Journals / Necatibey Eğitim Fakültesi Elektronik Fen ve Matematik Eğitimi Dergisi / 2026 / Cilt: 20 Sayı: 1

Evaluation of the 7th Grade Mathematics Curriculum According to Bloom’s Evaluation Model Based on Curriculum Elements

Bloom'un Program Öğelerine Dayalı Değerlendirme Modeline Göre 7. Sınıf Matematik Programının Değerlendirilmesi

Sercan Baydoğdu(BALIKESİR ÜNİVERSİTESİ, SOSYAL BİLİMLER ENSTİTÜSÜ)0000-0003-0393-2957
Hasan Hüseyin Şahan(BALIKESİR ÜNİVERSİTESİ, NECATİBEY EĞİTİM FAKÜLTESİ)0000-0003-0180-4812
Pages
299–336
Publication Date
2026-06-26
🏛️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)

A combined analysis of the mixed-methods data highlighted that the teachers generally expressed positive perceptions about the curriculum.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The purpose of the study is to evaluate the 7th grade middle school mathematics curriculum according to teachers' perceptions with an evaluation model based on the elements of the curriculum.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The study population for the quantitative dimension of the study consisted of 690 mathematics teachers working in Balıkesir during the 2024-2025 academic year, and the sample consisted of 105 teachers working in central districts of Balıkesir through random sampling.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:A combined analysis of the mixed-methods data highlighted that the teachers generally expressed positive perceptions about the curriculum.
🔬Design:Lab & Field Experiment
📍Scope:2024-2025 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Matematik · öğretim programı · karma yöntem

Abstract

The purpose of the study is to evaluate the 7th grade middle school mathematics curriculum according to teachers' perceptions with an evaluation model based on the elements of the curriculum. Mixed method was used in this study. An explanatory sequential design was employed to complement the quantitative data with qualitative insights. The study population for the quantitative dimension of the study consisted of 690 mathematics teachers working in Balıkesir during the 2024-2025 academic year, and the sample consisted of 105 teachers working in central districts of Balıkesir through random sampling. The study group for the qualitative dimension of the study consisted of 8 mathematics teachers selected using criterion and convenience sampling methods. This study used the "Curriculum Evaluation Scale" to obtain quantitative data, whereas qualitative insights were acquired from semi-structured interviews. In analyzing quantitative data, the arithmetic mean of teachers' perceptions was calculated. The significance of differences gender, age, educational status, years of experience was examined using independent samples t-tests and one-way analysis of variance. Qualitative data were analyzed using content analysis. The study found that teachers' perceptions on the curriculum's objectives, content, measurement and evaluation elements did not differ significantly based on gender, but their views on the teaching-learning situation were significantly affected. Female teachers were found to have more positive perceptions of the curriculum's teaching-learning elements based on gender. A combined analysis of the mixed-methods data highlighted that the teachers generally expressed positive perceptions about the curriculum.

Özet

Çalışmanın amacı, ortaokul 7. sınıf matematik öğretim programını, program öğelerine dayalı değerlendirme modeliyle öğretmen görüşlerine göre değerlendirmektir. Bu çalışmada karma yöntem kullanılmıştır. Nicel verileri nitel verilerle tamamlamak için açıklayıcı sıralı desen kullanılmıştır. Çalışmanın nicel boyutu için çalışma evrenini 2024-2025 eğitim-öğretim yılında Balıkesir'de görev yapan 690 matematik öğretmeni, örneklemini ise rastgele örnekleme yoluyla Balıkesir ili merkez ilçelerinde görev yapan 105 öğretmen oluşturmuştur. Çalışmanın nitel boyutu için çalışma grubunu ise ölçüt ve kolay ulaşılabilir örnekleme yöntemleri kullanılarak seçilen 8 matematik öğretmeni oluşturmuştur. Çalışmada nicel veriler "Eğitim Programları Değerlendirme Ölçeği", nitel veriler ise yarı yapılandırılmış görüşme formu ile toplanmıştır. Nicel verilerin analizinde, öğretmenlerin algılarının aritmetik ortalaması hesaplanmıştır. Cinsiyet, yaş, eğitim durumu, hizmet süresi gibi farklılıkların anlamlılığı bağımsız örneklemler t-testi ve tek yönlü varyans analizi kullanılarak incelenmiştir. Nitel veriler ise içerik analizi kullanılarak analiz edilmiştir. Araştırma sonucunda, öğretmenlerin programın hedef, içerik, ölçme ve değerlendirme öğelerine ilişkin algılarının cinsiyete göre anlamlı bir farklılık göstermediği ancak öğretme-öğrenme durumuna ilişkin görüşlerinin anlamlı bir şekilde etkilendiği bulunmuştur. Kadın öğretmenlerin cinsiyete göre programın öğretme-öğrenme öğesine ilişkin daha olumlu algılara sahip olduğu bulunmuştur. Araştırmanın nicel ve nitel bulguları birlikte değerlendirildiğinde, öğretmenlerin genel olarak programa ilişkin olumlu görüş bildirdikleri sonucuna ulaşılmıştır.

🔖

Cite This Article

Baydoğdu, S., Şahan, H. H. (2026). Evaluation of the 7th Grade Mathematics Curriculum According to Bloom’s Evaluation Model Based on Curriculum Elements. Necatibey Eğitim Fakültesi Elektronik Fen ve Matematik Eğitimi Dergisi, Cilt: 20 Sayı: 1, 299–336. https://doi.org/10.17522/balikesirnef.1777781

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (54)

  1. Alkan, H., & Altun, M. (1998). Matematik öğretimi. Anadolu Üniversitesi.
  2. Avcu, T., & Yenilmez, K. (2011). Evaluation of the seventh-grade mathematics curriculum based on teachers’ perceptions. Education Sciences, 6(1), Article 1C0273. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/nwsaedu/issue/19821/212113
  3. Aykan, A. (2021). Eğitimde program geliştirme. In F. Dursun & A. Aykan (Eds.), Öğretim ilke ve yöntemleri (pp. 99–124). Pegem Akademi.
  4. Baki, A., & Gökçek, T. (2012). A general overview of mixed method researches. Electronic Journal of Social Sciences, 11(42), 1–21. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/esosder/issue/6156/82721
  5. Balcı, A. (2025). Sosyal bilimlerde araştırma yöntem, teknik ve ilkeler. Pegem Akademi.
  6. Baş, G. (2016). Curriculum evaluation scale: Validity and reliability study. Turkish Journal of Educational Studies, 3(1), 53–80. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/turkjes/issue/34163/377683
  7. Beyendi, S. (2018). Comparison of teaching programs of 2013-2018 middle school mathematics course. Individual and Society Journal of Social Science, 8(1), 177–200. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/birtop/issue/39520/450818
  8. Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (2009). Developing the theory of formative assessment. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 21, 5–31. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11092-008-9068-5
  9. Brookhart, S. M. (2013). The use of teacher judgment for summative assessment in the USA. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 20(1), 69–90. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594X.2012.703170
  10. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  11. Çiftçi, O., & Tatar, E. (2015). Teachers' opinions about the updated secondary mathematics curriculum. Turkish Journal of Computer and Mathematics Education (TURCOMAT), 6(2), 285–298. https://doi.org/10.16949/turcomat.15375
  12. Demir, T. (2021). Evaluation of secondary education 9th grade mathematics curriculum (Publication No. 689041)[Master’s thesis, Balıkesir University]. Council of Higher Education Thesis Center.
  13. Demirel, Ö. (1992). Türkiye'de program geliştirme uygulamaları. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 7, 27–43. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/hunefd/issue/7829/102958
  14. Demirel, Ö. (2017). Eğitimde program geliştirme. Pegem Akademi.
  15. Erden, M. (1998). Eğitimde program değerlendirme (3rd ed.). Anı.
  16. Ertem Akbaş, E. & Tekin, F. (2023). Analysis of master’s and doctoral theses on high school mathematics curriculum (2015-2022), The Educational Science and Research Journal, 4(2), 444-468. https://doi.org/10.54637/ebad.1335604
  17. Ertürk, S. (2017). Eğitimde program geliştirme (2nd ed.). Edge Akademi.
  18. Fitzpatrick, J. L., Sanders, J. R., & Worthen, B. R. (2019). Curriculum evaluation: Alternative approaches and practical guidelines (M. K. Aydın & B. Bavlı, Eds., 4th ed.). Pegem Akademi.
  19. Frankfort-Nachmias, C., & Nachmias, D. (1996). Research methods in the social sciences (5th ed.). Arnold.
  20. Fullan, M. (2016). The new meaning of educational change (5th ed.). Teachers College.
  21. Garson, G. D. (2012). Testing statistical assumptions. Statistical Publishing Associates.
  22. George, D., & Mallery, M. (2010). SPSS for Windows step by step: A simple guide and reference (10th ed.). Pearson.
  23. Gözütok, D. (2003). Türkiye'de program geliştirme çalışmaları. Milli Eğitim Dergisi, 160. http://dhgm.meb.gov.tr/yayimlar/dergiler/Milli_Egitim_Dergisi/160/gozutok.htm
  24. Kürüm Yapıcıoğlu, D., Atik Kara, D., & Sever, D. (2016). Trends and problems in curriculum evaluation studies in Turkey: The perspective of domain experts. International Journal of Curriculum and Instructional Studies, 6(12), 91–113. https://ijocis.epo-der.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/6_12_12_2016.pdf
  25. Kalaycı, Ş. (2006). SPSS applied multivariate statistical techniques. Asil.
  26. Keçeli, G. (2024). Secondary school mathematics teachers' awareness of the instructional program and their evaluations about the curriculum (Publication No. 864497) [Master’s thesis, Bartın University]. Council of Higher Education Thesis Center.
