Abstract:

Summary The purpose of this study is to compare the basic components of the new primary education curriculum with the previous curriculum in terms of objectives, content, learning/teaching and assessment processes by perceptions of supervisors, administrators, teachers and students. Turkish education system is heavily criticized that teaching-learning process is predominantly behaviorist and teacher centered. Despite the rapid global and national level changes in economics, technology, society and all domains of human life, there is almost no change or little change in content and methodology of teaching and learning in schools. It has been almost forty years since the last major curriculum change in (TED, 2005). Relevance of curriculum to needs of economy and social life as well as basic skills is very weak. (Özdemir, 2005; Erzan, 2005). Findings from PISA study, indicating that majority of 15 year old student are lacking basic skills, support this claim. PISA findings also suggests that between and within school variations in student achievement are alarmingly high, indicating significant inequalities in provision of educational services. Therefore, these findings implicate two interrelated challenges; reducing the achievement gaps between and within schools, and reconsidering the issues of what to teach and how to teach (EARGED, 2005; Çakmakçı, 2005). These challenges have been forcing the Ministry of National Education to renew basic education curriculum in Turkey. The new curriculum for core subjects including Turkish, Mathematics, Social Studies, Science and Technology and Life Skills was first introduced in 2004 and pilot tested in 120 schools in nine provinces during the 2004-2005 school year. Although there have been some changes in basic education curriculum since 1968, these changes were partial and segregated by subjects rather than taking a holistic approach to curriculum change (Çelenk et al , 2000:176; Başaran, 1996:79). Furthermore, these partial changes distorted the vertical and horizontal consistency and coherence of basic education curriculum with disconnected and disjointed additions and eliminations of content (Durbaş, 2005; Yılmaz, 2005; Çelik, 2005). The Ministry of National Education adapted a participatory approach in curriculum development process with participation of NGO's, universities, students, parents, teachers, supervisors and administrators. The new curriculum is characterized as constructivist and student centered. Basic features of the new and former curriculum are compared below: Comparison of Basic Features of the New and Former Basic Education Curriculum Former Primary School Curriculum The New Primary School Curriculum · Goals and objectives are based behaviorist theory. · Subjects and concepts are linearly sequenced. · Knowledge is acquired through memorization and other traditional methods. · Teacher transfers the knowledge and controls the student. · Parents are not involved in the process. · Based on competition. · Traditional approaches are used to assess student development. · Lessons rely on single resources. · Administrators control the process. · Student attainments are based on constructivist approach. · Subjects and concepts are sequenced in non-linear manner. · There are alternative ways of acquiring knowledge. · Role of teacher is to teach students questioning and exploring. · Parents are involved in their child's education · Based on cooperation · Alternative modes of student assessment are used. · Lessons are based on multiple resources. · Teachers and administrators adapt a student centered approach. Method The study group consisted of 125 teachers, 15 administrators, 5 supervisors and 97 5th grade students who were randomly selected from 15 primary schools where the curriculum was being pilot tested. Data were collected via questionnaires and structured interviews. The 98 item questionnaire was adapted from the curriculum assessment questionnaires designed by the Ministry of National Education and controlled for its reliability and validity. The questionnaire included items on curriculum assessment (αformer curriculum=.83, αnew curriculum=.86) teaching and learning process (αfc=.83, αnc=.75), student assessment process (αfc=.81, αnc=.69), and assessment of lesson units (αfc=.81, αnc=.73). A 57 item structured interview form was also developed by researchers to collect data from students, teachers, supervisors and administrators. Questionnaires and structured interviews were conducted by researchers. Data were tabulated by using frequencies and percentages. Differences in subjects' assessment of the curriculum by demographic variables were tested by using t-test and two-way analysis of variance. Findings and Implications Findings indicated that teachers, supervisors, administrators and students consistently rated new curriculum significantly (p≤.05) better than the former curriculum. However, teachers' assessment scores of both the former and the new curriculum were significantly lower than all other subject groups' assessment scores. This difference may be due to teacher's negative experiences with curriculum in implementation related to lack of resources rather the nature of the curriculum. Lack of resources and overcrowded classrooms are primary factors detrimental to effective implementation of the curriculum, often cited by teachers. FIGURE 1. The Average Scores for Assessment of the Former and the New Curriculum There were no significant differences in teachers' assessment of the new and old curriculum by gender, years of experience in teaching, types and levels of pre-service teacher training. This result may be due to the fact that there has been wide spread consensus on the need for curriculum change among teachers. Although there were no significant differences in administrators' assessment of the new and old curriculum by other demographic factors, age showed significant effect on administrators' assessment. Young school administrators (31-35 year age group) rated new curriculum higher than all other age groups. Since the number of supervisors was limited, differences in supervisors' assessment by demographic variables were not tested. Students' assessment of the curriculum did not show any significant differences by gender. However, there was a significant difference in between school variance. Students in regional primary boarding school (YIBO) rated new curriculum significantly higher than students in all other schools.

Keywords: