SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Eğitimde Kuram ve Uygulama / 2026 / Cilt: 22 Sayı: 2

An Examination of the Türkiye Century Education Model Secondary School Mathematics Curriculum With Respect to Gifted Students

Türkiye Yüzyılı Maarif Modeli Ortaokul Matematik Eğitim Programının Özel Yetenekliler Kapsamında İncelenmesi

Aygen Koç Koca(ADIYAMAN ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0001-9667-7099
Pages
—
Publication Date
2026-10-16
🏛️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)

Further studies are recommended to examine, at the implementation level, how well the curriculum meets gifted students’ developmental and educational needs in school settings.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This study aims to comprehensively examine the potential of the Türkiye Century Education Model Secondary School Mathematics Curriculum to support the development of gifted students.
📊
Key Findings & Data:For the analysis, the curriculum was divided into seven sections: its fundamental approach and specific objectives, principles of implementation, the structure of the curriculum, and the themes for Grades 5, 6, 7, and 8.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Further studies are recommended to examine, at the implementation level, how well the curriculum meets gifted students’ developmental and educational needs in school settings.
🔬Design:Modeling & Simulation
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Doküman incelemesi · Farklılaştırma · Matematik eğitim program

Abstract

This study aims to comprehensively examine the potential of the Türkiye Century Education Model Secondary School Mathematics Curriculum to support the development of gifted students. It considers whether, and to what extent, the curriculum offers differentiated and flexible practices suited to gifted students’ academic development needs in mathematics and their educational needs. For the analysis, the curriculum was divided into seven sections: its fundamental approach and specific objectives, principles of implementation, the structure of the curriculum, and the themes for Grades 5, 6, 7, and 8. The sections were then analysed thematically as part of document analysis. The findings show that the curriculum largely helps meet gifted students’ academic development needs in mathematics by fostering higher-order thinking and metacognitive skills, although it remains limited in some respects. Its content was found to have features capable of meeting students’ educational needs. The findings nevertheless suggest that the process component should be enriched to help students feel valued and increase their motivation. They further suggest that the product component should respond more closely to students’ interests and that assessment should provide continuity throughout the process. Further studies are recommended to examine, at the implementation level, how well the curriculum meets gifted students’ developmental and educational needs in school settings.

Özet

Bu çalışma, Türkiye Yüzyılı Maarif Modeli Ortaokul Matematik Eğitim Programının özel yetenekli öğrencilerin gelişimini destekleme potansiyelini kapsamlı bir biçimde incelemeyi amaçlamaktadır. Bu kapsamda programın, özel yetenekli öğrencilerin matematiksel akademik gelişim ihtiyaçları ve eğitsel ihtiyaçlarına göre farklılaştırılmış ve esnek uygulamalara yer verme durumları ele alınmıştır. Ele alınan durumlar, programın yedi bölüme ayrılmasıyla (temel yaklaşım ve özel amaçlar, uygulamaya ilişkin esaslar, programın yapısı ve farklı sınıf düzeylerine ait 5, 6, 7 ve 8. sınıf temalar) doküman incelemesi yöntemi kapsamında tematik analiz yoluyla incelenmiştir. İnceleme sonucunda matematik eğitim programının, üst düzey düşünme becerileri ve üstbiliş becerileri aracılığıyla özel yetenekli öğrencilerin matematiksel akademik gelişim ihtiyaçlarını büyük ölçüde desteklemekle birlikte bazı boyutlarda sınırlılıklar içerdiği belirlenmiştir. Programın içerik bakımından incelenmesi sonucunda, öğrencilerin eğitsel ihtiyaçlarına cevap verebilecek özellikte olduğu belirlenmiştir. Bununla birlikte, programın süreç özelliklerinin öğrencilerin kendilerini değerli hissetmelerini sağlayacak ve motivasyonlarını artıracak şekilde; ürün özelliklerinin öğrencilerin ilgi alanlarına hitap edecek şekilde ve değerlendirme özelliklerinin süreç boyunca devamlılığını sağlayacak biçimde zenginleştirilmesi gerektiği düşünülmektedir. Ayrıca, programın okul ortamında gelişimsel ve eğitsel açıdan özel yetenekli öğrencilerin ihtiyaçlarını karşılama düzeyinin uygulama boyutunda incelendiği çalışmaların yapılması önerilmektedir.

