• Mehmet C. AyarEmail author
  • Mehmet Aydeniz
  • Bugrahan Yalvac


In this paper, we analyze the science activities offered at 7th grade in the Turkish science and technology curriculum along with addressing the curriculum’s original intent. We refer to several science education researchers’ ideas, including Chinn & Malhotra’s (Science Education, 86:175–218, 2002) theoretical framework and Edelson’s (1998) conceptualization of authentic science practices in our analyses. Our primary goal is to critique the science and technology curriculum and then offer alternative insights into learning science and doing science about force and motion concepts at 7th grade from epistemological and sociological perspectives. We introduce an Immersion Unit for teaching and learning the concepts of force and motion and discuss the elements of this immersion approach. Finally, we provide recommendations for designing and implementing similar immersion units for the science activities that are in practice.


force and motion immersion unit science activities scientific inquiry 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Abrams, E., Southerland, S. & Silva, P. (2007). Integrating inquiry in the classroom: Realities and opportunities. Hartford: Age of Information Press.Google Scholar
  2. Aikenhead, G. S. (2002). Whose scientific knowledge? The colonizer and the colonized. In W.-M. Roth & J. Désautels (Eds.), Science education as/for sociopolitical action (pp. 151–166). New York: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  3. Aitheide, D. L. (1996). Qualitative media analysis. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  4. Ayar, M. C. & Yalvac, B. (2010). A sociological standpoint to authentic scientific practices and its role in school science teaching. Ahi Evran Univ. Kırşehir Eğitim Fakultesi Dergisi (KEFAD), Special Issue, 11(4), 113–127.Google Scholar
  5. Barab, S. A. & Hay, K. E. (2001). Doing science at the elbows of experts: Issues related to the science apprentice camp. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38, 70–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Barab, S. A., Squire, K. & Dueber, B. (2000). Supporting authenticity through participatory learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 48(2), 37–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Barnes, B. (1982). T.S. Kuhn and social science. NY: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Bayraktar, S. (2009). Misconceptions of Turkish pre-service teachers about force and motion. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 7, 273–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Berland, L. K. & Reiser, B. J. (2010). Classroom communities’ adaptations of the practice of scientific argumentation. Science Education, 94, 1–26. doi: 10.1002/sce.20420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Blanchard, M. R., Southerland, S. A. & Granger, D. E. (2009). No silver bullet for inquiry: Making sense of teacher change following an inquiry-based research experience for teachers. Science Education, 93, 322–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bozan, M. & Kucukozer, H. (2008). Science teachers’ opinions about science activities and problem solving. Elementary Education Online, 7(2), 218–231.Google Scholar
  12. Brown, J. S., Collins, A. & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18, 32–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Buxton, C. (2006). Creating contextually authentic science in a “low-performing” urban elementary school. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43, 695–721.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cakir, R. & Yildirim, S. (2007). Analysis of the newly adopted “science and technology program” for the 4th and 5th level of elementary education in Turkey. In C. Montgomerie & J. Seale (Eds.), Proceedings of world conference on educational multimedia, hypermedia and telecommunications 2007 (pp. 11–14). Chesapeake: AACE.Google Scholar
  15. Chiappetta, E. L. & Fillman, D. A. (2007). Analysis of five high school biology textbooks used in the United States for inclusion of the nature of science. International Journal of Science Education, 29, 1847–1868.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Chinn, C. A. & Malhotra, B. A. (2002). Epistemologically authentic inquiry in schools: A theoretical framework for evaluating inquiry tasks. Science Education, 86, 175–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Demirci, N. (2005). A study about students’ misconceptions in force and motion concepts by incorporating a Web-assisted physics program. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 4(3), 40–48.Google Scholar
  18. Dogan, Y. (2009). Science and technology course teaching activities: An investigation of the level of adoption and application based on teacher perceptions. Ankara: Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Gazi University.Google Scholar
