Opinions of Teachers about Renewed 3rd and 4th Grade Science Curriculum in Turkey

Opinions of Teachers about Renewed 3rd and 4th Grade Science Curriculum in Turkey
Opinions of Teachers about Renewed 3rd
and 4th
Grade
Science Curriculum in Turkey1
*1Yunus Karakuyu, 2Özlem Can
1,2Teacher, Turkısh Ministry of Education, İstanbul, Turkey
Science education aims to improve students’ scientific knowledge and skills. For that reason, the
science curriculum should be revised in a feasible and dynamic way for higher quality. The
purpose of the present study was to investigate primary school teachers’ opinions on the renewed
3rd
and 4th
grade course science curriculum. 163 3rd
grade and 160 4th
grade primary school
teachers working in public primary schools in Şanlıurfa during spring of 2014-2015 constituted
the study group. The study aimed to determine the teachers’ skills, achievements, theme, activity,
measuring and assessment items. The research is a descriptive survey study. The data obtained
from the 323 primary school teachers were analyzed by using frequencies, percentages and
means via Statistical Package for the Social Sciences T-test and Anova were used for parametric
variables; Kruskal Wallis and Mann Whitney-U were used for non-parametric variables. Cronbach
alpha internal reliability coefficients of the scale were found to be 0,949. Findings of the study
showed that the revised 3rd
and 4th
grade course science curriculum was adequate and was
appropriate for the 3rd
and 4th
grade students.
Key Words: Science Course Curriculum, 3rd Grade Science Lesson, 4th Grade Science Lesson, Teachers’ Opinions.
INTRODUCTION
In pre-1870 curricula, science education programs were
very limited. Instruction was under the influence of John
Locke and Jean Jacques Rousseau and the curricula were
prepared with a didactic approach, and scientific subjects
in textbooks were based on rote-learning. Between1860–
1880, “object instruction” started to be used in science
education curricula as a result of Pestallozzi’s influence. In
this approach, the aim was to develop observation,
experiment and rational thinking skills related to the object
of instruction in science classes. Science was defined as
a body of knowledge and the process of establishment
knowledge (Duschl et al., 2007). With object instruction,
new curricula started to appear where children could use
their senses to learn about the object and develop their
intelligence instead of science education based on rote-
learning (Gücüm, 1998). Science is a process that
students explore and learn from their experiences outside
and inside the school. Students are expected to show
science process skills which have been identified by the
Physics and Astronomy Education Research (PAER)
group (Etkina et al., 2008). Delen and Kesercioğlu (2012)
worked with 6th, 7th and 8th grade students’ science
1Data from the masters’ thesis ''Yenilenen 3. ve 4. Sınıf Fen Bilimleri Öğretim Programının Öğretmen Görüşlerine Göre İncelenmesi'' [The Investigation
of Primary Teachers' Opinion Revised 3rd
and 4th
Grade Science Curriculum]” used in this paper.
process skills by focusing on how curriculum had affected
them. In that study, the 8th grade students were taught with
the previous curriculum; the 6th and 7th graders learned
science via a new curriculum which had a goal to increase
scientific understanding. They found a significant
difference between 6th and 7th graders and a decrease
between 7th and 8th graders.
The 2000s, new necessities to renew science curriculum
arose. Thus, advantages and disadvantages of the current
science curriculum were assessed and the new curriculum
was based on these assessments. In 2005, the concept of
technology was included in the science curriculum and the
name of the course was changed to Science and
Technology and the weekly science and technology
classes were increased to four hours instead of three
(MEB, 2005). In 2013, a new requirement arose to
redevelop the curriculum due to modern conditions and
scientific progress and in accordance to changes
implemented; thus the name of the course was changed to
Sciences.
Review Article
Vol. 5(3), pp. 105-111, November, 2019. © www.premierpublishers.org. ISSN: 0379-9160
International Research Journal of Curriculum and Pedagogy

Karakuyu and Can 106
With the arrival of the 2013 curriculum, many learning
outcomes were decreased by 65%, some units in the
subject fields were renamed and many classes per week
were changed. To replace the concept of science and
technology literacy from the 2005 curriculum to the 2013
curriculum, the concept of science literacy was used,
however the content of the definition remained the same.
