No abstract

No abstract

This study aims to explain the extent to which prospective physics teachers' views and practices are consistent with the constructivist framework. A case study design was employed as the research approach. The study was conducted with 11 prospective physics teachers attending a state university in Turkey. Data was collected through semi-structured interviews, observation notes and lesson plans. The interview guide consisted of questions which allowed the interviewer to probe participants' views of constructivism based on 5E learning model. Such questions as "how do you plan your teaching?" (introducing new topics, continuing the lecture, types of questions to ask, evaluating students' understanding etc.) were included in the interview. Following the analysis of the interview data, participants' profiles were classified into three categories: traditional, transition and constructivist under the dimensions "beginning of a lesson," "learning process," "learning environment" and "assessment." Observations were carried out using an observation checklist consisting of 24 items based on 5E learning model. Another checklist developed by the researchers was used to evaluate participants' teaching qualifications. Interview results showed that seven participants had transitional, three had constructivist and one had traditional views. However, none of the participants were observed to exhibit constructivist teaching styles. Moreover, observation and interview results were consistent only for six participants, indicating that almost half of the participants had difficulty putting their views into practice.

The aim of this study is to compare 2018 Science Course Curriculum (SCC), 2015 Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) and 2018 High School Entrance Examination (HSE) in terms of content domains, cognitive domains and learning objectives. Qualitative research method, was used in this study. Data were analyzed using document review matrices to determine the similarities and differences between the objectives of SCC, TIMSS and HSE. SCC outcomes and HSE science questions were also classified according to TIMSS cognitive domains. Results show that the learning objectives of the fields of Physics, Biology and Earth Sciences of TIMSS are compatible with those of all grade levels of SCC and that the objectives of Chemistry are compatible with those of the seventh and eighth grades. Most of HSE questions are compatible with the objectives of SCC, however, the latest revision in the curriculum has introduced some eighth grade objectives to other grade levels. HSE science questions measure higherlevel skills than TIMSS science questions. The subject domain of the "Organisms and Life" of SCC has the most learning objectives in the levels of "knowing" and "reasoning" while the subject domain of the "Physical Events" has the most learning objectives in the levels of "applying." Besides, the seventh-, fifth-and eighth-graders have the most objectives in the levels of "knowing," "applying," and "reasoning," respectively. It is hoped that the results will contribute the literature in improvement of science curricula and interpretation of national and international exams.