SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Milli Eğitim Dergisi / 2026 / Cilt: 55 Sayı: 250

Teachers’ Evaluation of the Digital Literacy Skill Targeted in the Türkiye Century Education Model: A Q Methodology Study

Türkiye Yüzyılı Maarif Modeli’nde Kazandırılması Hedeflenen Dijital Okuryazarlık Becerisinin Öğretmenler Tarafından Değerlendirilmesi: Bir Q Metot Çalışması

Özkan Özbay(ARTVİN ÇORUH ÜNİVERSİTESİ, UZAKTAN EĞİTİM UYGULAMA VE ARAŞTIRMA MERKEZİ)0000-0001-7754-2594
Pages
745–766
Publication Date
2026-05-01
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

In conclusion, for the digital literacy component of the TYMM to be effectively integrated into the education system and sustained over time, it is recommended that these differentiated and shared perspectives of teachers be taken into consideration, and that supportive, participatory, and flexible mechanisms be developed accordingly.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This study examines teachers’ perspectives on the digital literacy skill included in the Türkiye Yüzyılı Maarif Modeli (TYMM) using Q methodology.
📊
Key Findings & Data:In the research, subjective responses of 52 teachers from different subject areas and experience levels to 20 core statements related to digital literacy in the TYMM were collected through the Q-sorting technique and analyzed using factor analysis.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:In conclusion, for the digital literacy component of the TYMM to be effectively integrated into the education system and sustained over time, it is recommended that these differentiated and shared perspectives of teachers be taken into consideration, and that supportive, participatory, and flexible mechanisms be developed accordingly.
🔬Design:Modeling & Simulation
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Türkiye Yüzyılı Maarif Modeli · Dijital Okuryazarlık · Öğretmen Görüşleri

Abstract

This study examines teachers’ perspectives on the digital literacy skill included in the Türkiye Yüzyılı Maarif Modeli (TYMM) using Q methodology. In today’s context, where digital transformation in education is accelerating, understanding the perceptions of teachers—who are among the most critical stakeholders of new educational models—is of great significance. In the research, subjective responses of 52 teachers from different subject areas and experience levels to 20 core statements related to digital literacy in the TYMM were collected through the Q-sorting technique and analyzed using factor analysis. The analyses revealed meaningful factors that reflect the differing viewpoints of teachers regarding the digital literacy skill in the TYMM. The findings show that teachers hold both converging and diverging opinions on key issues such as the clarity of TYMM’s digital literacy objectives, the adequacy of implementation guidance, the relevance and comprehensiveness of the provided content, teacher autonomy, and their professional development needs. These varied perspectives are valuable in reflecting the potential of the model in the domain of digital literacy, the challenges in its implementation, and teachers’ expectations. In conclusion, for the digital literacy component of the TYMM to be effectively integrated into the education system and sustained over time, it is recommended that these differentiated and shared perspectives of teachers be taken into consideration, and that supportive, participatory, and flexible mechanisms be developed accordingly.

Özet

Bu çalışma, Türkiye Yüzyılı Maarif Modeli’nde (TYMM) yer alan dijital okuryazarlık becerisine ilişkin öğretmen görüşlerini Q metodolojisi kullanarak incelemektedir. Eğitimde dijital dönüşümün hız kazandığı günümüzde, yeni eğitim modellerinin en önemli paydaşlarından olan öğretmenlerin, bu modellerin kritik bileşenlerine yönelik algılarının anlaşılması büyük önem taşımaktadır. Araştırmada, farklı branş ve deneyim düzeylerine sahip 52 öğretmenin, TYMM’nin dijital okuryazarlıkla ilgili 20 temel ifadeye verdikleri öznel tepkiler, Q sıralama tekniği ile toplanmış ve faktör analizi ile çözümlenmiştir. Analizler sonucunda, öğretmenlerin TYMM'deki dijital okuryazarlık becerisine ilişkin farklılaşan bakış açılarını yansıtan anlamlı faktörler ortaya çıkarılmıştır. Bulgular, öğretmenlerin TYMM’nin dijital okuryazarlık hedeflerinin netliği, uygulamaya yönelik rehberliğin yeterliliği, sunulan içeriğin güncelliği ve kapsamı, öğretmen özerkliği ve mesleki gelişim ihtiyaçları gibi temel konularda ayrışan ve benzeşen görüşlere sahip olduğunu göstermektedir. Bu farklı perspektifler, modelin dijital okuryazarlık alanındaki potansiyelini, uygulama zorluklarını ve öğretmenlerin beklentilerini yansıtması açısından değerlidir. Sonuç olarak, TYMM’nin dijital okuryazarlık boyutunun eğitim sistemine etkili bir şekilde entegre edilebilmesi ve sürdürülebilirliğinin sağlanabilmesi için öğretmenlerin bu farklılaşan ve örtüşen perspektiflerinin dikkate alınması; buna yönelik destekleyici, katılımcı ve esnek mekanizmaların geliştirilmesi önerilmektedir.

