PEN Academic Publishing   |  ISSN: 1554-5210

Original article | International Journal of Progressive Education 2020, Vol. 16(4) 192-203

Curriculum Design Approaches of Pre-Service Teachers Receiving Pedagogical Formation Training

Ümran Şahin

pp. 192 - 203   |  DOI: https://doi.org/10.29329/ijpe.2020.268.12   |  Manu. Number: MANU-2001-09-0003.R1

Published online: August 13, 2020  |   Number of Views: 11  |  Number of Download: 40


Abstract

The purpose of this study is to determine the curriculum design approach preferences of pre-service teachers who have been receiving pedagogical training. The sample of the study consists of 138 pre-services teachers who took the curriculum development course in pedagogical formation education. In the study, “Teachers’ Curriculum Design Orientations Preference Scale” developed by Baş (2013) was used to determine the pre-service teachers' curriculum design approach preferences. The scale consists of 30 items and 3 factors: subject-centered design, problem-centered design and student-centered design. Research data have been analysed via arithmetic mean, independent samples t-test. As a result of the analyses related to the three sub-dimensions of the scale, the teacher candidates responded to the learner-centered and problem-centered curriculum design approaches at the level of “agree”. The sub-dimension called subject-centered curriculum design approach was found to be at the “undecided” level. According to these results, it can be put forward that the prospective teachers prefer learner-centered and problem-centered curriculum design approaches. In the study, whether the pre-service teachers' curriculum design approach preferences differed according to gender and department was investigated. As a result of the analysis, it was found that teacher candidates’ gender and department were not significant variables in their curriculum design approach preferences.

Keywords: Education Curriculum, Curriculum Design Approaches, Pedagogical Formation Training


How to Cite this Article?

APA 6th edition
Sahin, U. (2020). Curriculum Design Approaches of Pre-Service Teachers Receiving Pedagogical Formation Training . International Journal of Progressive Education, 16(4), 192-203. doi: 10.29329/ijpe.2020.268.12

Harvard
Sahin, U. (2020). Curriculum Design Approaches of Pre-Service Teachers Receiving Pedagogical Formation Training . International Journal of Progressive Education, 16(4), pp. 192-203.

Chicago 16th edition
Sahin, Umran (2020). "Curriculum Design Approaches of Pre-Service Teachers Receiving Pedagogical Formation Training ". International Journal of Progressive Education 16 (4):192-203. doi:10.29329/ijpe.2020.268.12.