🔖

Cite This Article

Koca, A. K. (2026). An Examination of the Türkiye Century Education Model Secondary School Mathematics Curriculum With Respect to Gifted Students. Eğitimde Kuram ve Uygulama, Cilt: 22 Sayı: 2. https://doi.org/10.17244/eku.1803520

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (77)

  1. Ader, E. (2013). A framework for understanding teachers’ promotion of students’ metacognition. International Journal for Mathematics Teaching and Learning. https://www.cimt.org.uk/journal/ader.pdf
  2. Assouline, S. G., & Lupkowski-Shoplik, A. (2021). Developing math talent: A comprehensive guide to math education for gifted students in elementary and middle school (2nd ed.). Routledge.
  3. Ataman, A. (Ed.). (2009). Özel gereksinimli çocuklar ve özel eğitime giriş [Children with special needs and introduction to special education] (7th ed.). Gündüz Eğitim ve Yayıncılık.
  4. Ataman, A. (Ed.). (2014). Üstün zekâlılar ve üstün yetenekliler konusunda bilinmesi gerekenler [What should be known about gifted and talented individuals]. Vize Yayıncılık.
  5. Balım, S., & Yürümezoğlu, K. (2023). STEAM bütünleşik öğrenme modeli üstün/özel yeteneklilerde yaratıcılığı destekler mi? [Does the STEAM integrated learning model support creativity in gifted/talented students?]. Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi Buca Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 55, 140–153. https://doi.org/10.53444/deubefd.1207880
  6. Bowen, G. A. (2009). Document analysis as a qualitative research method. Qualitative Research Journal, 9(2), 27–40. https://doi.org/10.3316/QRJ0902027
  7. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
  8. Brewer, M. B. (2007). The importance of being we: Human nature and intergroup relations. American Psychologist, 62(8), 728–738. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.62.8.728
  9. Burns, E. D., Leppien, J., Omdal, S., Gubbins, E. J., Muller, L., & Vahidi, S. (2006). Teacher’s guide for the explicit teaching of thinking skills. National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented, University of Connecticut.
  10. Clark, B. (2015). Üstün zekâlı olarak büyümek: Evde ve okulda çocukların potansiyellerini geliştirmek [Growing up gifted: Developing the potential of children at school and at home] (F. Kaya & Ü. Oğurlu, Trans. Eds.; 8th ed.). Nobel Akademik Yayıncılık.
  11. Cox, J. R., Kelly, J., & Brinson, P. (1988). The pyramid project: Implementing the Richardson study recommendations. Roeper Review, 11(1), 37–43. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783198809553159
  12. Çolak, A. (2007). Kaynaştırma uygulanan bir ilköğretim sınıfındaki sosyal yeterlik özelliklerinin betimlenmesi ve iyileştirilmesi çalışmaları [A study on describing and improving social competence characteristics in an inclusive primary school classroom] [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Anadolu University.
  13. Dai, D. Y. (2020). Rethinking human potential from a talent development perspective. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 43(1), 19–37. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162353219897850
  14. Darga, H., & Ataman, A. (2021). The effect of class-wide enrichment applied to gifted and typically developing children in early childhood. Participatory Educational Research, 8(3), 402–421. https://doi.org/10.17275/per.21.73.8.3
  15. Delcourt, M. A. B., Cornell, D. G., & Goldberg, M. D. (2007). Cognitive and affective learning outcomes of gifted elementary school students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 51(4), 359–381. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986207306320
  16. Deringöl, Y., & Davaslıgil, Ü. (2020). The effect of differentiated mathematics programs on the mathematics attitude of gifted children. Malaysian Online Journal of Educational Sciences, 8(1), 27–37.
  17. Devlet Planlama Teşkilatı. (2000). Sekizinci Beş Yıllık Kalkınma Planı (2001–2005) [Eighth Five-Year Development Plan (2001–2005)]. http://ekutup.dpt.gov.tr/plan/plan8.pdf
  18. Dewey, J. (1966). Lectures in the philosophy of education: 1899 (R. D. Archambault, Ed.). Random House.
