SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Milli Eğitim Dergisi / 2025 / Cilt: 54 Sayı: 1 Özel Sayı

Teachers’ Opinions on the ‘Geometric Shapes’ Theme of the 5th Grade Mathematics Curriculum within the Century of Türkiye Education Model

Türkiye Yüzyılı Maarif Modeli Matematik Dersi Öğretim Programı 5. Sınıf Düzeyindeki ‘Geometrik Şekiller’ Teması Üzerine Öğretmen Görüşleri

Sevda Daştan0009-0007-0193-2124
Mustafa Aydın(NECMETTIN ERBAKAN UNIVERSITY)0000-0001-8414-0008
Pages
987–1026
Publication Date
2025-12-24
🏛️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)

The research findings revealed that while teachers generally view the curriculum's student-centered and real-world-oriented philosophy positively, students experienced difficulties in comprehending abstract geometric concepts due to this theme's placement as the initial topic in the 5th-grade mathematics curriculum.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Educational systems are transforming curricula to equip students with the skills required by a changing world.
📊
Key Findings & Data:In this context, a new curriculum titled the Century of Türkiye Education Model was developed and implemented in 2024, differentiated philosophically and structurally from previous programs through a skill-oriented and holistic approach, with distinct programs developed for each subject.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The research findings revealed that while teachers generally view the curriculum's student-centered and real-world-oriented philosophy positively, students experienced difficulties in comprehending abstract geometric concepts due to this theme's placement as the initial topic in the 5th-grade mathematics curriculum.
🔬Design:Modeling & Simulation
📍Scope:2024 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Türkiye Yüzyılı Maarif Modeli · matematik eğitimi · geometrik şekiller teması

Abstract

Educational systems are transforming curricula to equip students with the skills required by a changing world. In this context, a new curriculum titled the Century of Türkiye Education Model was developed and implemented in 2024, differentiated philosophically and structurally from previous programs through a skill-oriented and holistic approach, with distinct programs developed for each subject. In curriculum changes, the experiences of teachers as practitioners are of paramount importance. This study aimed to reveal mathematics teachers' opinions and experiences regarding the "Geometric Shapes" theme within the 5th-grade mathematics curriculum of the Century of Türkiye Education Model, by comprehensively examining their perspectives on the theme. In the study, conducted using a qualitative design, data were collected through semi-structured interviews with 14 teachers. The research findings revealed that while teachers generally view the curriculum's student-centered and real-world-oriented philosophy positively, students experienced difficulties in comprehending abstract geometric concepts due to this theme's placement as the initial topic in the 5th-grade mathematics curriculum. While the logical sequencing of the content was appreciated by the teachers, concerns were expressed regarding the theme's placement as the first unit. Teachers welcomed the new assessment approaches, including performance-based assessments, although they reported facing difficulties in implementation. However, alongside these points, they expressed that they did not find the centralized examinations compatible with the program. The study results highlight the critical importance of teachers' perspectives in the curriculum development process.

Özet

Eğitim sistemleri, değişen dünyanın gerektirdiği becerileri kazandırmak amacıyla öğretim programlarını dönüştürmektedir. Bu kapsamda 2024 yılında, önceki programlardan felsefi ve yapısal olarak ayrışan, beceri odaklı ve bütüncül bir yaklaşımla oluşturulmuş Türkiye Yüzyılı Maarif Modeli’yle adıyla her ders için ayrı ayrı geliştirilen yeni bir öğretim programları uygulamaya konulmuştur. Program değişikliklerinde uygulayıcı olarak öğretmenlerin deneyimleri son derece önemlidir. Bu araştırmada, Türkiye Yüzyılı Maarif Modeli Matematik Dersi Öğretim Programı 5. Sınıf düzeyinde yer alan "Geometrik Şekiller" temasına ilişkin matematik öğretmenlerinin görüşleri kapsamlı biçimde ele alınarak öğretmenlerin temaya ilişkin fikirlerini ve deneyimlerini ortaya koymak amaçlanmıştır. Nitel desenle yürütülen araştırmada, veriler 14 öğretmenle gerçekleştirilen yarı- yapılandırılmış görüşmelerden elde edilmiştir. Araştırma sonuçları öğretmenlerin öğretim programının öğrenci merkezli ve gerçek dünya odaklı felsefesini genel olarak olumlu gördüklerini, öğrencilerin Matematik Dersi Öğretim Programı 5. sınıf düzeyinde ilk konu olarak bu temanın yer almasından dolayı soyut geometrik kavramları anlamlandırmakta zorluklar yaşadıklarını ortaya koymuştur. İçeriğin mantıksal sıralaması öğretmenler tarafından beğenilirken, temanın ilk ünite olarak yerleştirilmesiyle ilgili endişeler dile getirilmiştir. Öğretmenler, uygulamada zorluklar yaşıyor olsalar da performansa dayalı değerlendirmeler de dâhil olmak üzere yeni değerlendirme yaklaşımlarını memnuniyetle karşılamışlardır. Ancak tüm bunların yanında merkezî sınavları program açısından uyumlu bulmadıklarını ifade etmişlerdir. Araştırma sonuçları program geliştirme sürecinde öğretmenlerin bakış açılarının kritik önemini ortaya çıkarmıştır.