A “constructivist approach” was stressed in the learning-
teaching process 2005 science curriculum, however with
the 2013 curriculum; the concentration was on “active use
of learning-teaching strategy based on research-
examination.” The name of the curriculum organized within
the context of the 4 + 4 + 4 system was changed to
“Science Education”. Before the 4 + 4 + 4 system, Turkish
education system was 8 + 4 in which elementary education
totaled 8 years and secondary education lasted for 4
years. In the current education system primary education
is 4 years, middle school education is 4 years and
secondary education is 4 years. In the 2013 curriculum,
the learning strategy was based on “research-
examination” that enables the student to be responsible for
their own learning with a more holistic perspective, to
structure the knowledge in the mind and to use a more
active participation (MEB, 2013). A general review of 2005
and 2013 curricula would demonstrate that, although no
changes in weekly classes were implemented, a serious
decrease in the number of achievements was observed.
While total numbers of intended learning outcomes were
807 in 2005 curriculum, the number of achievements was
266 in 2013 curriculum with a decrease of 65% for middle
schools. As the grade levels increased, many learning
outcomes increased as well in the 2013 curriculum. 44
learning outcomes were determined in the fifth grade,
while there are 52 in the 6th, and 78 learning outcomes in
7th and 8th grades (Karatay, Timur and Timur, 2013).
Purpose of the Study
We consider that the assessment approach adopted in the
present study would provide perspective to researchers
studying curriculum development. Furthermore, since the
current study would be the first in the field that would be
conducted with teachers and program development
experts, it was considered that the study would further
contribute to the perspective on the quality of the
curriculum.
Teachers started using the new 3rd grade science
education curriculum in 2013. The objective of this study is
to evaluate the views of the teachers, who are the
implementers of the program, on the new science
curriculum and whether or not it is achieving target
behavior and content. Based on this objective, the main
research question of the study was determined as “Is the
primary school 3rd and 4th grade science curriculum (that
changed in 2013) achieving the target behavior and
content?”
Method
A descriptive survey model, one of the quantitative data
collection and analysis methods, was used in the present
study. This model was selected because it aims to
describe the bare facts of a situation that existed in the
past or still exists today and it attempts to define the
individual or the object that is the subject of research
exactly under the conditions of its existence (Karasar,
2005). Descriptive studies try to establish “what” the
events, entities, institutions, groups, objects and various
fields are and explain the relations between the events
based on the relationships between the existing conditions
with the conditions of the past (Balcı, 2001; Karasar,
2006).
Treatments
The sample group of this study included 3rd and 4th grade
teachers that were working at Ministry of Education public
primary schools during the 2014 – 2015 academic year in
Şanlıurfa province center of Southern Region, Turkey.
Convenience sampling was utilized to identify the study
sample. Convenience sampling allows the researcher to
sample from a known or studied environment (Balcı,
2005). Thus, the sample of the study included 163 third
grade and 160 fourth grade classroom teachers working in
three central townships of the Şanlıurfa province primary
schools. All teachers in the sample were contacted and the
survey was conducted with them all.
Measurement Tools
Teacher Views on Science Curriculum Survey
(TVSCS): This survey was developed by Temli Durmuş
and Ok (2012). In the present study the aim was to
determine the viability of the renewed 3rd and 4th grade
science curriculum. The “TVSCS,” that included questions
to determine the viability of the renewed curriculum, was
used as the data collection tool. The survey form included
27 items. Validity and reliability for the survey were
conducted according to Temli Durmuş and Ok (2012).
Reliability of the scale was determined with Cronbach
alpha internal consistency coefficient and it was
determined as 0.949(Temli Durmuş and Ok, 2012).
Data Collection
The study was conducted with teachers working in primary
schools during the 2014 – 2015 academic year in
Şanlıurfa. The verbal instructions were provided by the
researcher and the teachers completed the forms. Data
were interpreted with statistical analysis. Table 1 below
presents the quantitative frequencies for teachers.