  19. Driver, R., Newton, P. & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84, 287–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Duschl, R. (2008). Science education in three-part harmony: Balancing conceptual, epistemic and social learning goals. Review of Research in Education, 32, 268–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Duschl, R. A., Schweingruber, H. A. & Shouse, A. W. (2007). Taking science to school. Learning and teaching science in grades K-8. Washington: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  22. Duschl, R. A. & Grandy, R. E. (2008). Teaching scientific inquiry: Recommendations for research and implementation. Rotterdam: Sage.Google Scholar
  23. Edelson, D. C. (1998). Realising authentic science learning through adaptation of scientific practice. In B. J. Fraser & K. G. Tobin (Eds.), International handbook of science education (Vol. 1, pp. 317-322). Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  24. Education Reform Initiative (2005). Newly developed curricula evaluation report. Available from
  25. Erdoğan, M. (2007). Yeni geliştirilen dördüncü ve besinci sınıf fen ve teknoloji dersi öğretim programının analizi: Nitel bir çalışma. Türk Eğitim Bilimleri Dergisi, 5(2), 221–254.Google Scholar
  26. Etheredge, S. & Rudnitsky, A. (2003). Introducing students to scientific inquiry: How do we know what we know? Boston: Pearson.Google Scholar
  27. Ford, M. J. (2008). Disciplinary authority and accountability in scientific practice and learning. Science Education, 92, 404–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Izci, E., Ozden, M. & Tekin, A. (2008). Evaluation of new science and technology curriculum: Sample of adiyaman. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 5(2), 70–81.Google Scholar
  29. Gomleksiz, M. N. & Bulut, I. (2006). Teachers’ views toward the new science and technology curriculum. Firat University Journal of Social Science, 16(2), 173–192.Google Scholar
  30. Grandy, R. & Duschl, R. A. (2007). Reconsidering the character and role of inquiry in school science: Analysis of a conference. Science & Education, 16, 141–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Herrenkohl, L. R. & Guerra, M. R. (1998). Participant structures, scientific discourse, and student engagement in fourth grade. Cognition and Instruction, 16, 431–473.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Javid, C. (2007). Immersion units and inquiry tool box. The board of regents of the Univ. of wisconsin system. Wisconsin: University of Wisconsin.Google Scholar
  33. Kılıç, G. B., Haymana, F. & Bozyılmaz, B. (2008). İlköğretim fen ve teknoloji dersi öğretim programının bilim okuryazarlığı ve bilimsel süreç becerileri açısından analizi. Eğitim ve Bilim, 33, 52–63.Google Scholar
  34. Koc, Y., Isiksal, M. & Bulut, S. (2007). Elementary school curriculum reform in Turkey. International Education Journal, 8(1), 30–39.Google Scholar
  35. Krajcik, J., Blumenfeld, P. C., Marx, R. W., Bass, K. M., Fredricks, J. & Soloway, E. (1998). Inquiry in project-based science classrooms: Initial attempts by middle school students. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 7, 313–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Kuhn, T. (1996). The structure of scientific revolutions (3rd ed.). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Latour, B. & Woolgar, S. (1986). Laboratory life: The social construction of scientific facts. Los Angeles: Sage.Google Scholar
  38. Michaels, S., Shouse, A. W. & Schweingruber, H. A. (2008). Ready, set science. Washington: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  39. Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı [MoNE] (2005). İlköğretim Fen ve Teknoloji Dersi Öğretim Programi. Ankara: Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı.Google Scholar
  40. Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı [MoNE] (2009). İlköğretim öğrencilerinin başarılarının belirlenmesi. Türkçe, matematik, fen ve teknoloji, sosyal bilgiler, ingilizce raporu. Ankara: Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı.Google Scholar
  41. Moebius-Clune, B. N., Elsevier, I. H., Crawford, B. A., Trautmann, N. M., Schindelbeck, R. R. & van Es, H. M. (2011). Moving authentic soil research into high school classrooms: Student engagement and learning. Journal of Natural Resources and Life Sciences Education, 40(1), 102–113.Google Scholar
  42. Mullis, I. V. S., Martin, M. O., & Foy, P. (with Olson, J. F., Preuschoff, C., Erberber, E., Arora, A. & Galia, J.) (2008). TIMSS 2007 international mathematics report: Findings from IEA’s trends in international mathematics and science study at the fourth and eighth grades. Chestnut Hill: TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center, Boston College.Google Scholar