References
  1. Alcı, B. (2012). Eğitim program tasarımı ve modeller (Curriculum design and models). Hasan Şeker (Ed.), Eğitimde curriculum geliştirme içinde (In curriculum development in education) (s.71-88). Ankara: Anı Publishing. [Google Scholar]
  2. Ashour, R., Khasawneh, S., Abu-Alruz, J., & Alsharqawi, S. (2012). Curriculum orientations of pre-service teachers in Jordan: A required reform initative for Professional devel-opment. Teacher Development, 16 (3), 345-360. [Google Scholar]
  3. Aygören, F. ve Saracaoğlu, A. S. (2015). Sınıf öğretmenlerinin yapılandırmacı öğrenme ortamlarına ilişkin görüşleri (Views of classroom teachers about constructivist learning environments). Mehmet Akif Ersoy Üniversitesi Educational Journal, 1(34), 194-223. [Google Scholar]
  4. Baş, G. (2013). Öğretmenlerin eğitim curriculum tasarım yaklaşımı tercih ölçeği: Geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması (Preference scale of teachers' curriculum design approach: Validity and reliability study). Educational Sciences in Theory and Practice, 13, 965–992. [Google Scholar]
  5. Bay, E., Gündoğdu, K., Dilekçi, D., Ozan, C. ve Özdemir, D. (2011, October). İlköğretim öğretmen adaylarının program yak¬laşımlarının incelenmesi: Atatürk üniversitesi örneği (Examining the curriculum approaches of elementary teacher candidates: The case of Atatürk University). Paper presented at the 1st International Congress on Curriculum and Instruction, Anadolu University, Education Faculty, Eskişehir. [Google Scholar]
  6. Bulut, G. (2008). Yeni ilköğretim programlarında öngörülen öğrenci merkezli uygulamalara ilişkin öğretmen görüşleri: Diyarbakır örneği (Teachers' views on student-centered practices envisaged in new primary education curriculums: The case of Diyarbakır). Educational Sciences in Theory and Practice, 56, 521-546. [Google Scholar]
  7. Burul, C. (2018). Öğretmenlerin eğitim programı tasarım yaklaşımı tercihlerinin öğretim curriculumına bağlılıklarıyla olan ilişkisinin incelenmesi (Examining the relationship between teachers' curriculum design approach preferences and their commitment to the curriculum). (Unpublished Master's Thesis). Balıkesir University Institute of Social Sciences, Turkey. [Google Scholar]
  8. Burton, L. (2010). Subject centered curriculum. In Kridel C. (Ed.), Enclopedia of currciulum studies (pp. 824-825). Los Angeles, USA: Sage. [Google Scholar]
  9. Cheung, D., & Ng, P. H. (2000). Science teachers’ beliefs about curriculum design. Research in Science Education, 30 (4), 357-375. [Google Scholar]
  10. Cheung, D., & Wong, H. W. (2002). Measuring teacher beliefs about alternative curriculum designs. Curriculum Journal, 13 (2), 225-248. [Google Scholar]
  11. Crummey, M. A. (2007). Curriculum orientations of alter¬native education teachers. Unpublished doctoral disserta¬tion, University of Kansas the Graduate School, Kansas. [Google Scholar]
  12. Demirel, Ö. (2007). Eğitimde Program Geliştirme (Curriculum Development in Education). Pegema Publishing: Ankara. [Google Scholar]
  13. Doğan, H. (1997). Eğitimde Program ve Öğretim Tasarımı (Curriculum and instructional design in education). Önder Publishing: Ankara. [Google Scholar]
  14. Duru, A. ve Korkmaz, H. (2010). Öğretmenlerin yeni matematik programı hakkındaki görüşleri ve program değişim sürecinde karşılaşılan zorluklar. (Teachers' views on the new mathematics curriculum and difficulties in the process of curriculum change). Hacettepe University Journal of Education, 38(38), 67-81 [Google Scholar]
  15. Ellis, A. K. (2015). Eğitim programı modelleri (Training curriculum models). (Trans. Ed. A. Arı). Konya: Eğitim Publisher. (Original date of publication: 2004). [Google Scholar]
  16. Eren, A. (2010). Öğretmen adaylarının program in¬ançlarının görünüm analizi. (Appearance analysis of prospective teachers' curriculum beliefs ). Kastamonu Education Journal, 18 (2), 379-388. [Google Scholar]
  17. Erdoğan, M. (2007). Yeni geliştirilen dördüncü ve beşinci sınıf fen ve teknoloji dersi öğretim programının analizi: Nitel bir çalışma. (Analysis of the newly developed fourth and fifth grade science and technology curriculum: A qualitative study ). Turkish Journal of Educational Sciences, 5(2), 221-259. [Google Scholar]
  18. Eryaman, M. Y. (2010). Frameworks in curriculum development. In C. Kridel (Ed.). Encyclopedia of Curriculum Studies. Sage Publications. [Google Scholar]
  19. Eryaman, M. Y. (2010). National curriculum. In C. Kridel (Ed.). Encyclopedia of Curriculum Studies. Sage Publications. [Google Scholar]
  20. Eryaman, M. Y., & Riedler, M. (2010). Teacher-Proof Curriculum. In C. Kridel (Ed.). Encyclopedia of Curriculum Studies. Sage Publications. [Google Scholar]
  21. Foil, J. (2008). Determining the curriculum orientations of public school administrators using the modified curriculum orientation inventory. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation), University of Kansas the Graduate School, Kansas. [Google Scholar]
  22. Görgen, İ. (2014). Program Geliştirmede Temel Kavramlar (Basic Concepts in Curriculum Development). (Ed.), Curriculum Development Concepts in Education Approaches  (p.1-17). Anı Publishing, Ankara. [Google Scholar]
  23. Henson, K. T. (2015). Curriculum planning integrating multiculturalism, constructivism and education reform (fifth edition). Illinois: Waveland Press. [Google Scholar]
  24. Jenkins, S. B. (2009). Measuring teacher beliefs about curricu¬lum orientations using the modified-curriculum orientations inventory. The Curriculum Journal, 20 (2), 103-120. [Google Scholar]