Data Analysis
Data obtained from the questionnaire were transferred to
SPSS and statistical analyses were conducted on the
data. In the questionnaire that included 27 statements, “I

Int. Res. J. Curricul. Pedag. 107
Table 1: Quantitative Frequencies for Teachers
Gender Class
Frequencies
Class
Frequencies
Male 61 64
Female 102 96
Total 163 160
State of Schools
City Center 118 122
Town Center 13 13
Village 32 25
Total 163 160
Experience
1-5 years 54 46
6-10 years 40 46
11-15 years 38 39
16 years and over 31 29
Total 163 160
completely agree” choice was scored as 5 points, “I
partially agree” choice as 4 points, “I neither agree nor
disagree” choice as 3 points, “I partially disagree” choice
as 2 points, and “I completely disagree” choice as 1 point.
Percentage, frequency, arithmetic mean and standard
deviation values were calculated for each item. Table 2
below presents an example of the score scale with the 5
range responses.
Table 2: Score Scale with 5 Range
Score Space Choices
1 I completely disagree
2 I partially disagree
3 I neither agree nor disagree
4 I partially agree
5 I completely agree
Data were analyzed consistent with the aims of the
study;data were coded between 1 to 5 in the utilized scale
and each interval was divided into 5 equal parts 1 point
each, and objectivity of the utilized criterion was provided
using a graded scale based on score ranges that
correspond to each choice to determine the viability of the
renewed primary school 3rd and 4th grade science
curriculum.
RESULTS
In accordance with the aim and research question of this
research, the results obtained from the analysis of the
surveys conducted. Results obtained from the analysis of
the surveys conducted with the teachers’ in relation to the
teachers’ views on the general status of the renewed
science and technology curriculum, are as follows:
Findings of 3rd
and 4th
Grade Classroom Teachers
‘Content Knowledge about New Curriculum.
Table 3: 3rdGrade Classroom Teachers’ Content
Knowledge about New Curriculum.
F %
1 Yes 98 60,1
2 No 6 3,7
3 Partial 59 36,2
Total 163 100
As presented in Table 3 that 98 out of 163 3rd grade
teachers, (60.1%) had content knowledge on the renewed
science curriculum, while 6 (3.7%) did not have content
knowledge. 59 individuals (36.2%) had partial content
knowledge on the curriculum. This was an indication that
almost all 3rd grade sample group teachers had some
content knowledge on the curriculum.
Table 4: 4th Grade Classroom Teachers’ Content
Knowledge about New Curriculum.
F %
1
2
3
Total
Yes
No
Partial
99
6
55
160
61,9
3,8
34,4
100
It could be observed in Table 4 that 99 out of 1604th grade
teachers (61.9%) had content knowledge on the renewed
science curriculum, while 6 (3.8%) did not have content
knowledge. 55 individuals (34.4%) had partial content
knowledge on the curriculum. This was an indication that
almost all 4th grade sample group teachers had some
content knowledge on the curriculum.
Findings on the Views of 3rd
and 4th
Grade Classroom Teachers on Curriculum Based on Seniority Variable.
Table 5: Comparison of 3rd Grade Teachers’ Survey Scores Based on Experience Variable.
Variable Groups Mean Rank Chi-square df P Differences
Experience
1-5 years
6-10 years
11-15 years
16 years and
over
101,67
89,21
62,11
62,82
22,222 3 0,000*
(1-5)>(6-10)
(1-5)>(11-15)
(1-5) >(16 +)
(6-10)>(11-15)
(6-10)>(16 +)
(11-15>(16 +)
N: 163, *p<0,05
As shown in Table 5, the results of the non-parametric
Kruskal Wallis H-test, conducted to determine whether
there was a significant difference between the mean
scores obtained from the new curriculum scale based on
the variable of the teachers having content knowledge on
the new curriculum, demonstrated that the difference

between the group averages was statistically significant [χ2
(df=3, n= 163) =22.222, p<0.05: 0.000]. Following this
procedure, to determine the source groups of the
significant difference determined as a result of Kruskal
Wallis H-test, supplementary comparison techniques were
conducted. For this purpose, Mann Whitney U-test that is
preferred in paired comparisons was used. Based on the
comparison results presented in Table 5, the significant
difference was in favor of teachers with a seniority of 1 – 5
years and teachers with a seniority of 6 – 10 years. The
scores of teachers with an experience of 1 – 5 years on
their views of the new science curriculum were higher than
those that of the teachers with 11 – 15 years of experience
and teachers with a 16 years or more experience.