🔖

Cite This Article

Daştan, S., Aydın, M. (2025). Teachers’ Opinions on the ‘Geometric Shapes’ Theme of the 5th Grade Mathematics Curriculum within the Century of Türkiye Education Model. Milli Eğitim Dergisi, Cilt: 54 Sayı: 1 Özel Sayı, 987–1026. https://doi.org/10.37669/milliegitim.1710245

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (77)

  1. Adams, J., Resnick, I., & Lowrie, T. (2023). Supporting senior high-school students’ measurement and geometry performance: Does spatial training transfer to mathematics achievement? Mathematics Education Research Journal, 35(4), 879-900.
  2. Ahmad, S. (2021). Geometry learning with Indonesian realistic mathematics education approach. Elementary School Journal, 11(4), 393-405.
  3. Akşan-Kiliçaslan, E. & Baki, A. (2021). Öğretim programında öngörülen değişime ilişkin matematik öğretmenlerinin sınıf içi uygulamalarının incelenmesi. Kırşehir Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 22(1), 197-243. https:// doi.org/10.29299/kefad.768059
  4. Altındağ, A., & Korkmaz, H. (2019). Ortaokul 5. Sınıf Matematik Dersi Öğretim Programının Stake’in Uygunluk-Olasılık Modeline Göre Değerlendirilmesi. Türk Eğitim Bilimleri Dergisi, 17(2), 463-501. https:// dergipark.org.tr/en/download/article-file/908720#page=11.55
  5. Arslankara, V. B., & Arslankara, E. (2024). Türkiye Yüzyılı Maarif Modeli’nin Felsefi Temelleri: Ontolojik, Epistemolojik ve Aksiyolojik Bakış Açılarından Bir Değerlendirme. İstanbul Eğitim Dergisi, 1(1), 121-145. https://doi.org/10.71270/istanbulegitim.istj.1557889
  6. Au, W. (2007). High-stakes testing and curricular control: A qualitative metasynthesis. Educational Researcher, 36(5), 258-267.
  7. Aysel, T., O’shea, A., & Breen, S. (2020). Students’ Attitudes to Mathematics Learning and Assessment in Turkey and Ireland. International Journal of Educational Studies in Mathematics, 7(1), 26-38.
  8. Birgin, O., Tutak, T., & Türkdogan, A. (2009). Primary school teachers’views about the new turkish primary school mathematics curriculum. Education Sciences, 4(2), 270-280.
  9. Bozkurt, E., Küçükakın, G. & Öksüz, H. (2021). Ortaokul matematik öğretmenlerinin reform programlarına ilişkin algıları. Bolu Abant İzzet Baysal Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 21(3), 833-847. https:// dx.doi.org/10.17240/aibuefd.2021.21.64908-882886
  10. Bruner, J. S. (1960). The process of education. Harvard University Press.
  11. Bulut, M. (2007). Curriculum reform in Turkey: A case of primary school mathematics curriculum. Eurasia journal of mathematics, science and technology education, 3(3), 203-212.
  12. Bush, S. B. (2019). NCTM’s Catalyzing Change in High School Mathematics: Our Role in the Middle. Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School, 24(5), 290–294. https://doi.org/10.5951/mathteacmiddscho.24.5.0290
  13. Bümen, N. T., & Holmqvist, M. (2022). Teachers’ sense-making and adapting of the national curriculum: a multiple case study in Turkish and Swedish contexts. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 54(6), 832-851.
  14. Cohen, D. K., & Ball, D. L. (1990). Relations between policy and practice: A commentary. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 12(3), 331- 338.
  15. Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2014). Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory (4th ed.). Sage Publications. https://books.google.com.tr/books?id=hZ6kBQAAQBAJ
  16. Cetinkaya, B. (2012). Understanding Teachers in the Midst of Reform: Teachers’ Concerns about Reformed Sixth Grade Mathematics Curriculum in Turkey. Eurasia journal of mathematics, science and technology education, 8, 155-166. https://doi.org/10.12973/EURASIA.2012.831A.
  17. Charalambous, C. Y., & Hill, H. C. (2012). Teacher knowledge, curriculum materials, and quality of instruction: Unpacking a complex relationship. Journal of curriculum studies, 44(4), 443-466.
