Identfying the Needs of Pre-Service Classroom Teachers About Science Teaching Methodology Courses in terms of Parlettas Illuminative Program Evaluation Model

Ilke Calıskan
3.360 580


The aim of this study was to identify the needs of third grade classroom teaching students about science teaching course in terms of Parlettâs Illuminative program evaluation model. Phenomographic research design was used in this study. Illuminative program evaluation model was chosen for this study in terms of its eclectic and process-based characteristics. 61 third grade classroom teachers, three instructors of science teaching methodology courses and one curriculum specialist were the participants of this study. Open-ended questionnaire, semi-structured interviews and diaries of pre-service teachers were used as data of the study. Data were analyzed in terms of phenomographic research design principles. Descriptive and content analyses were used as data analysis techniques. Needs assessment results showed that pre-service teachers found science teaching courses dominantly theoretical and they underlined that there was a big gap about the association between theory and practice in science teaching methodology course. Longitudinal needs assessment efforts, preparation of detailed course implementation plans, giving periodical feedback about the assessment process, using multi-media environments and constructivist learning principles, considering classroom management issues in the learning and teaching processes were the suggestions expressed in terms of the results.


Needs assessment, illuminative program evaluation model, science teaching methodology course

Full Text:

PDF (Türkçe)



Akerlind, G. S. (2005). Variation and commonality in phenomenographic research methods. Higher Education Research &Development, 24(4), 321–334

Akerlind, G.S. (2012). Variation and commonality in phenomenographic research methods. Higher Education Research & Development. 31(1), 115-127

Abell, S.K.& Lederman, N.G. (2013). Handbook of research on science education. Routledge Taylor and Francis Group: Newyork/London.

Bloor, M. & Wood, F. (2006). Keywords in qualitative methods. NY: Sage Publications.

Bickman, L. (1997). Evaluating evaluation: Where do we go from here? Evaluation Practice. 18, 1–16.

Brinkerhoff, R.O. (1983). Program evaluation: A practitioner’s guide for trainers and educators. Boston: Klumer-Nijhoff.

Bronwen, C. (2005). Student commentary on classroom assessment in science: a socioculturalinterpretation, 27 (2), 199-214. Retrieved May 1 2006 from

Buaraphan, K. (2011). The impact of the standard-based science teacher preparation program on pre-service science teachers’ attitudes toward science teaching. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 8 (1): 61

Chankook, K.,& Fortner, R. (2007). Educators’ views of collaboration with scientists. Secondary Education, 35 (3): 29-53.

Çalışkan, İ. & Kaptan, F. (2012). Reflections of performance assessment on science process skills, attitude and retention in science education. Hacettepe University Journal of Education, 43, 117-129.

Didiş, N., Özcan, Ö. & Abak, M. (2008). Qunatum physics from students’ perspective: A qualitative study. Hacettepe University Journal of Education, 34: 86-94.

Finkenflügel, H., Cornielje, H. & Velema, J. (2008). The use of classification models in the evaluation of CBR programs. Disability and Rehabilitation, 30 (5), 348-354.

Fitzpatrick, J.L., Sanders, J.R. & Worthen, B.R. (2004). Program evaluation: Alternative approaches and practical guidelines. Pearson, US.

Gredler, M.E. (1996). Program Evaluation. Pearson: US.

Kaufman, R., & English, F. W. (1979). Needs assessment: Concept and application. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.

Karamustafaoğlu, O. (2009). A comparative analysis of the models of teacher education in terms of teaching practices in the USA, England and Turkey. Models of Teacher Education. 130 (2), 172-183.

Kaya, M. & Bacanak, A. (2013). Fen ve teknoloji öğretmen adaylarının düşünceleri: Fen okur-yazarı birey yetiştirmede öğretmenin yeri. Dicle Üniversitesi Ziya Gökalp Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 21 (2013): 2092

Kesal, F. & Aksu, M. (2006). The perceptions of ELT students about constructivist learning activities and assessment strategies. Educational Research, 134-142.

Larson, M. &Cindy, S. (2011). Changing perceptions of science in undergraduate students: A mixed methods case study. Unpublished PhD dissertation, The University of Nebraska-Lincoln, 127pp. (ED533738). Lehesvouri, S., Jouni, V., Rasku-Puttonen, H., Moate, J. & Helaakoski, J. (2013). Visualizing communication structures in science classrooms: Tracing cumulativity in teacher-led whole class discussions. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. 50 (8): 912-939.

Ornstein, A.C. & Hunkins, F.P. (1998). Curriculum: Foundations, principles and issues. Allyn &Bacon, US.

Önal, İ. (2005). İlköğretim fen eğitiminde performans dayanaklı değerlendirme üzerine bir çalışma Yayımlanmamış yüksek lisans tezi. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Bölümü Eğitimde Ölçme ve Değerlendirme Bilim Dalı.

Özer, D.Z. & Özkan, M. (2013). The effect of project based learning method on science process skills of prospective teachers of science education in biology lessons. International Online Journal of Educational Sciences. 5(3), 635-645.

Parlett, M. & Hamilton, D. (1988). ‘Evaluation as illumination: a new approach to the study of innovatory programs.’ In Murphy, R. & Torrance, H. (eds.).Evaluating education: issues and methods. London: Paul Chapman Publishing Ltd.

Payne, D.A. (1994). Designing educational project and program evaluations: A practical overview based on research and experience. Kluwer Academic Publishers/Boston/Dordrecht/London.

Proctor, R.W. & Capaldi, E.J. (2001). Improving the science education of psychology students: Better Teaching of methodology. Teaching of Psychology, 28 (3): 173-181.

Roth, W.F. (2008). Authentic science for all and the search for the ideal biology curriculum: A personal perspective. Journal of Biological Education (Society of Biology), 43 (1):3-5.

Teddlie, C. & Tashakkori, C. (2009). Foundations of mixed method research: Integrating quantitative and qualitative approaches in the social and behavioral sciences.

Wen, M.L. & Tsai, C. (2008). Online peer assessment in an inservice science and mathematics teacher education course. Teaching In Higher Education. (1), 55-67.

Woltering, V., Herler, A., Spitzer, K. & Spreckelsen, C. (2009). Blended learning positively affects students’ satisfaction and the role of the tutor in the problem-based learing process: Results of a mixed-method evaluation. Adv. in Health Sci. Educ. 14:725-738.

Yasar, S., M. Gültekin, N. Köse, P. Girmen & Anagün, S. (2005). The meta- evaluation of teacher training programs for elementary education in Turkey, Conference Proceedings, Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia. pp.498-504, 06/07/2005

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.