🔖

Cite This Article

Özbay, Ö. (2026). Teachers’ Evaluation of the Digital Literacy Skill Targeted in the Türkiye Century Education Model: A Q Methodology Study. Milli Eğitim Dergisi, Cilt: 55 Sayı: 250, 745–766. https://doi.org/10.37669/milliegitim.1710366

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (30)

  1. Bawden, D. (2001). Information and digital literacies: A review of concepts. Journal of Documentation, 57(2), 218–259. https://doi.org/10.1108/EUM0000000007083
  2. Brown, S. R. (1980). Political subjectivity: Applications of Q methodology in political science. Yale University Press.
  3. Brown, S. R. (1993). A primer on Q methodology. Operant Subjectivity, 16(3/4), 91–138.
  4. Darling-Hammond, L. (2017). Teacher education around the world: What can we learn from international practice? European Journal of Teacher Education, 40(3), 291–309. https://doi. org/10.1080/02619768.2017.1315399
  5. Desniyanti, D. (2025). The role of teachers in the development of digital literacy. PPSDP International Journal of Education, 4(2), 538–552. https://doi.org/10.59175/pijed.v4i2.535
  6. Eğitim Reformu Girişimi. (2024). Türkiye Yüzyılı Maarif Modeli’nin amacını anlamak. [Rapor]. Eğitim Reformu Girişimi. 10 Haziran 2025 tarihinde https://egitimreformugirisimi.org/ wp-content/uploads/2024/08/Turkiye-Yuzyili-Maarif-Modelinin-Amacini-Anlamak.pdf adresinden erişilmiştir.
  7. Ertmer, P. A., Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. T., Sadik, O., Sendurur, E., & Sendurur, P. (2012). Teacher beliefs and technology integration practices: A critical relationship. Computers & Education, 59(2), 423–435. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.02.001
  8. Eshet-Alkalai, Y., & Chajut, E. (2009). Changes over time in digital literacy. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 12(6), 713–715. https://doi.org/10.1089/cpb.2008.0264
  9. Ferrari, A. (2013). DIGCOMP: A framework for developing and understanding digital competence in Europe. Publications Office of the European Union. https://doi.org/10.2788/52966
  10. Fjellner, A., Varea, V., & Barker, D. (2024). Teachers’ experiences of enacting pedagogical models and models-based practice: A systematic mixed study review. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/17408989.2024.2415325
  11. Fullan, M. (2007). The new meaning of educational change (4th ed.). Teachers College Press.
  12. Gilster, P. (1997). Digital literacy. Wiley Computer Publishing.
  13. Hatlevik, O. E., Guðmundsdóttir, G. B., & Loi, M. (2015). Digital diversity among upper secondary students: A multilevel analysis of the relationship between cultural capital, self-efficacy, strategic use of information and digital competence. Computers & Education, 81, 345–353. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.10.019
  14. Ilomäki, L., Paavola, S., Lakkala, M., & Kantosalo, A. (2016). Digital competence—An emergent boundary concept for policy and educational research. Education and Information Technologies, 21(3), 655–679. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-014-9346-4
  15. Lundberg, A., de Leeuw, R., & Aliani, R. (2020). Using Q methodology: Sorting out subjectivity in educational research. Educational Research Review, 31, 100361. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. edurev.2020.100361
  16. McKeown, B. F., & Thomas, D. B. (1988). Q methodology in assessment and research. Sage Publications.
  17. Millî Eğitim Bakanlığı (MEB). (2024a). Okuryazarlık becerileri – Türkiye Yüzyılı Maarif Modeli. 20 Eylül 2025 tarihinde https://tymm.meb.gov.tr/beceriler/okuryazarlik-becerileri adresinden erişilmiştir.
  18. Millî Eğitim Bakanlığı (MEB). (2024b). Türkiye Yüzyılı Maarif Modeli ortak metni. 12 Mayıs 2025 tarihinde https://tymm.meb.gov.tr/ortak-metin adresinden erişilmiştir.
  19. Millî Eğitim Bakanlığı (MEB). (2024c). Genel bakış – Türkiye Yüzyılı Maarif Modeli. 12 Mayıs 2025 tarihinde https://tymm.meb.gov.tr/genel-bakis adresinden erişilmiştir.
  20. Millî Eğitim Bakanlığı (MEB). (2024d). Türkiye Yüzyılı Maarif Modeli. 12 Mayıs 2025 tarihinde https://tymm.meb.gov.tr/ adresinden erişilmiştir.
  21. Ng, W. (2012). Can we teach digital natives digital literacy? Computers & Education, 59(3), 1065– 1078. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.04.016
  22. Nguyen, L. A. T., & Habók, A. (2024). Tools for assessing teacher digital literacy: A review. Journal of Computers in Education, 11, 305–346. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40692-022-00257-5
  23. Priestley, M., Biesta, G., & Robinson, S. (2015). Teacher agency: An ecological approach. Bloomsbury Publishing.
  24. Stephenson, W. (1953). The study of behavior: Q-technique and its methodology. University of Chicago Press.
  25. Stenner, P., Watts, S., & Worrell, M. (2008). Q methodology. In C. Willig & W. Stainton-Rogers (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative research in psychology (pp. 215–239). Sage Publications.
  26. Tondeur, J., Van Braak, J., Ertmer, P. A., & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. (2017). Understanding the relationship between teachers’ pedagogical beliefs and technology use in education: A systematic review of qualitative evidence. Educational Technology Research and Development, 65(3), 555–575. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-016-9481-2
  27. Van Exel, J., & De Graaf, G. (2005). Q methodology: A sneak preview. 20 Eylül 2025 tarihinde https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228574836_Q_Methodology_A_Sneak_Preview adresinden erişilmiştir.
  28. Voogt, J., & Roblin, N. P. (2012). A comparative analysis of international frameworks for 21st century competences: Implications for national curriculum policies. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 44(3), 299–321. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220272.2012.668938
  29. Voogt, J., Knezek, G., Cox, M., Knezek, D., & Brummelhuis, A. (2013). Under which conditions does ICT have a positive effect on teaching and learning? A call to action. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 31(5), 465–482. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12179
  30. Watts, S., & Stenner, P. (2012). Doing Q methodological research: Theory, method and interpretation. Sage Publications.