  43. National Research Council (1996). National science education standards. Washington: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  44. National Research Council (2000). Inquiry and the national standards in science education. Washington: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  45. OECD (2010). PISA 2009 results: What students know and can do – student performance in reading, mathematics and science (Vol. 1), PISA, OECD Publishing.Google Scholar
  46. Posner, G. J. (2004). Analyzing the curriculum (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  47. Roth, M.-W. (1995). Authentic school science: Knowing and learning in open-inquiry science laboratories. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Russell, T. & Aydeniz, M. (2013). Traversing the divide between high school science students and sophisticated nature of science understandings. A Multi-pronged approach. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 22(4), 529–547.Google Scholar
  49. Schwartz, R. S. & Crawford, B. A. (2004). Authentic scientific inquiry as context for teaching nature of science: Identifying critical elements of success. In L. B. Flick & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Scientific inquiry and nature of science: Implications for teaching, learning, and teacher education (pp. 331–355). Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  50. Stern, L. & Roseman, J. (2004). Can middle school science textbooks help students learn important ideas? Findings from project 2061’ curriculum evaluation study: Life science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41, 538–556.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Tabak, I. (2004). Synergy. A complement to emerging patterns of distributed scaffolding. The Journal of the Learning Science, 13, 305–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Tabak, I. & Baumgartner, E. (2004). The teacher as partner: Exploring participant structures, symmetry, and identity work in scaffolding. Cognition and Instruction, 22, 393–429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Tekbiyik, A. & Akdeniz, A. R. (2008). Teachers’ views about adoption and application of primary science and technology curriculum. Necatibey Faculty of Education Electronic Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 2(2), 23–37.Google Scholar
  54. Toth, E. E., Suthers, D. D. & Lesgold, A. M. (2002). Mapping to know: The effects of representational guidance and reflective assessment on scientific inquiry. Science Education, 86, 264–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Tudge, J. & Scrimsher, S. (2003). Lev S. Vygotsky on education: A cultural-historical, interpersonal, and individual approach to development. In B. J. Zimmerman & D. H. Schunk (Eds.), Educational psychology: A century of contributions (pp. 207–228). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  56. Turkish Academy of Sciences (2004). The Turkish Sciences Academy’s views and implications for new curricula. Available from
  57. Valverde, G. A., Bianchi, L. J., Wolfe, R. G., Schmidt, W. H. & Houang, R. T. (2002). According to the book: Using TIMSS to investigation the translation of policy into practice through the world of textbooks. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. von Aufschnaiter, C. & Rogge, C. (2010). Misconceptions or missing conceptions? Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 6(1), 3–18.Google Scholar
  59. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning and identity. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Yagci, E. & Demirel, M. (2010). An evaluation of elementary education science and technology curriculum in Turkey from the aspect of integrated teaching approach. World Applied Sciences Journal, 8(3), 387–393.Google Scholar
  61. Yangin, S. & Dindar, H. (2007). The perceptions of teachers about the change on elementary school science and technology curriculum. H.U. Journal of Education, 33, 240–252.Google Scholar
  62. Yıldız, E. & Tatar, N. (2012). Fen ve teknoloji ders kitaplarındaki etkinliklerin bilimsel surec becerilerine ve yapisal özelliklerine göre incelenmesi. Egitim ve Bilim, 37, 108–125.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© National Science Council, Taiwan 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mehmet C. Ayar
    • 1
    Email author
  • Mehmet Aydeniz
    • 2
  • Bugrahan Yalvac
    • 3
  1. 1.Science and Society Department, Educational Research DivisionThe Scientific and Technological Research Council of Turkey (TUBITAK)Bakanlıklar/AnkaraTurkey
  2. 2.Department of Theory and Practice in Teacher EducationUniversity of TennesseeKnoxvilleUSA
  3. 3.College of Education and Human Development, Department of Teaching, Learning and CultureTexas A&M UniversityCollege StationUSA

Personalised recommendations