From Learning Objectives To Learning Outcomes: Structural Transformation of Learning Goals in Türkiye’s 2018 and 2024 Science Course Curricula
The purpose of this study is to comparatively examine, within the “Earth and Universe” content area of the first unit in Grade 5, how learning objectives and learning outcomes are structured in Türkiye’s 2018 and 2024 Science Course Curricula, and through which steps the process components in the 2024 curriculum further elaborate these learning goals. Using qualitative document analysis, the curricula were analysed through deductive content analysis. The analysis centred on Grade 5 and the “Earth and Universe” content area that forms the focal point of the first unit in both curricula. In total, seven learning objectives from the 2018 curriculum and four corresponding learning outcomes from the 2024 curriculum were coded comparatively, using an analytic framework based on the Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy and the scientific literacy and competency dimensions emphasised in the PISA Science Framework. The findings show that the 2018 curriculum presents learning goals mainly as objectives-centred, single-action statements, whereas the 2024 curriculum frames learning outcomes as a more detailed and guiding sequence supported by process components. Notably, the 2024 text explicitly outlines steps such as selecting tools, accessing information, verifying information, and recording information, indicating greater visibility of literacy components related to information access and evaluation. In addition, the relational language in the unit title and the positioning of values and dispositions within curricula components suggest a more holistic framing of science learning. Overall, within the analysed content area and grade level, the study indicates that learning goals in the new curriculum are articulated more explicitly and systematically through process components. Accordingly, it recommends practice-oriented professional learning opportunities to help teachers translate process components into lesson design and assessment practices.
Keywords: Bilimsel okuryazarlık, doküman incelemesi, Fen Bilimleri dersi öğretim programı, öğrenme çıktısı, süreç bileşenleri, kazanım
Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (Eds.). (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. Longman.
Ataş, R., & Bümen, N. T. (2023). Fen bilimleri dersi öğretim programlarında program tasarım ilkeleri açısından bir analiz: 2005, 2013, 2018. Educational Academic Research, (49), 91–107. https://doi.org/10.5152/AUJKKEF.2023.2237100
Avcı, F., Demirci, H., & Özyalçın, B. (2021). 2018 fen bilimleri öğretim programı kazanımlarının yenilenmiş Bloom taksonomisi açısından analizi ve değerlendirilmesi. Trakya Eğitim Dergisi, 11(2), 643–660. https://doi.org/10.24315/tred.689366
Bilir, A. (2025). Fen bilimleri öğretim programlarının yapısal analizi: 2018 ve 2024 modelleri üzerine karşılaştırmalı bir inceleme. Millî Eğitim Dergisi, 54(246), 793–836. https://doi.org/10.37669/milliegitim.1532604
Bowen, G. A. (2009). Document analysis as a qualitative research method. Qualitative Research Journal, 9(2), 27–40. https://doi.org/10.3316/QRJ0902027
Bozan, İ. (2024). Examining the 2018 science curriculum in the context of the basic elements of the curricula. Journal of Interdisciplinary Educational Research, 8(17), 105–12.
Çakır, M., Bolat, E., & Dede, H. (2020). 2018 fen bilimleri dersi öğretim programına yönelik öğretmen görüşleri. Akdeniz Eğitim Araştırmaları Dergisi, 14(31), 336–353. https://doi.org/10.29329/mjer.2020.234.16
Daniel, A., Gebeyhu, D., Assefa, S., & Abate, T. (2025). The holistic effect of nature of science and science process skills on students’ conceptual and procedural knowledge and motivation within the context of modified guided discovery in physics laboratory. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 21(10), em2708. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/17035
Demir, E., & Çelik, M. (2020). Fen bilimleri öğretim programları alanındaki bilimsel çalışmaların bibliyometrik profili. Türkiye Kimya Derneği Dergisi Kısım C: Kimya Eğitimi, 5(2), 131–182. https://doi.org/10.37995/jotcsc.765220
Demir, E., & Nakiboğlu, C. (2021). 2018 yılı fen bilimleri dersi öğretim programı’nın kimya konuları bağlamında incelenmesi. Türkiye Kimya Derneği Dergisi Kısım C: Kimya Eğitimi, 6(1), 23–70. https://doi.org/10.37995/jotcsc.882149
Goodlad, J. I. (1979). Curriculum inquiry: The study of curriculum practice. McGraw-Hill.