  27. Lyakhova, S., Joubert, M., Capraro, M. M., & Capraro, R. M. (2019). Designing a curriculum based on four purposes: Let mathematics speak for itself. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 51(4), 513–529. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220272.2019.1594389
  28. MoNE. (2018). Mathematics course curriculum (Primary and secondary school 1st–8th grades). https://ttkb.meb.gov.tr
  29. MoNE. (2024). Türkiye Century Education Model: Secondary school mathematics curriculum (5th, 6th, 7th and 8th grades). https://mufredat.meb.gov.tr
  30. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. Sage.
  31. OECD/G20 Base Erosion and Profit Shifting Project. (2015). Addressing the tax challenges of the digitalisation of the economy (Public consultation document). OECD Publishing.
  32. Ornstein, A. C., & Hunkins, F. P. (2016). Curriculum: Foundations, principles, and issues (A. Arı, Ed.). Eğitim.
  33. Ornstein, A. C., & Hunkins, F. P. (2018). Curriculum: Foundations, principles, and issues (7th ed.). Pearson Education.
  34. Özçelik, D. A. (2014). Eğitim programları ve öğretim. Pegem Akademi.
  35. Özdemir, S. M. (2009). Curriculum evaluation in education and examination of the curriculum evaluation studies in Turkey. Van Yüzüncü Yıl University Journal of Education, 6(2), 126–149. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/download/article-file/146317
  36. Özer, A. A., & Bal, A. P. (2024). An analysis of the 8th grade mathematics curriculum revised in 2018 according to the Eisner educational criticism model. Electronic Journal of Social Sciences, 23(91). https://doi.org/10.17755/esosder.1411019
  37. Remillard, J. T. (2005). Examining key concepts in research on teachers’ use of mathematics curricula. Review of Educational Research, 75(2), 211–246. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543075002211
  38. Sayın, A. (2019). Investigation of lower secondary school mathematics teachers' noticing about the current curriculum (Publication No. 602422) [Master’s thesis, Trabzon University]. Council of Higher Education Thesis Center.
  39. Schmidt, W. H., & Prawat, R. S. (2006). Curriculum coherence and national control of education: Issue or non-issue? Journal of Curriculum Studies, 38(6), 641–658. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220270600682804
  40. Sönmez, V. (2015). Program geliştirmede öğretmen el kitabı (18th ed.). Anı.
  41. Sönmez, V., & Alacapınar, F. G. (2015). Örnekleriyle eğitimde program değerlendirme. Anı.
  42. Şen, Ö. (2017). Comparison of Elementary School Mathematics Curricula: 2009-2013-2017. Current Research in Education, 3(3), 116–128. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/352292743_Matematik_dersi_ortaokul_ogretim_programlarinin_karsilastirilmasi
  43. Stufflebeam, D. L., & Shinkfield, A. J. (2007). Evaluation theory, models, and applications. Jossey-Bass.
  44. Susam, B., & Demir, M. K. (2020). Evaluation of classroom teachers' views on the change of curriculums. Journal of Education, Theory and Practical Research, 6(2), 245–267. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/download/article-file/1265413
  45. Şahan, H. H. (2007). Evaluation of third year mathematics program in elementary school (Publication No. 229042) [Doctoral dissertation, Hacettepe University]. Council of Higher Education Thesis Center.
  46. Şahan, H. H. (2014). Eğitimde program geliştirme & öğretim ilke ve yöntemleri (2nd ed.). Pegem Akademi.
  47. Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2001). Using multivariate statistics. Pearson.
  48. Tavşancıl, E., & Aslan, E. (2001). İçerik analizi ve uygulama örnekleri. Epsilon.
  49. 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
  50. Yenilmez, K., & Sölpük, N. (2014). The examınation of theses to relate with mathematics curriculum (2004-2013) Journal of Research in Education and Teaching, 3(2), 33–42. http://jret.org/FileUpload/ks281142/File/05.yenilmez.pdf
  51. Yıldırım, A., & Şimşek, H. (2006). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri. Seçkin.
  52. Demirel, Ö. (2017). Eğitimde program geliştirme. Pegem Akademi.
  53. Kürüm Yapıcıoğlu, D., Atik Kara, D., & Sever, D. (2016). Trends and problems in curriculum evaluation studies in Turkey: The perspective of domain experts. International Journal of Curriculum and Instructional Studies, 6(12), 91–113. https://ijocis.epo-der.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/6_12_12_2016.pdf
  54. Şen, Ö. (2017). Comparison of Elementary School Mathematics Curricula: 2009-2013-2017. Current Research in Education, 3(3), 116–128. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/352292743_Matematik_dersi_ortaokul_ogretim_programlarinin_karsilastirilmasi