KaydedilenlerDerginizi ekleyin

Dergiler / Anemon Muş Alparslan Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi / 2026 / Cilt: 14 Sayı: 1

Sosyal Bilgiler Öğretmenlerinin 2024 Sosyal Bilgiler Öğretim Programına İlişkin Görüşleri

Social Studies Teachers Perspectives Regarding the 2024 Social Studies Teaching Program

Özge Metin(GİRESUN ÜNİVERSİTESİ, EĞİTİM FAKÜLTESİ)0000-0003-3150-0967
Mehmet Yolalan(Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı)0009-0009-9225-617X
Hülya Yolalan(Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı)0009-0000-8429-8999
Sayfa
97–147
Yayın Tarihi
2026-04-30
🏛️Bu makalenin bibliyografik verileri ve tam metin bağlantısı DergiPark üzerinden sağlanmıştır.
DergiPark Kaydı ↗
✨

Yapay Zeka Hızlı Bakış & Çıkarımlar

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(1 Cümlede Hızlı Çıkarım)

Bu bulgular, programın teorik olarak sağlam bir temele sahip olmasına rağmen, uygulama aşamasında öğretmenlere daha fazla destek sağlanması ve okulların altyapılarının güçlendirilmesi gerektiğini ortaya koymaktadır.

📌 3 Maddede Bu Makale

🎯
Amaç & Hipotez:21. yüzyıldaki hızlı değişimler, eğitim sistemlerinin yalnızca bilgi aktarımına odaklanmakla kalmayıp bireyleri eleştirel düşünme, problem çözme ve toplumsal sorumluluk gibi becerilerle donatmasını zorunlu kılmaktadır.
📊
Temel Bulgular & Veri:Eğitim, küresel rekabet edebilirliği artırırken etik değerler ve kültürel kimliği korumayı hedefleyen stratejik bir alan olarak önem kazanmış, bu nedenle eğitim politikalarının ve öğretim programlarının yeniden yapılandırılması kritik hale gelmiştir.
💡
Sonuç & Katkı:Bu bulgular, programın teorik olarak sağlam bir temele sahip olmasına rağmen, uygulama aşamasında öğretmenlere daha fazla destek sağlanması ve okulların altyapılarının güçlendirilmesi gerektiğini ortaya koymaktadır.
🔬Tür:Modelleme & Sayısal Simülasyon
📍Kapsam:2024 Verileri
⚙️Değişkenler:Türkiye Yüzyılı Maarif Modeli · Sosyal Bilgiler · Öğretim Programı

Özet

21. yüzyıldaki hızlı değişimler, eğitim sistemlerinin yalnızca bilgi aktarımına odaklanmakla kalmayıp bireyleri eleştirel düşünme, problem çözme ve toplumsal sorumluluk gibi becerilerle donatmasını zorunlu kılmaktadır. Eğitim, küresel rekabet edebilirliği artırırken etik değerler ve kültürel kimliği korumayı hedefleyen stratejik bir alan olarak önem kazanmış, bu nedenle eğitim politikalarının ve öğretim programlarının yeniden yapılandırılması kritik hale gelmiştir. Bu bağlamda, Türkiye’de Sosyal Bilgiler Dersi Öğretim Programı, 2024 yılında Türkiye Yüzyılı Maarif Modeli (TYMM) çerçevesinde yeniden düzenlenmiştir. Bu araştırma, sosyal bilgiler öğretmenlerinin 2024 Sosyal Bilgiler Öğretim Programı hakkındaki görüşlerini incelemeyi amaçlamaktadır. Araştırma, 2024–2025 eğitim-öğretim yılında Türkiye’nin çeşitli illerinde görev yapan 12 sosyal bilgiler öğretmeni ile olgubilim deseni kullanılarak gerçekleştirilmiştir. Veri toplama sürecinde yarı yapılandırılmış görüşme formu aracılığıyla öğretmenlerin deneyimlerine dair ayrıntılı bilgiler elde edilmiştir. Elde edilen sonuçlara göre, TYMM kapsamında yenilenen Sosyal Bilgiler Öğretim Programı, öğrenci merkezli yaklaşımı, sadeleştirilmiş içeriği ve değerler eğitimine verdiği önemle öğretmenler tarafından genel olarak olumlu karşılanmıştır. Ancak programın uygulanması sırasında etkinliklerin yoğunluğu, ders sürelerinin yetersizliği, teknolojik altyapı eksiklikleri ve öğretmenlerin mesleki gelişim ihtiyaçları gibi pratik zorluklar, programın etkili bir şekilde uygulanmasını engellemektedir. Bu bulgular, programın teorik olarak sağlam bir temele sahip olmasına rağmen, uygulama aşamasında öğretmenlere daha fazla destek sağlanması ve okulların altyapılarının güçlendirilmesi gerektiğini ortaya koymaktadır.