  19. Ficici, A., & Siegle, D. (2008). International teachers’ judgment of gifted mathematics student characteristics. Gifted and Talented International, 23(1), 23–38. https://doi.org/10.1080/15332276.2008.11673510
  20. Goos, M., Galbraith, P., & Renshaw, P. (2000). A money problem: A source of insight into problem-solving action. International Journal for Mathematics Teaching and Learning. https://www.cimt.org.uk/journal/pgmoney.pdf
  21. Güner, P., & Erbay, H. N. (2021). Metacognitive skills and problem-solving. International Journal of Research in Education and Science, 7(3), 715–734. https://doi.org/10.46328/ijres.1594
  22. Hannah, J., James, A., Montelle, C., & Nokes, J. (2011). Meeting the needs of our best and brightest: Curriculum acceleration in tertiary mathematics. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 42(3), 299–312. https://doi.org/10.1080/0020739X.2010.543158
  23. Haylock, D. (1997). Recognising mathematical creativity in schoolchildren. ZDM–Mathematics Education, 29(3), 68–74. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-997-0002-y
  24. Heinze, A. (2005). Differences in problem-solving strategies of mathematically gifted and non-gifted elementary students. International Education Journal, 6(2), 175–183.
  25. House, E. R., & Lapan, S. (1994). Introduction: Evaluation of programs for disadvantaged gifted students. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 17(4), 440–466. https://doi.org/10.1177/016235329401700407
  26. Iwai, Y. (2011). The effects of metacognitive reading strategies: Pedagogical implications for EFL/ESL teachers. The Reading Matrix, 11(2), 150–159.
  27. Kandiko Howson, C. B., & Mawer, M. (2013). Student expectations and perceptions of higher education. King’s Learning Institute.
  28. Karaca, S. Y., & Türk, T. (2020). The evaluation of the secondary school mathematics curriculum according to teachers’ views in terms of the education of gifted students. Turkish Journal of Computer and Mathematics Education, 11(1), 241–279.
  29. Kelemen, G. (2020). Gifted children’s education in early childhood: Practical strategies. Educația Plus, 26(1), 165–170.
  30. Kettler, T., Oveross, E. M., & Salman, R. C. (2017). Preschool gifted education: Perceived challenges associated with program development. Gifted Child Quarterly, 61(2), 117–132. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986217690228
  31. Koç Koca, A. (2023). Investigation of special education teacher candidates’ problem-solving skills and their views on mathematical creativity. Base for Electronic Educational Sciences, 4(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.29329/bedu.2023.528.1
  32. Kuhn, D. (2000). Metacognitive development. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 9(5), 178–181. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8721.00088
  33. Kulikovskaya, I. E., & Andrienko, A. A. (2016). Fairy tales for modern gifted preschoolers: Developing creativity, moral values, and a coherent worldview. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 233, 53–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2016.10.129
  34. Kuo, C. C. (2022). Expanding the conception of giftedness to talent development. Gifted Education International, 38(3), 438–444. https://doi.org/10.1177/02614294211062298
  35. Kuo, C. C., Su, F. L., & Maker, C. J. (2011). Cultivating problem-solving abilities in gifted preschoolers. Gifted Education International, 27(3), 311–326. https://doi.org/10.1177/026142941102700308
  36. Leikin, R. (2011). The education of mathematically gifted students: Some complexities and questions. The Mathematics Enthusiast, 8(1–2), 167–188. https://doi.org/10.54870/1551-3440.1211
  37. Lester, F. K. (1994). Musings about mathematical problem-solving research: 1970–1994. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 25(6), 660–675. https://doi.org/10.5951/jresematheduc.25.6.0660
  38. Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. SAGE.
  39. Meltzer, L. (2010). Promoting executive function in the classroom. Guilford Press.
  40. Mevarech, Z., & Fridkin, S. (2006). The effects of IMPROVE on mathematical knowledge, mathematical reasoning, and meta-cognition. Metacognition and Learning, 1(1), 85–97. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-006-6584-x
