Dergiler / Journal of Turkish Science Education / 2008 / Cilt: 5 - Sayı: 2

Evaluation of New Primary Science and Technology Curriculum: Sample of Adıyaman

Sayfa
70–81
DOI
—
🏛️Bu makalenin bibliyografik verileri ve tam metin bağlantısı DergiPark üzerinden sağlanmıştır.
DergiPark Kaydı ↗
✨

Yapay Zeka Hızlı Bakış & Çıkarımlar

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(1 Cümlede Hızlı Çıkarım)

It is concluded that deficiency of materials, equipment and science and technology laboratories in schools has been prevented the efficient application of the curriculum and this curriculum was not harmonized with the central examination system used in our country with respect to processing and evaluation basis.

📌 3 Maddede Bu Makale

🎯
Amaç & Hipotez:The main purpose of this study is to examine primary school teachers’ problems that they encounter in application of program and investigate how the science and technology lesson curriculum which has been applied since 2005-2006 spring semester was evaluated by the main practitioner of the program.
📊
Temel Bulgular & Veri:The teachers’ views are considered and reviewed regarding the evaluation and problems of instruction program.
💡
Sonuç & Katkı:It is concluded that deficiency of materials, equipment and science and technology laboratories in schools has been prevented the efficient application of the curriculum and this curriculum was not harmonized with the central examination system used in our country with respect to processing and evaluation basis.
🔬Tür:Uygulamalı Anket & Alan Araştırması
📍Kapsam:2005-2006 Verileri
⚙️Değişkenler:Alan Parametreleri

Abstract

The main purpose of this study is to examine primary school teachers’ problems that they encounter in application of program and investigate how the science and technology lesson curriculum which has been applied since 2005-2006 spring semester was evaluated by the main practitioner of the program. The teachers’ views are considered and reviewed regarding the evaluation and problems of instruction program. This study was conducted with primary school teachers worked in elementary schools in Adıyaman. The scale developed by researchers with the contribution of the experts was used for gathering data in the study. Data of survey were analyzed with SPSS by using techniques of frequency, percentage, Independent Samples t-test, one way Anova and Scheffe tests. Cronbach Alpha consistency coefficient was found 0.80 (α=0.80) for reliability analysis with respect to the scale. It is concluded that deficiency of materials, equipment and science and technology laboratories in schools has been prevented the efficient application of the curriculum and this curriculum was not harmonized with the central examination system used in our country with respect to processing and evaluation basis.

🔖

Bu Makaleye Atıf Yap

İZCİ, E., ÖZDEN, M., TEKİN, A. (2008). Evaluation of New Primary Science and Technology Curriculum: Sample of Adıyaman. Journal of Turkish Science Education, Cilt: 5 - Sayı: 2, 70–81. https://ajindex.com/articles/270660

📄 Tam Metin PDF Okuyucu

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

Kaynakça (12)

  1. Akamca, G., Hamurcu, H. & Günay, Y. (2006). “Yeni İlköğretim Fen ve Teknoloji Programına Yönelik Öğretmen Görüşleri”. Ulusal Sınıf Öğretmenliği Kongresi Bildiri Kitabı I. Cilt, 14-16 Nisan 2006,
  2. Ankara.
  3. Akdağ, M. (2006). Öğretimde Planlama Uygulama Değerlendirme (Ed: M. Gürol). Üniversite Kitabevi,
  4. Elazığ. Ateş, Ö.H, & Akdağ, Z.A, (2006). Fen ve Teknoloji Dersinde Öğretmenlerin Karşılaştıkları Problemler ve Bu Problemlerin Nedenleri, VII. Ulusal Fen Bilimleri ve Matematik Eğitimi Kongresi Bildirileri, Ankara.
  5. Bahar, M. (2006). Fen ve Teknoloji Öğretimi. (Ed: M.Bahar) Pegema Yayıncılık, Ankara.
  6. Clark, C.M. & Elmore, J.L. (1981). Transforming curriculum in mathematics, science, and writing: A case study of yearly planning (Research Series No. 99). East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University, Institute for Research on Teaching. Clark, C. M. & Peterson, P. L. (1985). Teachers' thought processes. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (pp. 255-296). New York: Macmillan. Cornett, J. W., Yoetis, C., & Terwilliger, L. (1990). Teacher personal practical theories and their influence upon teacher curricular and instructional actions: A case study of a secondary science teacher. Science Education, 74, 517-529.
  7. Crawley, F. E. & Salyer, B. (1995). Origins of life science teachers’ beliefs underlying curriculum reform in Texas. Science Education, 79 (6), 611-635.
  8. Cronin-Jones, L. L. (1991). Science teacher beliefs and their influence on curriculum implementation: Two case studies. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28, 235-250.
  9. Çavaş, B., & Kesercioğlu, T., 2004, “Fen Eğitiminin Uygunluğu: Rose Projesi, VI. Ulusal Fen Bilimleri ve Matematik Eğitimi Kongresi Bildirileri, İstanbul.
  10. Deringöl, Y., & Barış, Ç.Ç., 2006, Yenilenen Fen ve Teknoloji Programına Yönelik Sınıf Öğretmenleri ve Sınıf Öğretmeni Adaylarının Görüşlerinin Belirlenmesi Üzerine Bir Çalışma, VII. Ulusal Fen Bilimleri ve Matematik Eğitimi Kongresi Bildirileri, Ankara.
  11. Gömleksiz, M. (2006). EPÖ Profesörler Kurulu Yeni İlköğretim 1-5 SınıflarÖğretim Programlarını Değerlendirme Toplantısı, (Eskişehir) Sonuç Bildirisi, İlköğretim Online Elektronik Dergisi, Cilt 5, Sayı 1. Haney, J. J., Czerniak, C., & Lumpe, A. T. (1996). Teachers' beliefs and intentionsregarding the implementation of science education reform strands. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33, 971-993.
  12. Hashweh, M. Z. (1996). Effects of science teachers' epistemological beliefs in teaching. Journal of Research in Scienc