  18. Cihan, F., & Akkoç, H. (2023). Ortaöğretim matematik dersi öğretim programlarının karşılaştırılması: 2005-2011-2013-2018. Bayburt Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 18(38), 298-331. https://doi.org/10.35675/ befdergi.1198797.
  19. Clements, D., & Sarama, J. (2011). Early childhood teacher education: the case of geometry. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 14, 133-148. https://doi.org/10.1007/S10857-011-9173-0.
  20. Coxeter, H. S. M., & Greitzer, S. L. (1967). Geometry revisited, Mathematical Association of America.
  21. Çiltaş, A., Çelik, B., Bilen, N., Yılmaz, K., Doruk, M., & Öztürk, F. (2013). Evaluation of the New Secondary School Curriculum in Turkey from the Point of Mathematical Models and Mathematical Modeling. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 106, 1151-1156. https://doi. org/10.1016/J.SBSPRO.2013.12.129.
  22. Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319-340.
  23. Davis, E. A. & Krajcik, J. S. (2005). Designing educative curriculum materials to promote teacher learning. Educational researcher, 34(3), 3-14.
  24. Duatepe-Paksu, A., & Ubuz, B. (2009). Effects of Drama-Based Geometry Instruction on Student Achievement, Attitudes, and Thinking Levels. The Journal of Educational Research, 102(4), 272–286. https://doi. org/10.3200/JOER.102.4.272-286
  25. Ertmer, P. A., & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. T. (2010). Teacher technology change: How knowledge, confidence, beliefs, and culture intersect. Journal of research on Technology in Education, 42(3), 255-284.
  26. Findell, B., Swafford, J., & Kilpatrick, J. (Eds.). (2001). Adding it up: Helping children learn mathematics. National Academies Press.
  27. Fosnot, C. T., & Perry, R. S. (2005). Constructivism: A psychological theory of learning. Teachers College Press
  28. Fullan, M. (2007). The new meaning of educational change (4th ed.). Teachers College Press.
  29. Gibbs, G. R. (2018). Thematic coding and categorizing. Analyzing qualitative data (2nd ed., pp. 38-55). Sage Publications. https://doi. org/10.4135/9781526441867.n4
  30. Gökalp, M., & Köksaldi, G. (2019). Ortaokul 5. Sınıf matematik programının öğretmenlerin görüşlerine göre değerlendirilmesi. Elektronik Eğitim Bilimleri Dergisi, 8(16), 218-241.
  31. Gökçek, T., & Baki, A. (2013). Turkish Mathematics Teachers’Concerns about the CurriculumReform in the First Year ofImplementation. Eurasia journal of mathematics, science and technology education, 9, 177-190. https://doi.org/10.12973/EURASIA.2013.928A.
  32. Guskey, T. R. (2002). Professional development and teacher change. Teachers and Teaching, 8(3), 381-391.
  33. 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, 132-159. https://doi. org/10.71270/istanbulegitim.istj.1648231
  34. Henderson D., & Taimina D (2005). Experiencing Geometry: Euclidean and Non-Euclidean with History. Pearson/Prentice Hall.
  35. Hohenwarter, J., Hohenwarter, M., & Lavicza, Z. (2009). Introducing dynamic mathematics software to secondary school teachers: The case of GeoGebra. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 28(2), 135-146.
  36. Incikabi, L., & Uysal, R. (2020). An analysis of Turkey’s recent middle school mathematics teaching programs within the context of the learningteaching processes. In Handbook of Research on Online Pedagogical Models for Mathematics Teacher Education (pp. 273-286). IGI Global Scientific Publishing.
  37. Işık, C., & Kar, T. (2012). İlköğretim matematik dersi öğretim programı ve uygulanmasına yönelik öğretmen görüşleri. Erzincan Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 14(1), 1-24.
  38. Jaelani, A. K., & Hasbi, M. (2022). Development of authentic assessment in geometry learning. Journal Review Pembelajaran Matematika, 7(1), 1-19.