  41. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). SAGE.
  42. Millî Eğitim Bakanlığı. (1988). On İkinci Millî Eğitim Şûrası kararları [Decisions of the 12th National Education Council]. http://ttkb.meb.gov.tr/dosyalar/suralar/12_sura.pdf
  43. Millî Eğitim Bakanlığı. (2006). On Yedinci Millî Eğitim Şûrası kararları [Decisions of the 17th National Education Council]. http://ttkb.meb.gov.tr/dosyalar/suralar/17_sura.pdf
  44. Millî Eğitim Bakanlığı. (2010). On Sekizinci Millî Eğitim Şûrası kararları [Decisions of the 18th National Education Council]. http://www.meb.gov.tr/duyurular/duyurular2010/ttkb/18Sura_kararlari_tamami.pdf
  45. Millî Eğitim Bakanlığı. (2024). Türkiye Yüzyılı Maarif Modeli Ortaokul Matematik Dersi Öğretim Programı [Türkiye Century Education Model middle school mathematics curriculum]. https://mufredat.meb.gov.tr/
  46. Nanai, N. E. (2024). Issues in English language teaching affecting decision-making in the curriculum development process in Tanzania. International Journal of Language and Education Research, 6(1), 24–33. https://doi.org/10.29329/ijler.2024.661.2
  47. Patton, M. Q. (2014). Nitel araştırma ve değerlendirme yöntemleri [Qualitative research and evaluation methods] (M. Bütün & S. B. Demir, Trans. Eds.). Pegem Akademi.
  48. Purwanto, B., Jatmiko, A., Pahrudin, A., Munifah, M., Wardhani, S., Purnama, S., & Joemsittiprasert, W. (2020). The implementation of cooperative learning to developed management of language learning system. Journal for the Education of Gifted Young Scientists, 8(1), 379–392. https://doi.org/10.17478/jegys.675251
  49. Redding, C., & Grissom, J. A. (2021). Do students in gifted programs perform better? Linking gifted program participation to achievement and nonachievement outcomes. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 43(3), 520–544. https://doi.org/10.3102/01623737211008919
  50. Reis, S. M., Renzulli, S. J., & Renzulli, J. S. (2021). Enrichment and gifted education pedagogy to develop talents, gifts, and creative productivity. Education Sciences, 11(10), Article 615. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci11100615
  51. Renzulli, J. S. (1986). The three-ring conception of giftedness: A developmental model for creative productivity. In R. J. Sternberg & J. E. Davidson (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (pp. 51–92). Cambridge University Press.
  52. Sevgi, S., & Çağlıköse, M. (2020). Altıncı sınıf öğrencilerinin kesir problemlerini çözme sürecinde kullandıkları üstbiliş becerilerinin incelenmesi [An examination of sixth-grade students’ metacognitive skills during the process of solving fraction problems]. Hacettepe University Journal of Education, 35(3), 662–687.
  53. Sriraman, B. (2003). Mathematical giftedness, problem solving, and the ability to formulate generalizations: The problem-solving experiences of four gifted students. Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 14(3), 151–165. https://doi.org/10.4219/jsge-2003-425
  54. Steenbergen-Hu, S., & Moon, S. M. (2011). The effects of acceleration on high-ability learners: A meta-analysis. Gifted Child Quarterly, 55(1), 39–53. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986210383155
  55. Steiner, H. H., & Carr, M. (2003). Cognitive development in gifted children: Toward a more precise understanding of emerging differences in intelligence. Educational Psychology Review, 15(3), 215–246. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024636317011
  56. Sternberg, R. J. (2009). The nature of creativity. In J. C. Kaufman & E. L. Grigorenko (Eds.), The essential Sternberg: Essays on intelligence, psychology, and education (pp. 103–118). Springer Publishing Company.
  57. Sternberg, R. J. (2020). Rethinking what we mean by intelligence. Phi Delta Kappan, 102(3), 36–41. https://doi.org/10.1177/0031721720970700
  58. Subotnik, R. F., Olszewski-Kubilius, P., & Worrell, F. C. (2021). Rethinking giftedness and gifted education: A proposed direction forward based on psychological science. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 22(3), 203–247. https://doi.org/10.1177/15291006211015121
