SavedAdd your journal

Journals / International Journal of Environmental and Science Education (elektronik) / 2011 / Cilt: 6 - Sayı: 3

Paradigma kayması olarak eğitim reformları: Eğitimsel değişimin doğasını ve öğretmen direncini anlamak için Kuhn’un bakış açısını kullanmak

Educational reforms as paradigm shifts: Utilizing kuhnian lenses for a better understanding of the meaning of, and resistance to, educational change

Serhat IREZ
Çiğdem HAN
Pages
251–266
Publication Date
2022-10-18
DOI
—
🏛️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)

To this end, the study discusses that understanding the new para-digm introduced by the new curriculum could be one of the major barriers that teachers face in the implementation of the curriculum reform.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Research acknowledges that reform efforts in education often face resistance, particularly on the part of teachers.
📊
Key Findings & Data:This study attempts to get to a better understanding of the reasons of resistance to change on the teachers' side through utilizing the structure of scientific revolu-tions as described by Thomas Kuhn as an analogy.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:To this end, the study discusses that understanding the new para-digm introduced by the new curriculum could be one of the major barriers that teachers face in the implementation of the curriculum reform.
🔬Design:Modeling & Simulation
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Research acknowledges that reform efforts in education often face resistance, particularly on the part of teachers. This study attempts to get to a better understanding of the reasons of resistance to change on the teachers' side through utilizing the structure of scientific revolu-tions as described by Thomas Kuhn as an analogy. To this end, a recent curriculum reform in science education in Turkey is taken as a case. The previous and new biology curricula are analyzed comparing their emphasis, approaches to the nature of scientific knowledge, theories of learning, and models for teaching and approaches to the assessment of learning. This analysis revealed that the curriculum reform experienced in Turkey has introduced a new conceptual and theoretical framework for teachers, which is fundamentally different from the previous one. To this end, the study discusses that understanding the new para-digm introduced by the new curriculum could be one of the major barriers that teachers face in the implementation of the curriculum reform.

Özet

Alanda yapılan çalışmalar eğitim reformlarına öğretmenler tarafından direnç gösterildiğini ortaya koymaktadır. Bu çalışma eğitim reformlarına öğretmenler tarafından gösterilen bu direnci Thomas Kuhn‟un “Bilimsel Devrimlerin Yapısı” analojisini kullanarak açıklamaya çalışmaktadır. Bu amaçla geniş ölçekli eğitim reformlarının nasıl yeni bir kavramsal çatı ortaya koyduğunu göstermek için Türkiye‟deki eski ve yeni biyoloji öğretim programları analiz edilmiştir. Bu çalışmada nitel araştırma yaklaşımı benimsenerek eski ve yeni biyoloji öğretim programları amaç ve vurgular, bilimsel bilginin doğası, öğrenme teorileri ve yaklaşımları, öğretim modelleri ve değerlendirme yaklaşımları açısından analiz edilmiştir. Çalışmanın sonuçları eski ve yeni biyoloji öğretim programları arasında paradigma kayması olarak değerlendirilebilecek felsefi yaklaşım farklılıkları olduğunu göstermektedir. Bu sonuçlar ışığında yeni programın ortaya koyduğu yeni kavramsal çatının anlaşılmasının zorluğu eğitim reformunun başarılı bir şekilde uygulanmasının önündeki en önemli engel olarak görünmektedir.

🔖

Cite This Article

IREZ, S., HAN, Ç. (2022). Paradigma kayması olarak eğitim reformları: Eğitimsel değişimin doğasını ve öğretmen direncini anlamak için Kuhn’un bakış açısını kullanmak. International Journal of Environmental and Science Education (elektronik), Cilt: 6 - Sayı: 3, 251–266. https://ajindex.com/articles/540846

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (14)

  1. Aitheide, D. L. (1996). Qualitative Media Analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Anderson, R. D., & Helms, J. V. (2001). The ıdeal of standards and the reality of schools: Needed research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(1), 3-16.
  2. Avenstrup, R. (2007). The challenge of curriculum reform and ımplementation: Some ımplications of a constructivist approach. Ministry of National Education. Bickhard, M.H. (1997). Constructivism and relativisms: A shopper guide. Science & Education, 6(1-2), 29-42.
  3. Bloom, B. S. (1956).
  4. Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, Handbook I: The Cognitive Domain. New York: David McKay Co Inc. Crocker, R. K. (1983). The functional paradigms of teachers. Canadian Journal of Education, 8(4), 350-361.
  5. Fullan, M. G. (1991). The new meaning of educational change. London: Cassell Educational Limited Wellington House. Gallagher, J. J. (1991). Framing the science support teacher program: context, history, assumptions, training and technical assistance. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Fontana, WI. Gallagher, J. J. (1993). Secondary science teachers and constructivist practice. In K. Tobin (Eds), The practice of constructivism in science education. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum As-sociates. pp.181-191
  6. Hurd, P. D. (1998). Scientific literacy: New minds for a changing world. Science Education, 82, 407-416.
  7. Hwang, A.S. (1996). Positivist and constructivist persuasions in instructional development. Instructional Science, 24, 343-356.
  8. Irez, S. (2009). Nature of science as depicted in turkish biology textbooks. Science Education, 93(3), 422-447.
  9. Kennedy, C. (1996). Teacher role in curriculum reform. English Language Teacher Education and Development, 2(1), 77-89.
  10. Könings, K. D., Brand-Gruwel, S., & Van Merrienboer, J. J. G. (2007). Teachers‟ perspectives on ınnovations: ımplications for educational design. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27, 985-997.
  11. Kuhn, T. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  12. Lakatos, I. (1970). Falsification and the methodology of scientific research programmes. In I. Lakatos and A. Musgrave. (Eds), Criticism and the growth of knowledge. (pp.91-196). New York: Cambridge University Press.
  13. Masterman, M. (1970). The Nature of a Paradigm. In I. Lakatos and A. Musgrave (Eds), Criticism and the growth of knowledge. New York: Cambridge University Press. pp. 59-89.
  14. Matthews, M. R. (1997). Introductory comments