  39. Jones, K. (2000). Providing a Foundation for Deductive Reasoning: Students’ Interpretations when Using Dynamic Geometry Software and Their Evolving Mathematical Explanations. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 44, 55–85. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1012789201736
  40. Jones, K. (2001). Spatial thinking and visualisation. Royal Society. Karakuş, M. (2023). Eğitim programının değerlendirme boyutu. Çağdaş Gelişmeler Işığında Eğitimde Program Geliştirme ve Değerlendirme içinde (1. baskı, ss. 299-303). Pegem Akademi Yayıncılık.
  41. Karataş, İ. H. (2024). Türkiye Yüzyılı Maarif Modeli Hakkında. Alanyazın, 5(1), 6-11.
  42. Karpuz, Y., Koparan, T., & Güven, B. (2014). Geometride Öğrencilerin Şekil ve Kavram Bilgisi Kullanımı. Turkish Journal of Computer and Mathematics Education, 5(2), 108-118. https://doi.org/10.16949/turcomat.16832
  43. Konradsen, H., Kirkevold, M., & Olson, K. (2013). Recognizability: A Strategy for Assessing External Validity and for Facilitating Knowledge Transfer in Qualitative Research. Advances in Nursing Science, 36(2). https:// journals.lww.com/advancesinnursingscience/fulltext/2013/04000/ recognizabilitya_strategyforassessingexternal.14.aspx
  44. Kuzu, O., Toptaş, V., & Göçer, V. (2025). Türkiye Yüzyılı Maarif Modeli Perspektifinde 2018 ve 2024 İlkokul Matematik Dersi Öğretim Programlarının Karşılaştırılması. Ahi Evran Üniversitesi Kırşehir Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 26(1), 114-140. https://doi.org/10.29299/ kefad.1545275
  45. Lecompte, M., & Goetz, J. (1982). Problems of Reliability and Validity in Ethnographic Research. Review of Educational Research, 52, 31-60. https://doi.org/10.2307/1170272
  46. Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic Inquiry. Sage Publications.
  47. Madill, A., Jordan, A., & Shirley, C. (2000). Objectivity and reliability in qualitative analysis: Realist, contextualist and radical constructionist epistemologies. British Journal of Psychology, 91(1), 1-20. https://doi. org/10.1348/000712600161646
  48. Millî Eğitim Bakanlığı. (2013). Ortaokul matematik dersi (5, 6, 7 ve 8. sınıflar) öğretim programı. https://tymm.meb.gov.tr/upload/ program/2024programmat5678Onayli.pdf
  49. Millî Eğitim Bakanlığı. (2018). Matematik dersi öğretim programı (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ve 8. Sınıflar). https://mufredat.meb.gov.tr/Dosyalar/201813017165445- MATEMAT%C4%B0K%20%C3%96%C4%9ERET%C4%B0M%20 PROGRAMI%202018v.pdf
  50. Millî Eğitim Bakanlığı. (2024). Türkiye Yüzyılı Maarif Modeli Süreç. https:// tymm.meb.gov.tr/surec
  51. Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldana, J. (2013). Qualitative Data Analysis: A Methods Sourcebook. Sage Publications. https://books.google.com.tr/ books?id=p0wXBAAAQBAJ
  52. Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017-1054.
  53. Nasution, M., Hayati, R. & Latisma, D. (2015). The development of an authentic assessment in geometric subject which ıs oriented to problem based learning (PBL). In The International Conference on Mathematics, Science, Education and Technology (ICOMSET 2015).
  54. National Mathematics Advisory Panel (2008). Foundations for success: The final report of the National Mathematics Advisory Panel.U.S. Department of Education.
  55. Özcan-Baş, A. (2023). Geometri ve Ölçme Öğrenme Alanı Bağlamında Türkiye, Singapur, Finlandiya ve ABD 5-8. Sınıflar Matematik Öğretim Programlarının Karşılaştırılması [Yayımlanmamış yüksek lisans tezi]. Recep Tayyip Erdoğan Üniversitesi.
  56. Paker, T. (2021). Durum Çalışması. Nitel Araştırma: Yöntem, teknik, analiz ve yaklaşımları içinde (2. baskı, ss. 124-139). Anı Yayıncılık.
  57. Priestley, M., Biesta, G., & Robinson, S. (2015). Teacher agency: An ecological approach. Bloomsbury Academic.
