). 2024 Türkiye Yüzyılı Maarif Modeli ile 2018 Fen Bilimleri Dersi Öğretim Programlarının Temel Öğeler Bakımından Karşılaştırılması. Trakya Eğitim Dergisi, 15(Özel Sayı), 346-388. https://doi.org/10.24315/tred.1614676
  84. Ucar, S., & Sanalan, V.A. (2011) How Has Reform in Science Teacher Education Programs Changed Preservice Teachers’ Views About Science?. J Sci Educ Technol 20, 87–94. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-010-9236-5
  85. Ültay, E., & Uluduz, Ş. M. (2018). Sınıf öğretmeni adaylarının fen öğretimi öz yeterlik inançları üzerine yapılan çalışmaların incelenmesi. Ondokuz Mayis University Journal of Education Faculty, 37(1), 129-143.
  86. Van Driel, J. H., Beijaard, D., & Verloop, N. (2001). Professional development and reform in science education: The role of teachers' practical knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching: The Official Journal of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, 38(2), 137-158. https://doi.org/10.1002/1098-2736(200102)38:2 3.0.CO;2-U
  87. Venville, G., Wallace, J., Rennie, L. J., & Malone, J. A. (2002). Curriculum integration: Eroding the high ground of science as a school subject? Studies in Science Education, 37(1), 43–84. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057260208560177
  88. Yıldırım, A., & Simsek, H. (2005). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri. Güncelleştirilmiş Geliştirilmiş 5. Baskı, Ankara: Seçkin Yayıncılık.
  89. Yin, R. K. (2018). Case study research and applications (Vol. 6). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  90. Windschitl, M., Thompson, J., & Braaten, M. (2011). Ambitious pedagogy by novice teachers: Who benefits from tool-supported collaborative inquiry into practice and why?. Teachers college record, 113(7), 1311-1360. https://doi.org/10.1177/016146811111300702
  91. Zeichner, K. (2010). Rethinking the connections between campus courses and field experiences in college- and university-based teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 61(1–2), 89–99. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487109347671
  92. Franke, U., Backfisch, I., Scherzinger, L., Tolou, A., Thyssen, C., Brahm, T.,. & Lachner, A. (2024). Do prompts and strategy instruction contribute to pre-service teachers’ peer-feedback on technology-integration? Educational technology research and development, 72(6), 3117-3138.