The Making of Turkish Mathematic and Science Curricula: A Historical Study in an International

Matematik ve fen programlarının değişik ülkelerde gelişimini etkileyen faktörler eğitim bilimcilerin ilgisini çeke gelmiştir. Bu konuda önde gelen bir teori matematik ve fen programlarının ulusal sosyo-politik şartlarla şekillendiğini öne sürer (Apple, 1990). Dünya modeli teorisine göre ise programların ülkeler arasındaki benzerliği Dünya çapında etkinlik gösteren kuvvetlerin yerel-ulusal faktörler üzerindeki baskınlığını gösterir (Meyer, 1992). Bu çalışma Türkiye özelinde Dünya modeli teorisine destek sağlıyor. Biz genel olarak Türkiye’de matematik ve fen programlarının uluslararası akımlarla etkileşim ve uyum içinde olduğunu gördük. Bulgularımız bu uyumu sağlayan süreç ve araçların anlaşılmasını sağlıyor. Yabancı uzmanların ziyareti, yabancı kuruluşlardan gelen parasal destek, yabancı ders kitaplarının doğrudan tercümesi bu surecin üç önemli basamağını oluşturdu. Bu çalışma Türkiye’nin geleceğe dönük matematik ve fen programları ile ilgili sonuç ve çıkarımları da da içeriyor.

Uluslararası Akımlar Işığında Türk Matematik ve Fen Programlarının Tarihsel Gelişimi

Factors that affect mathematics and science curricula have long been a topic of interest. One leading theory suggests that curriculum is a product of national socio-political conditions (Apple, 1990). The World model theory on the other hand argues homogeneity in school mathematics and science across nations as evidence of the relative dominance of World-wide forces over local factors (Meyer, 1992). This study provides support for the World model theory in general. We found that there was a general alignment of Turkish mathematics and science curricula with international trends. Findings provide insights into the processes and means that mathematics and science curricula is “attuned” to general world models. Visits by foreign experts, financial support from foreign agencies, and direct translation of foreign textbooks were found to be the three means of alignment. Implications for the future of Turkish mathematics and science curricula are drawn.