  58. Remillard, J. T. (2005). Examining key concepts in research on teachers’ use of mathematics curricula. Review of Educational Research, 75(2), 211-246.
  59. Rezat, S., Fan, L., & Pepin, B. (2021). Mathematics textbooks and curriculum resources as instruments for change. ZDM–Mathematics Education, 53(6), 1189-1206.
  60. Saenz, M.B., Nandakumar, V., & Adamuti-Trache, M. (2023). A comparative study of high school students’ math achievement and attitudes: Do math teacher qualifications matter? International Journal of Education in Mathematics, Science, and Technology, 11(2), 304-322. https://doi. org/10.46328/ijemst.2528
  61. Saldaña, J. (2015). The Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers (3rd ed.). Sage Publications.
  62. Sarı, M., & Işık-Tertemiz, N. (2017). The effects of using geometry activities based on Dienes’ principles on 4th graders’ success and retention of learning. Eğitim ve Bilim, 42(190), 1-23.
  63. Shechtman, N., Roschelle, J., Feng, M., & Singleton, C. (2019). An efficacy study of a digital core curriculum for grade 5 mathematics. Aera Open, 5(2), https://doi.org/2332858419850482
  64. Sinclair, N., & Bruce, C. D. (2015). New opportunities in geometry education at the primary school. ZDM, 47, 319-329. https://doi.org/10.1007/S11858- 015-0693-4
  65. Spillane, J. P., Reiser, B. J., & Reimer, T. (2002). Policy implementation and cognition: Reframing and refocusing implementation research. Review of educational research, 72(3), 387-431.
  66. Stein, M. K., & Smith, M. S. (1998). Mathematical tasks as a framework for reflection. Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School, 3(4), 268-275.
  67. Stein, M. K., & Kaufman, J. H. (2010). Selecting and supporting the use of mathematics curricula at scale. American Educational Research Journal, 47(3), 663-693.
  68. Teuscher, D., Tran, D., & Reys, B. J. (2015). C ommon Core State Standards in the Middle Grades: What’s New in the Geometry Domain and How Can Teachers Support Student Learning?. School Science and Mathematics, 115(1), 4-13.
  69. Topçu, E., & Masal, E. (2020). Matematik Öğretmenlerinin Teknolojik Pedagojik Alan Bilgisi Öz-Değerlendirme Algılarına Bir Bakış. Gazi Eğitim Bilimleri Dergisi, 6(1), 147-167.
  70. Uğur-Arslan, Z. (2015). Türkiye’nin TIMSS geometri öğrenme alanındaki başarısızlık nedenlerinin karşılaştırmalı program analizleri ve uzman görüşleri ile belirlenmesi. Journal of International Students, 9(2), 705- 725.
  71. Uludağ Kırçıl, R., & Uluçınar Sağır, Ş. (2025). Türkiye Yüzyılı Maarif Modeli’nin Sınıf İçi Yansımaları: Öğretmen Görüşleri. Erciyes Journal of Education, 9(1), 24-46. https://doi.org/10.32433/eje.1673094
  72. Van Hiele, P.M. (1986). Structure and insight: A theory of mathematics education. Academic Press.
  73. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.
  74. Wiggins, G. P. (1993). Assessing student performance. Jossey-Bass. Yıldırım, A., & Şimşek, H. (2021). Sosyal Bilimlerde Nitel Araştırma Yöntemleri (12. baskı). Seçkin Yayınları.
  75. Yildiz, E., & Arpaci, I. (2024). Understanding pre-service mathematics teachers’ intentions to use GeoGebra: The role of technological pedagogical content knowledge. Education and Information Technologies, 29, 18817–18838. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-024-12614-1
  76. Cetinkaya, B. (2012). Understanding Teachers in the Midst of Reform: Teachers’ Concerns about Reformed Sixth Grade Mathematics Curriculum in Turkey. Eurasia journal of mathematics, science and technology education, 8, 155-166. https://doi.org/10.12973/EURASIA.2012.831A.
  77. Gibbs, G. R. (2018). Thematic coding and categorizing. Analyzing qualitative data (2nd ed., pp. 38-55). Sage Publications. https://doi. org/10.4135/9781526441867.n4