Similarly, the scores of teachers with an experience of 6 –
10 years on their views of the new science curriculum
teacher were higher those that of the teachers with an
experience of 11 – 15 years and teachers with 6 years or
more experience. Thus, teachers with experience of 1 – 5
and 6 – 10 years had more positive views on the new
science curriculum.
Table 6: Comparison of 4th Grade Teachers’ Survey
Scores Based on Seniority Variable.
Variable Groups Mean
Rank
Chi-
square
df P
Experience
1-5 years
6-10 years
11-15 years
16 years and over
99,52
92,34
67,33
63,25
23,211 3 0,085
N: 160, p>0,05
there was not a significant difference between the mean
scores obtained from the new curriculum scale based on
the seniority variable, demonstrated that the difference
between the group averages was statistically not
significant [χ2 (df=3, n= 160) =23.211, p>0.05: 0.085].
Findings of 3rd
and 4th
Grade Classroom Teachers’
Survey Based on Content Knowledge about New
Curriculum.
Table 7: Comparison of 3rd Grade Teachers’ Survey
Scores Based on New Curriculum.
Rank
Chi-
square
df P Differences
Content
Knowledge
Yes
Partial
No
89,64
74,32
32,67
10,707 2 0,005*
(Yes)>(Partial)
(Yes)>(No)
(Partial) >(No)
N: 163, *p<0,05
scores obtained on the variable of the 3rd grade teachers
having content knowledge of the new curriculum,
demonstrated that the difference between the group
averages was statistically significant [χ2 (df=2, n= 163)
=10.707, p<0.05: 0.005].Following this procedure, to
determine the source of the significant difference
determined as a result of Kruskal Wallis H-test,
supplementary comparison techniques were conducted.
For this purpose, Mann Whitney U-test that is preferred in
paired comparisons was used. Analyses results
demonstrated that the difference was in favor of the
teachers who examined or partially examined the new
curriculum (U=97,00; z:-2,750; p<0,05: 0,006 U=78,00; z;-
2,246; p<0,05: 0,025).
Scores Based on New Curriculum.
Rank
Chi-
square
df p Differences
Content
Knowledge
Yes
Partial
No
91,63
67,61
43,44
20,517 2 0,013*
(Yes)>(Partial)
(Yes)>(No)
(Partial) >(No)
N: 160, *p<0.05
scores based on the variable of the 4th grade teachers
having content knowledge on the new curriculum,
averages was statistically significant [χ2 (df=2, n=160) =
8.653, p<0.05: 0.013]. Following this procedure, to
determine the source of the significant difference
paired comparisons was used. The results demonstrated
that the difference was in favor of the teachers who
examined or partially examined the new curriculum (U=
93,00; z: -2,823; p<0,05: 0,005 U= 42,00; z; -2,986;
p<0,05: 0,003).
Comparison of 3rd
and 4th
Grade Teachers’ Survey
Scores Based on Whether They Have Examined the
New Curriculum
Scores Based on Examining the New Curriculum.
Rank
Chi-
square
df P Differences
Examining
New
Curriculum.
Yes
Partial
No
104,42
55,45
34,33
56,968 2 0,000*
(Yes)>(Partial)
(Yes)>(No)
(Partial) >(No)
N: 163, *p<0.05
scores obtained based on the variable of the 3rd grade
teachers having examined the new curriculum,
averages was statistically significant [χ2 (df=2, n=163 )
=56.968, p<0.05: 0.000]. Following this procedure, to

determine the source groups of the significant difference
paired comparisons was used. The results demonstrated
that the difference was only in favor of the teachers who
examined the new curriculum(U=141,00; z:-6,010; p<0,05:
0,000).
Table 10: Comparison of 4thGrade Teachers’ Survey
Scores Based on Examining the New Curriculum.
Rank
Chi-
square
df p Differences
Examining
New
Curriculum.