Güneş, İ., Dursun, F., & Alcı, B. (2025). Türkiye Yüzyılı Maarif Modeli ortaokul matematik dersi öğretim programında ölçme ve değerlendirme yaklaşımının analizi. İstanbul Eğitim Dergisi, 2(1), 132–159. https://doi.org/10.71270/istanbulegitim.istj.1648231
Istyadji, M., & Sauqina (2023). Conception of scientific literacy in the development of scientific literacy assessment tools: A systematic theoretical review. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 20(2), 281–308. https://doi.org/10.36681/tused.2023.016
Kırmızı, F. S., & Yurdakal, İ. H. (2019). Sınıf öğretmenlerinin 2018 Türkçe dersi öğretim programına ilişkin görüşleri. Eğitim Kuram ve Uygulama Araştırmaları Dergisi, 5(1), 64–76.
Kidman, G., & Chang, C. H. (2025). Planetary pedagogies: Reimagining geography and environmental education in the Anthropocene. Australian Journal of Environmental Education, 34(3), 215–219. https://doi.org/10.1080/10382046.2025.2519879
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2. baskı). Sage.
Millî Eğitim Bakanlığı [MEB]. (2018). Fen bilimleri dersi öğretim programı (İlkokul ve ortaokul 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ve 8. sınıflar). https://mufredat.meb.gov.tr/Programlar.aspx
Millî Eğitim Bakanlığı [MEB]. (2024). Fen bilimleri dersi öğretim programı (3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8. sınıflar). https://mufredat.meb.gov.tr/ProgramDetay.aspx?PID=1970
Millî Eğitim Bakanlığı [MEB]. (2025). Türkiye Yüzyılı Maarif Modeli: Öğretim programları ortak metni. https://tymm.meb.gov.tr/upload/brosur/ortak_metin.pdf
National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K–12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/13165
NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states. The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/18290
OECD. (2017). PISA 2015 assessment and analytical framework: Science, reading, mathematic, financial literacy and collaborative problem solving. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264281820-en
OECD. (2023). PISA 2025 science framework: Scientific literacy for the future. OECD Publishing. https://pisa-framework.oecd.org/science-2025/assets/docs/PISA_2025_Science_Framework.pdf
Ortega-Sánchez, D., & Sanz de la Cal, E. (2025). Teaching controversial issues in secondary education. Frontiers in Education, 10, Article 1574469. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2025.1574469
Özkan, G., & Umdu Topsakal, Ü. (2021). Analysis of Turkish science education curricula’s learning outcomes according to science process skills. Mimbar Sekolah Dasar, 8(3), 295–306. https://doi.org/10.53400/mimbar-sd.v8i3.35746
Patton, M. Q. (2014). Qualitative research & evaluation methods (4. baskı). Sage.
Seren, S., & Veli, E. (2018). 2005 yılı itibariyle değişen fen bilimleri dersi öğretim programlarında STEM eğitimine yer verilme düzeylerinin karşılaştırılması. Journal of STEAM Education, 1(1), 24–47.
Tidemand, S., & Tamborg, A. L. (2025). Navigating change: the effects of competence-oriented curriculum reforms for science teachers. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/00313831.2025.2590184
Türkmen, M., & Benzer, S. (2023). TIMSS fen bilimleri sorularının yenilenmiş Bloom taksonomisi basamaklarına ve fen bilimleri dersi öğretim programlarına göre incelenmesi. International Journal of Social Sciences and Education Research, 9(2), 113–126. https://doi.org/10.24289/ijsser.1252917
Tyler, R. W. (2013). Basic principles of curriculum and instruction (P. S. Hlebowitsh’in önsözüyle). University of Chicago Press. (Orijinal çalışma 1949’da yayımlandı)
Tytler, R. W., Monroe, M. C., Eames, C., Tippett, C. D., Barraza, L., Coll, R. K., Gwekwerere, Y., Levrini, O., & Yoon, H. G. (2025). Expanding the scope of science education to engage with Anthropocene challenges. Research in Science Education, 55(4), 1129–1147. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-025-10276-8
Yıldırım, A., & Şimşek, H. (2021). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri (12. baskı). Seçkin Yayıncılık.