PDF

___

Akyüz, Y. (1989). Türk eğitim tarihi [History of Turkish education]. Ankara, Turkey: Ankara University Press.
Ayas, A., Cepni, S., & Akdeniz, A. R. (1993). Development of the Turkish Secondary Science Curriculum. Science Education, 77(4), 433-440.
Aytuna, A. (1992). Orta öğretimde matematik eğitimi üzerine bazı düşünceler [Some thoughts on mathematics education in middle schools]. Matematik Dünyası. 2(2), 19-21.
Başgöz, I. L. & Wilson, H. E. (1968). Educational problems in Turkey, 1920-1940. Hague, IN: Indiana University Press
Benavot, A. (1992). Curricular content, educational expansion, and economic growth. Comparative Education Review, 36(2), 150-174.
Brickman, W. W. (1985). The Turkish cultural and educational revolution: John Dewey's report of 1924. Western European Education, XVI(4), 3-18.
Cahill, B. (Ed.) (1984). Turkey. Bulletin of the UNESCO Regional Office for Education in Asia and the Pasific, 25, 384-402. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 263 012)
Dewey, J. (1939). Report and recommendation upon Turkish education. Ankara, Turkey: The National Ministry of Education.
Dull, C. E., Metcalfe, H. C., Brooks, W. O. (1958). Modern Physics. New York, NY: Henry Holt and Co.
Gedikoğlu, T. (1985). The development of Turkish higher education in the republican period. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA.
Ginsburg, M. B. & Cooper, S. (1991). Educational reform, the state, and the world economy: Understanding and engaging in ideological and other struggles. In M. B. Ginsburg (Ed.) Understanding educational reform in global context: Economy, ideology and the state (p. 369-395). New York, NY: Garland Publishing Inc.
Ginsburg, M. B., Cooper, S., Raghu, R. & Zegarra, H. (1991). Educational reform: Social struggle, the state, and the world economic system. In M. B. Ginsburg (Ed. ) Understanding educational reform in global context: Economy, ideology and the state (p. 3-47). New York, NY: Garland Publishing Inc.
Kamens, D. H. & Benavot, A. (1992). A comparative and historical analysis of mathematics and science curricula, 1800-1986. In J. W. Meyer, D. H. Kamens, & A. Benavot, (Ed. s). School knowledge for the masses: World models and national primary curricular categories in the 20th century. (p. 101-123). Washington, DC: The Falmer Press.
Karpat, K. H. (1959). Turkey's Politics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Lockard, D. J. (Ed. ) (1970). Seventh report of the international Clearinghouse on science and mathematics curricular developments. University of Maryland Science Teaching Center in collobaration with AAAS.
M. E. Bakanlığı, (1959). Modern Fizik, I-IV [Modern Physics I-IV]. İstanbul, Turkey: Maarif Basımevi.
Marcell, D. W. (1974). Progress and pragmatism, James, Dewey, Beard and the American idea of Progress. Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Press.
Maybury, R. H. (1975). Science education: Technical assistance and innovation. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.
McNeil, J. D. (1985). Curriculum: A comprehensive introduction. Boston, MA: Little, Brown and Co.
Merritt, R., and Coombs, F. (1977). Politics and educational reform. Comparative Education Review, 21(3), 247-273.
Meyer, J. W. (1992). Introduction. In In J. W. Meyer, D. H. Kamens, & A. Benavot, (Ed. s). School knowledge for the masses: World models and national primary curricular categories in the 20th century. (p. 1-16). Washington, DC: The Falmer Press.
Miller, J. W. (1990). Whatever happened to new math? American Heritage, 40(8). 76-83.
Office of the Ambassador for Cultural Affairs, Republic of Turkey. (1981). Ataturk's Republic of Culture. Washington, DC: The author.
Özinönü, A. K. (1976). Innovations and changes in secondary school science curricula. Ankara, Turkey: Middle East Technical University Press.
Pieper, C. J., & Beauchamp, W. L. (1925). Every day Problems in Science. Chicago, IL: Scott, Foresman and Co.
Price, E. F. (1970). A. I. D. Educational assistance to Turkey, 1957-1970. Washington, D. C. : Agency For Educational Development (U. S. Dept. of State) (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 100 793)
Sakaoglu, N. (1992). Cumhuriyet dönemi egitim tarihi [History of education in the Republican era]. Istanbul, Turkey: Iletisim Yayinlari.
School and Society, (1926A), 24 (October, p. 507)
School and Society, (1926B), 24 (October, p. 518)
Stone, F. A. (1973, Summer). The evolution of contemporary Turkish educational thought. History of Education Quarterly, 145-161.
Stone, F. A. (1974). Rural revitalization and the village institutes in Turkey: Sponsors and critics. Comparative Education Review, 18(3), 419-429.
T. C. Maarif Vekaleti, (1936). Fen Bilgisi [Knowledge of Science]. İstanbul, Turkey: Devlet Basımevi.
T. C. Maarif Vekaleti, (1933). Yeni Biyoloji [New Biology]. İstanbul, Turkey: Devlet Basımevi.
Topçu, S. (1989). Türkiye'de cumhuriyet dönemi eğitim hareketlerini etkileyen psikopedagojik cereyanlar [The psycho-pedagogical trends which affected educational movements in Republican Turkey]. Türk Kültürü, 318, 580-600.
Tuchman, G. (1994). Historical social science: Methodologies, methods, and meanings. In N. K. Denzin, & Y. S. Lincoln (Ed. s). Handbook of Qualitative Research (p. 306-323). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Turan, K. (1992). Mesleki teknik eğitimin gelişmesi ve Mehmet Rüştü Uzel [The development of vocational-technical education and Mehmet Rüstü Uzel]. Istanbul, Turkey: National Ministry of Education Publications.
Türk Eğitim Derneği. (1985). Orta öğretim kurumlarında matematik öğretimi ve sorunları [Mathematics education and its problems in middle schools]. Ankara, Turkey: The author.
Williamson, B. (1987). Education and social change in Egypt and Turkey: A study in historical sociology. London, UK: The Macmilan Press Ltd.
Yalman, A. E. (1956). Turkey in my time. Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma Press.
Yalman, A. E. (1945, February 10). Village institutes in Turkey. The Times Educational Supplement.
Yılmaz, O. (1977). Schools for developing countries: The Turkish village institutes. Educational Planning, 3(4), 72-80.
Acknowledgement:The author wishes to thank two anonymous reviewers whose comments improved the quality of this paper