Yes
Partial
No
91,63
67,61
43,44
20,517 2 0,000*
(Yes)>(Partial)
(Yes)>(No)
(Partial) >(No)
N: 160, *p<0.05
scores based on the variable of the 4th grade teachers
having examined the new curriculum, demonstrated that
the difference between the group averages was
statistically significant [χ2 (df=2, n=160 ) =20.517, p<0.05:
0.000].Following this procedure, to determine the source
groups of the significant difference determined as a result
of Kruskal Wallis H-test, supplementary comparison
techniques were conducted. For this purpose, Mann
Whitney U-test that is preferred in paired comparisons was
used. The results demonstrated that the difference was in
favor of the teachers who examined or partially examined
the new curriculum (U=384,00; z:-3,991; p<0,05: 0,000
U=227,00; z;-2,021; p<0,05: 0,043).
Findings on the Survey Scores of 3rd
and 4th
Grade
Teachers that Received and Did Not Receive In-
Service Training.
Scores Based on Received and Did Not Receive In-
Service Training
Variable Mean S.R U Z P
New
Curriculum
Received In-
Service
Training
Did Not
Receive In-
Service
Training
76,84
83,41
2689,50
10676,50
2059,50 -0,730 0,462*
N= 163; *p>0,05 Mean: Mean Rank:; S.R: Sum of Ranks;
there was not a significant difference between the scores
obtained based on the variable of the 3rd grade teachers
having received in-service training, demonstrated that
there was a significant difference between the groups at p
> 0.05 significance level.
Scores Based on Received and Did Not Receive In-
Service Training
Variable Mean S.R U Z P
New
Curriculum
Received In-
Service
Training
Did Not
Receive In-
Service
Training
80,79
80,43
266,00
10214,00
2086,00 -0,040 0,968*
N= 160; *p>0,05 Mean: MeanRank:; S.R: Sum of Ranks;
Mann Whitney U-test, conducted to determine whether
there was not a significant difference between the scores
based on the variable of the 4th grade teachers having
received in-service training, demonstrated that there was
a significant difference between the groups at p > 0.05
significance level.
DISCUSSION
In conjunction with the aim and research question of this
study, primary school 3rd and 4th grade teachers stated that
the experiments in the renewed science curriculum were
suitable for the learning outcomes. In this study, 3rd and 4th
grade teachers agree with the idea that the new curriculum
fulfills the deficiencies of previous curriculum. In our study,
approximately 97% 3rd grade teachers had content
knowledge on the renewed science curriculum. This result
shows that teachers reviewed the new curriculum. The
numbers of the 4th grade teachers are almost the same.
They expressed that putting theoretical knowledge into
practice via the experiments both increased student
activity and information retention. Teachers believed that
the new curriculum was organized with an emphasis on
knowledge, ability, emotion and communication. In a study
by Erdoğan (2005), it was stated that, with the new
curriculum, the activities that were performed in the
classroom before were now practiced in the laboratory.
Teachers also stressed that the teacher-student and
student-student communications increased as a result of
the group studies. They stated that the new science and
technology curriculum promoted active participation of
students in the learning process, the curriculum was
student-centered, and it stressed frequently on the
necessity of learning by doing and with experience. In their
study, Ercan and Altun (2005) determined that 95% of
teachers found the new curriculum to be student-centered.
In a study by Deniz (2005), that scrutinized the effect of
student-centered science instruction on student
achievement demonstrated the superiority of the student-

centered instruction method. In the study, most of the
teachers stated that the curriculum fit the student level,
considered the student development level, the curriculum
had a student-centered design, it enabled the students to
explore the information, and it was suitable for group
studies (Tüysüz and Aydın, 2009).
3rd and 4th grade classroom teachers participating in this
study stated that the new curriculum rendered the student
more investigative and inquisitive due to instructional
methods and techniques utilized, developed the students’
cognitive, affective and psychomotor abilities. In their
study, Ercan and Altun (2005) attempted to assess 4th and
5thgrades’ new science and technology curriculum based
on teacher views. 90% of the participating teachers stated
that the new science and technology curriculum enabled
students to gain more investigative and inquisitive
qualifications and the number of students who could think,
analyze and evaluate scientifically increased as a result of
the new curriculum. 85% of the participants stated that
students had suitable behavior for scientific process skills
and displayed conscious individual behavior and 100% of
the participants expressed that students were completely
related science and technology course with the daily life.
In that study, classroom teachers argued that the science
and technology curriculum was related to other courses,
the curriculum content was satisfactoryand the subjects
were suitable for the student level.
Teachers stated that the new science curriculum had more
positive qualities when compared to the previous
curriculum, constructivist approach was prevalent
replacing the behaviorist approach and the order of the
subjects was appropriate. It was observed that teachers
used alternative assessment methods of peer review,
student product file, project assessment, performance
homework and portfolio in addition to oral and written
examinations in assessment and evaluation. Furthermore,
it was observed that laboratory activities, trips and
observation were used as out-of-classroom learning
environments and also utilized instruction technologies
such as overhead projectors, projector, and CDs. In our
study, the significant difference was in favor of teachers
with an experience of 1 – 5 years and teachers with an
experience of 6 – 10 years. Thus, teachers with an
experience of 1 – 5 and 6 – 10 years had more positive
views on the new science curriculum. And there was not a
significant difference between the mean scores obtained
from the new curriculum scale based on the variable of the
4th teachers having content knowledge on the new
curriculum
Teachers participating in this study expressed that they
had experienced problems while implementing the
activities in the new curriculum such as insufficient time,
material shortages during experiments, and general
material shortages. In schools with insufficient physical
equipment, teachers stated they were unable to implement
the curriculum completely. The most reported problems in
application of the new curriculum declared by the teachers
were inadequate in-service training about the new
curriculum (Öz, 2007). In this study there wasn’t a
significant difference between the scores obtained based
on the variable of the 3rd grade and 4th grade teachers
having received in-service training or not receive in-service
training. There are many issues to make improvements in
science education. The Next Generation Science
Standards (NGSS) which was completed in 2013 should
be focused on professional development, new policies,
and more effort of the whole science education (Pruitt,
2014).
In a study conducted on acquisition of scientific attitude
and behavior in science course, Öz (2007) stated that
problems such as insufficient tools and equipment at
schools and lack of information about the renewed
curriculum were encountered at schools. Students can
apply knowledge to use scientific and engineering
practices via helping many gifted teachers to their
students. Research in science education has recognized
the importance of integrating practice with content
(Corcoran, Mosher, & Rogat, 2009). In our study, it was
determined that former senior teachers did not have more
content knowledge about the new curriculum. It has been
seen from between the mean scores obtained from the
new curriculum scale based on the variable of the teachers
having content knowledge on the new curriculum. The
studies by Karatay, Timur and Timur (2013) that compared
2005 and 2013 science curricula, by Toroman and Alcı
(2013) on the views of science teachers about the renewed
science curriculum, and by Yücel and Özkan (2013) that
compared 2013 science curriculum with 2005 science and
technology curriculum presented results that support the
findings of the current study. Results showed that most of
the 3rd grade and 4th grade teachers participated in the
study believe that the new program is suitable to students’
level, it has been developed according to students’
learning out comes provide opportunities for students
achievements.
REFERENCES
Balcı, A. (2001). Research Methods, Techniques and
Principles in Social Sciences (3rd edition). Ankara:
PegemA Publishing.
Büyükkaragöz, S. (1997). Program Development. Konya:
Self Education Publications.
Corcoran, T., Mosher, F. A., & Rogat, A. (2009). Learning
Progressions in Science: An Evidence-based approach
to Reform (CPRE #RR-63). Consortium for Policy
Research in Education, Centuer on Continous
Instruction Improvement, Teachers’s College, New
York, NY: Columbia University. http://www.cpre.org/.
Delen, İ., & Kesercioğlu, T. (2012). How Middle School
Students’ Science Process Skills Affected by Turkey’s
National Curriculum Change?, Journal of Turkısh
Scıence Education, 9(4).

Deniz, İ. (2005). The Effect of Student Centered Science
Education on Student Achievements. Unpublished
Master's Thesis, Pamukkale University Institute of
Science and Technology, Denizli.
Doğan, H. (1982). Analysis and Preparation of Program.
Ankara: A.U.G.E.F. Publications.
