Yeni İlköğretim Programları ve Öğretmenler

Bu çalışmanın amacı Türkiye’de 2005-2006 öğretim yılında ülke programlarında adeta birer slogan gibi sıkça tekrarlanan ve öğretmenler tarafından yanlış anlaşılmaya neden olabilecek bazı konuları belirlemek ve bunların neden yanlış anlaşılabileceğini gerekçeleriyle ortaya koymaktır. Program değişim sürecinde adeta birer slogan gibi sıkça tekrarlanan ve öğretmenler tarafından yanlış anlaşılmaya neden olabilecek konular şöyledir. Bireysel farklılıkları dikkate almak, etkin öğrenmenin anlamı, geleneksel ölçme değerlendirme öğretmenlerin alan bilgisi ihtiyacı ve iş yüklerinin durumu. Program değişiminde bütün ilgi ve dikkat değişimin nasıl yapılacağından çok değişimin kendisine odaklanmıştır. Bu değişimin istenilen düzeyde gerçekleşmesi için daha uzun soluklu, katılımcı ve ülkemizin gerçeklerine uygun bir öğretmen eğitimi planlanmalı ve uygulanmalıdır. Bu süreçte mevcut hizmet içi eğitim uygulamalarının da ciddi olarak ele alınması ve daha verimli hale getirilmesi gerekmektedir

New Elementary Curricula and Teachers

The main objective of this article is to establish some issues that are frequently repeated in the new elementary school curricula in Turkey in 2005-2006 school year, which can lead to misunderstandings by teachers; and to argue why they may lead to misunderstandings together with justifications. Certain matters have been examined below, and these have been repeated frequently throughout the program change process, with a possibility to lead to misunderstanding by teachers. The first one has to do with individual differences. The others are meaning of active learning, the usage of traditional measurement and evaluation techniques, teachers’ subject knowledge and work load. All interest and emphases in curriculum changes is focused on the change itself, rather than how the change will be introduced. In order to ensure that this change takes place at the desired level, long-term training courses that allow participation and that take into account the facts of our country must be planned and implemented for teachers. Within this process, existing in service training must be considered seriously and rendered more efficient

Keywords:

Teacher, teacher education, curriculum curriculum reform,

PDF

___

APA (1997). Learner-Centered Psychological Principles: A Framework for School Redesign and Reform [Online]: http://www.apa.org/ed/lcp.html adresinden 10 Ocak 2005 tarihinde indirilmiştir.
Airasian, P. W. & Walsh, M. E. (1997). Constructivist caution. Phi Delta Kappan, 78, 444-449.
Alesandrini, K. & Larson, L. (2002). Teachers bridge to constructivism. The Clearing House, 75(3), 118-122.
Battista, M. T. (1994). Teacher beliefs and the reform movement in mathematics education. Phi Delta Kappan, 75(6), 462-468.
Bauer, E. (1999). To promise of alternative literacy assessments in the classroom: A review of empirical studies. Reading Research and Instruction, 38, 153-168.
Bıkmaz, F. ( Nisan 2005). “The Curriculum Reform Movement In Turkey: Missing Points In The Proposed Constructivist Framework”. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal, Canada.
Boyd, W. L. (2000). The “R’s of school reform” and the politics of reforming or replacing public schools. Journal of Educational Change, 1(3), 225-252.
Bybee, R. W. (1993). Leadership, responsibility, and reform in science education. Science Education, 2(1), 1-9.
Carr, M., Barker, B., Bell, B., Biddulph, F., Jones, A., Kirkwood, V., Pearson, J. & Symington, D. (1994). The constructivist paradigm and some implications for science content and pedagogy. In P. J. Fensham, R. T. Gunstone & R.T White (Eds), The content of science (pp. 147 - 160). London: The Falmer Press.
Cobb, P., Yackel, E. & Wood, T. (1988). “Curriculum and teacher development as the coordination of pschological and antropological perspectives.” Paper presented at the meeting of the Instruction/Learning Working Group of the National Center for Research in Mathematical Science Education, Madison,WI.
Cohen (1988), Educational technology and school organization.In R.S. Nickerson & P. P. Zodhiates (Eds.), Technology in education: Looking toward 2020, Hillsdale, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum.
Cuban, L. (1990). Reforming again, again and again. Educational Researcher, 19(1), 3-13.
Deryakulu, D. (2000). Yapıcı öğrenme. A. Şimşek (Ed.) Sınıfta Demokrasi (s. 53-77). Eğitim- Sen Yayınları, Ankara.
Duit, R. & Treagust, D. (1995). Students’ conceptions and constructivist teaching. In. B. J. Fraser, and H. J. Walberg (Eds.), Improving science education (pp. 46-69). The National Society for the Study of Education.
Driver, R., Asoko, H., Leach, J., Mortimer, E. & Scott, P. (1994). Constructing scientific knowledge in the classroom. Educational Researcher, 23(7), 5-12.
Elmour, R., Peterson, P. & McCarthey, S. (1996). Restructuring in the classroom. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Elkind, D. (2004). The problem with constructivism. The Educational Forum, 68(4), 306-312.
El-Sheikh Hasan, O. H. (2000). Improving the quality of learning: global education as a vehicle for school reform. Theory into Practice, 39(2), 97-104.
Enderlin-Lampe, S. (2002). Empowerment: teacher perceptions, aspirations and efficacy. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 29(3), 139-147.
Fensham, P. J, Gunstone, R. F. & White, R. T (1994). Science content and constructivist views of learning and teaching. In P. J. Fensham, R. F. Gunstone & R. T. White (Eds.), The content of science (pp. 1-8). London: The Falmer Press.
Flouris, G. & Pasias, G. (2003). A critical appraisal of curriculum reform in Greece (1980-2002). European Education, 35(3), 73-90.
Fullan, M. C. & Miles, M. B. (1993). Getting reforms right: What works and what doesn’t. Phi Delta Kappan, 73(4), 745-752.
Gough, N. (1999). Globalization and school curriculum change: locating a transnational imaginary. Journal of Educational Policy, 14(1), 73-84.
Gözütok, D., Akgün, Ö. E. ve Karacaoğlu, Ö.C. (2005). Yeni ilköğretim programlarının uygulanmasına öğretmenlerin hazırlanması. 14-16 Kasım 2005 Eğitimde Yansımalar:VIII, Yeni İlköğretim Programlarını Değerlendirme Sempozyumu BildiriKitabı içinde: ss:17-41.Kayseri.
Haney, J. J., Czerniak, C. M. ve Lumpe, A. T. (2003). Constructivist beliefs about the science classroom learning environment: Perspectives from teachers, administrators, parents, community members, and students. School Science and Mathematics, 103(8), 366-378.
Harlen, W. (1997). Primary teachers’ understandings in science and its impact in the classroom. Research in Science Education, 27(3), 323-337.
Harwell, S. H. (2000). Impediments to changes: an application for force-field analysis to leader master teacher training in an elementary level science systemic reform initiative. Journal of Elementary Science Education, 12(2), 7-19.
Labaree, D. F. (1999). The chronic failure of curriculum reform. Education Week, 18(36), 42-45.
Law, W. (2004). Translating globalization and democratization into local policy: Educational reform in Hong Kong and Taiwan. International Review of Education, 50(5-6), 497-524.
Marginson, S. (1999). After globalization: emerging politics of education. Journal of Educational Policy, 14(1), 19-31.
Martin,D. J. (1997). Elementary science methods: a constructivist approach. Delmar Publishers, New York.
Matthews, M. R. (1998). Introductory comments on philosophy and constructivism in science education. In Matthews, M. R.. (Ed.), Constructivism in science education; A philosophical examination. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publications.
Mc Laughlin, M. & Talbert, J. (1993). Context that matter for teaching and learning. Stanford, CA: Center for Research on the Context of Secondary School Teaching.
MEB. (1999). 2000 yılında milli eğitim. T.C. Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı. A.Ç.E.M ve 4. Akşam Sanat Okulu Matbaası. Ankara.
MEB. (2005). İlköğretim 1-5.sınıf programları tanıtım el kitabı. Milli Eğititm Müdürlüğü Basımevi, Ankara.
Olkun, S. & Toluk, Z. (2003). İlköğretimde etkinlik temelli matematik öğretimi. Anı Yayıncılık, Ankara.
Pinto, R. (2004). Introduction curriculum innovation in science: Identifying teachers’ transformation and design of related teacher education. Science Education, 1-18.
Prawat, R. S. (1992). Teachers beliefs about teaching and learning: a constructivist perspective. American Journal of Education, 354-393.
Richardson, V. (1997). Constructivist teacher education. New York: Falmer Press.
Rogan, J. M. & Grayson, D. J. (2003). Towards a theory of curriculum implementation with particular reference to science education in developing countries. International Journal of Science Education, 25 (10), 1171-1204.
Sani, J. M. (2000). The potentials and challenges of information and communication technologies for education: The training for teachers. In: Globalization and living together: The challenges for educational content in Asia, ed. by UNESCO, 29-31. Paris:UNESCO.
Schunk, D. H. (2004). Learning Theories: An Educational Perspectives. Fourth edition. New Jersey, Pearson Prentice Hall.
Selcuk, Z. (2004). Talim ve Terbiye Kurulu başkanı Ziya Selçuk’la söyleşi. Bilim ve Aklın Aydınlığında Eğitim, 5(54-55), 7-15.
Sherman, S. J. (2000). Science and science teaching: Science is something you can do. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Company.
Simpson, T. L. (2002). Dare I oppose constructivist theory? The Educational Forum, 66, 633-662.
Smerdon, B. A., Burkam, D. T. & Lee,V. E. (1999). Access to constructivist and didactic teaching: who gets it?, where is it practiced?, Teachers College Record, 101, 5-34.;
Talbert, J. E. & Mc Laughlin, M. V. (1993). Understanding teaching in context. In D. K. Cohen, M.V. Mc Laughlin & J.E. Talbert (Eds.), Teaching for understanding: Issues for policy and practice (pp.167-205). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Tsai, C. C. (1998). Science learning and constructivisim. Curriculum and Teaching, 13, 31-52.
Uno, G. E. (1999). Handbook on teaching undergraduate science course: A survival tarning manual. Forth Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace.
Welch,W. W. (1995). Student assessment and curriculum evaluation. In B. J. Fraser & H. J. Walberg (Eds.), Improving science education (pp. 90-116). The National Society for the Study of Education.
Windschitl, M. (2002). Framing constructivism in practice as the negotiation of dilemmas: an analysis of the conceptual, pedagogical, cultural, and political challenges facing teachers. Review of Educational Research, 72(2), 131-175.
Verspoor, A. (1989). Pathways to change: Improving quality of education in developing countries. Washington DC: The World Bank.
Zajda, J. (2003). Educational reform and transformation in Russia. European Education, 35(1), 58-88.