  59. Tambunan, H. (2019). The effectiveness of the problem-solving strategy and the scientific approach in developing students’ higher-order mathematical thinking skills. International Electronic Journal of Mathematics Education, 14(2), 293–302. https://doi.org/10.29333/iejme/5715
  60. Tomlinson, C. A. (2000). Reconcilable differences? Standards-based teaching and differentiation. Educational Leadership, 58(1), 6–13.
  61. Tomlinson, C. A. (2014). The differentiated classroom: Responding to the needs of all learners (2nd ed.). ASCD.
  62. Tomlinson, C. A. (2017). How to differentiate instruction in academically diverse classrooms (3rd ed.). ASCD.
  63. Tuğluoğlu, R., Özay, Z., Kara, E., & Kaymakcı, G. (2024). Özel yetenekli öğrenciler için destek eğitim odası uygulanması konusunda okul yöneticileri ve veli görüşlerinin incelenmesi [Examination of school administrators’ and parents’ opinions on the implementation of a support education room for gifted students]. The Journal of International Lingual, Social and Educational Sciences, 10(1), 57–73. https://doi.org/10.34137/jilses.1327183
  64. Uğurlu, R. (2022). BİLSEM’de görev yapan matematik öğretmenlerinin özel yetenekli öğrencilere yönelik matematik öğretimine ilişkin görüşleri [Mathematics teachers’ views on teaching mathematics to gifted students in Science and Art Centers] [Unpublished master’s thesis]. Necmettin Erbakan University.
  65. VanTassel-Baska, J. (2000). Theory and research on curriculum development for the gifted. NASSP Bulletin, 84(615), 14–29. https://doi.org/10.1177/019263650008461503
  66. VanTassel-Baska, J. (2012). The curriculum planning and instruction standard in gifted education: From idea to reality. In S. K. Johnsen (Ed.), NAGC Pre-K–Grade 12 gifted education programming standards: A guide to planning and implementing high-quality services (pp. 77–116). Prufrock Press.
  67. VanTassel-Baska, J., & Brown, E. F. (2022). An overview of the integrated curriculum model. Gifted Child Today, 45(3), 160–175. https://doi.org/10.1177/10762175221091876
  68. VanTassel-Baska, J., & Stambaugh, T. (2006). Comprehensive curriculum for gifted learners (3rd ed.). Pearson.
  69. VanTassel-Baska, J., & Wood, S. M. (2023). The integrated curriculum model. In J. S. Renzulli, S. M. Reis, & D. Yun Dai (Eds.), Systems and models for developing programs for the gifted and talented (pp. 655–691). Routledge.
  70. Wai, J., & Lovett, B. J. (2021). Improving gifted talent development can help solve multiple consequential real-world problems. Journal of Intelligence, 9(2), Article 31. https://doi.org/10.3390/jintelligence9020031
  71. Walsh, G., McGuinness, C., Sproule, L., & Trew, K. (2010). Implementing a play-based and developmentally appropriate curriculum in Northern Ireland primary schools: What lessons have we learned? Early Years, 30(1), 53–66. https://doi.org/10.1080/09575140903442994
  72. Widana, I. W., Parwata, I. M. Y., Parmithi, N. N., Jayantika, I. G. A. T., Sukendra, K., & Sumandya, I. W. (2018). Higher-order thinking skills assessment towards critical thinking in mathematics lessons. International Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities, 2(1), 24–32. https://doi.org/10.29332/ijssh.v2n1.74
  73. Yıldırım, A., & Şimşek, H. (2016). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri [Qualitative research methods in the social sciences] (10th ed.). Seçkin Yayıncılık.
  74. Yiğit Gençten, V. (2022). Özel yetenekli öğrencilerin eğitiminde farklılaştırma ve zenginleştirme uygulamalarının incelenmesi [An examination of differentiation and enrichment practices in the education of gifted students]. Hacettepe University Journal of Education, 37(3), 1262–1279. https://doi.org/10.16986/HUJE.2021073587
  75. Yohannes, A., & Chen, H.-L. (2023). GeoGebra in mathematics education: A systematic review of journal articles published from 2010 to 2020. Interactive Learning Environments, 31(9), 5682–5697. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2021.2016861
  76. Ziegler, A., & Stoeger, H. (2008). A learning-oriented subjective action space as an indicator of giftedness. Psychology Science Quarterly, 50(2), 222–236.
  77. Ziegler, A., Stoeger, H., & Vialle, W. (Eds.). (2021). Advanced learning. Frontiers Media SA. https://doi.org/10.3389/978-2-88971-262-5