  25. Karakuş, M. (2006). Öğretmen yetiştirmede felsefenin yeri ve önemi. (The place and importance of philosophy in teacher training). Journal of Cukurova University Faculty of Education, 1 (31), 79-85. [Google Scholar]
  26. Karaman, P. & Bakaç, E. (2018). Öğretmenlerin eğitim programı yaklaşımı tercihlerinin çeşitli değişkenler açısından incelenmesi. (Investigation of teachers' curriculum preferences in terms of various variables) Journal of Abant İzzet Baysal University Faculty of Education, 18(1), 304-320. [Google Scholar]
  27. Karasar N. (2015). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemi (Scientific research method). Nobel Publishing: Ankara. [Google Scholar]
  28. Kaya, F. & Öner, G. (2017). Fen bilimleri öğretmenlerinin program inançları: Antalya ili örneği. (Curriculum beliefs of science teachers: The case of Antalya province). Route Educational and Social Science Journal, 4(6), 355-366. [Google Scholar]
  29. Kesten, A. ve Özdemir, N. (2010). Sosyal bilgiler öğretim programının ölçme değerlendirme boyutunun öğretmen görüşlerine göre değerlendirilmesi: Samsun ili örneği (Evaluation of social studies curriculum dimension of the teacher according to the views of teachers: Samsun province case). Fırat University Journal of Social Sciences, 20(2), 223-236. [Google Scholar]
  30. Maden, S., Durukan, E. & Akbaş, E. (2011). İlköğretim öğretmenlerinin öğrenci merkezli öğretime yönelik algıları (Perceptions of elementary school teachers towards student-centered teaching ). Mustafa Kemal University Journal of the Institute of Social Sciences, 8(16), 255-269. [Google Scholar]
  31. Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı (MEB) (Ministry of Education) (2009). İlköğretim 1, 2 ve 3. sınıflar hayat bilgisi dersi öğretim curriculumı (Primary, 1st, 2nd and 3rd grades life science course curriculum). Ministry of Education :Ankara. [Google Scholar]
  32. Mulengeki, F., Lukinda, J., Ogandiek, M. & Mgogo, A. (2013). Curriculum development and evaluation. The Open University Tanzania (lesson book). [Google Scholar]
  33. Orbeyi, S. ve Güven, B. (2008). Yeni ilköğretim matematik dersi öğretim programının değerlendirme öğesine ilişkin öğretmen görüşleri (Teachers' views on the evaluation element of the new elementary mathematics curriculum). Theory and Practice in Education, 4(1), 133-147. [Google Scholar]
  34. Ornstein, A. C. (1982). Curriculum contrasts: A historical overview. Phi Delta Kappan (February 1982), 404-408.  [Google Scholar]
  35. Ornstein, A. C. & Hunkins, F. P. (1993). Curriculum: Foundations, principles and issues (2nd ed.). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon. [Google Scholar]
  36. Petrina, S. (2004). The politics of curriculum and instructional design/theory/form: critical problems, projects, units and modules. Interchange, 35(1), 81-126. [Google Scholar]
  37. Pushor, D, & Murphy, S. ( 2010). Problem centered curriculum. In Kridel C. (Ed.), Enclopedia of currciulum studies (pp. 685-686). Los Angeles: Sage. [Google Scholar]
  38. Sönmez, V. (2012). Program geliştirmede öğretmen el kitabı (Teacher's manual in curriculum development). (17th edition). Anı Publishing: Ankara [Google Scholar]
  39. Tekbıyık, A. & Akdeniz, A. R. (2008). İlköğretim fen ve teknoloji dersi öğretim programını kabullenmeye ve uygulamaya yönelik öğretmen görüşleri (Teachers' views on accepting and applying primary science and technology curriculum). Necatibey Faculty of Education Journal of Electronic Science and Mathematics Education, 2(2), 23-37. [Google Scholar]
  40. Tucker, T. (2011). What they want and how they want it: Students expectations of ESL curriculum at the classroom level. Journal of College Teaching & Learning, 8(11), 11-19. [Google Scholar]
  41. Kozikoğlu, İ., Uygun, N. (2018). Öğretmenlerin benimsedikleri eğitim felsefeleri ile eğitim programı tasarım yaklaşımları arasındaki ilişkinin İncelenmesi (Investigation of the relationship between the educational philosophies adopted by teachers and the curriculum design approaches ). International Conference On Stem And Educational Sciences 3-5 May, 2018 Muş Alparslan Üniversitesi. [Google Scholar]
  42. Ünsal, S.& Korkmaz, F. (2017). Eğitim Program Tasarımı Tercihlerine Yönelik Öğretmen Görüşleri (Teachers' Opinions on Curriculum Design Preferences ). Journal of Mersin University Faculty of Education, 13(1):275-289. [Google Scholar]
  43. Van Driel, J. H., Bulte, A. M. W., & Verloop, N. (2008). Us¬ing the curriculum emphasis concept to invetsigate teach¬ers’ curricular beliefs in the context of educational reform. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 40 (1), 107-122. [Google Scholar]
  44. Wang, J., Elicker, J., & McMullen, M. (2008). Chinese and American preschool teachers’ beliefs about early childhood curriculum. Early Childhood Development and Care, 178 (3), 227-249. [Google Scholar]
  45. Woolley, S. L., Benjamin, W. J., & Woolley, A. W. (2004). Construct validity of a self-report measure of teacher be¬liefs related to constructivist and traditional approaches to teaching and learning. Educational and Psychological Mea¬surement, 64 (2), 319-331. [Google Scholar]
  46. Yılmaz, K., Altınkurt, Y. ve Çokluk, Ö. (2011). Eğitim inançları ölçeğinin geliştirilmesi: Geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması (Developing educational beliefs scale: Validity and reliability study).  Educational Sciences in Theory and Practice, 11 (1), 335-350. [Google Scholar]