Duschl, R. A., Schweingruber, H. A., & Shouse, A. W.
(Eds.). (2007). Taking science to school: Learning and
teaching science in grades K-8. Washington, DC:
National Academies Press.
Ercan F. & Altun, S. A. (2005). Teachers' opinions about
4th and 5th grade curriculum of primary science and
technology. Reflections in Education: Paper presented
at VIII Symposium on Evaluation of New Primary
Education Programs, Ankara: Sim PrintShop.
Erdoğan, M. (2005). Renewed fifth grade science and
technology curriculum: Feedbacks of pilot practice.
Feedbacks in Education: Paper presented at VIII
Symposium on Evaluation of New Primary Education
Programs, Ankara: Sim PrintShop.
Etkina, E., Karelina, A. & Ruibal-Villasenor, M. (2008). How
long does it take? A study of student acquisition of
scientific abilities. Physical Review Special Topics -
Physics Education Research, 4(2), 1-15, 020108.
Gücüm, B. (1998). Science Education. Eskişehir: Anadolu
University Press.
Karasar, N. (2005). Scientific Research Method. Ankara:
Nobel Publishing.
Karasar, N. (2006). Scientific Research Method. (16th
edition). Ankara: Nobel Publishing.
Karatay R., Timur S. & Timur B. (2013). Comparison of
Science Curriculum in 2005 and Science Curriculum in
2013, Adıyaman University Journal of Institute of Social
Sciences, 6, 15.
Kaya, Z. (2005). Instructional technologies and material
development. Ankara: Pegem A Publishing.
MEB (2005). İlköğretim fen ve teknoloji dersi (4-5.sınıf)
öğretim programı ve kılavuzu,
http://ttkb.meb.gov.tr/program.aspx.islem=1&kno=24
adresinden 15 haziran 2015 tarihinde alınmıştır.
MEB (2005). The primary Science and Technology (4-5th
grade) Curriculum and Guide which were taken on 15
June 2015 from
http://ttkb.meb.gov.tr/program.aspx.islem=1&kno=24.
MEB (2013). Primary Education Institutions (Primary and
Secondary Schools) Science Courses. Ankara: MEB
Publishing House.
Öz, B.(2007). Teachers' Opinions about Primary Science
Course in 2001 and Primary Science and Technology
Course Programs in 2005, Unpublished Master's
Thesis, Cukurova University, Institute of Social
Sciences, Adana.
Özata Yücel, E., & Özkan, M. (2014). A Comparative Study
of the Subjects on Ecosystem, Biological Diversity and
Environmental Problems in Turkish Science Curriculum
with the International Curricula. Journal of Turkish
Science Education (TUSED), 11(4).
Stephen L. Pruitt (2014). The Next Generation Science
Standards: The Features and Challenges.Journal of
Science Teacher Education. 25:145–156. DOI
10.1007/s10972-014-9385-0
Toraman, S. & Alci, B. (2013). Science and Technology
Teachers' Views on the Renewed Science Curriculum,
EKEV Academy Journal, 17 (56), 11-22.
Tüysüz, C. & Aydın, H. (2009). Primary School Science
and Technology Teachers' Views on the Renewed
Science and Technology Program, Gazi Faculty of
Education Journal, 29 (1), 37-5.
Accepted 18 September 2019
Citation: Karakuyu Y, Can O (2019). Opinions of
Teachers about Renewed 3rd and 4th Grade Science
Curriculum in Turkey. International Research Journal of
Curriculum and Pedagogy, 5(3): 105-111.
Copyright: © 2019 Karakuyu and Can. This is an open-
access article distributed under the terms of the Creative
Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted
use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium,
provided the original author and source are cited.

Opinions of Teachers about Renewed 3rd and 4th Grade Science Curriculum in Turkey

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to Opinions of Teachers about Renewed 3rd and 4th Grade Science Curriculum in Turkey

Similar to Opinions of Teachers about Renewed 3rd and 4th Grade Science Curriculum in Turkey (20)

More from Premier Publishers

More from Premier Publishers (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Opinions of Teachers about Renewed 3rd and 4th Grade Science Curriculum in Turkey