Abstract

The rapid transformations of the 21st century require education systems to evolve beyond knowledge transmission, emphasizing critical thinking, problem-solving, and social responsibility. In Turkey, the Social Studies Curriculum was redesigned in 2024 under the Türkiye Yüzyılı Maarif Modeli (TYMM) to align with global competitiveness while safeguarding ethical values and cultural identity. This qualitative study examines teachers’ perceptions of the updated curriculum through a phenomenological approach, interviewing 12 Social Studies teachers across Turkey during the 2024–2025 academic year. Data collected via semi-structured interviews revealed that educators broadly approve of the curriculum’s student-centered methodology, condensed content, and strengthened values education. However, significant implementation challenges emerged, including overly dense activity schedules, inadequate class durations, technological infrastructure gaps, and insufficient teacher preparation for the new framework. The findings suggest that while the TYMM’s theoretical foundations are sound, its practical execution requires systemic improvements: enhanced logistical support for teachers, upgraded school resources (particularly digital tools), and ongoing professional development programs tailored to the curriculum’s demands. Addressing these issues is vital to ensure the program’s efficacy and sustainability. The study underscores that curriculum reform must be accompanied by tangible investments in teacher capacity and institutional infrastructure to achieve its intended outcomes.

🔖

Bu Makaleye Atıf Yap

Metin, Ö., Yolalan, M., Yolalan, H. (2026). Sosyal Bilgiler Öğretmenlerinin 2024 Sosyal Bilgiler Öğretim Programına İlişkin Görüşleri. Anemon Muş Alparslan Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, Cilt: 14 Sayı: 1, 97–147. https://doi.org/10.18506/anemon.1695406

📄 Tam Metin PDF Okuyucu

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

Kaynakça (71)

  1. Altunöz, S. (2008). Teachers’ and supervisors’ views on the 6th grade social studies curriculum: The case of Bolu province [Unpublished master’s thesis]. Gazi University.
  2. Akarsu, A. H., Yılmazer, A., & Geçit, Y. (2020). The structure of social studies teacher education programs: A comparison of the 2006–2018 curricula. Mehmet Akif Ersoy University Journal of Education Faculty, (56), 23-60.
  3. Akdağ, H. (2009). Evaluation of the 6th and 7th grade social studies curriculum according to students’ views: The case of Konya province. Selçuk University Journal of Social Sciences Institute, (21), 1-14.
  4. Akpınar, B., & Aydemir, H. (2012). Evaluation of the 7th grade social studies curriculum according to teachers’ views. Amasya University Journal of Education Faculty, 1(1), 41-53. Alp, İ. (2021). Development of a virtual reality application for social studies teaching [Unpublished master’s thesis]. Dokuz Eylül University.
  5. Ayka, N. (2007). Teachers’ views on the elementary social studies curriculum. Electronic Journal of Social Sciences, 6(22), 46-73.
  6. Bahattin Acat, M., & Uzunkol, E. D. (2010). Classroom teachers’ views on assessment processes in elementary curricula. Electronic Journal of Social Sciences, 9(31), 1-27.
  7. Balcı, A., & Yelken, T. (2013). Teachers’ views on values and values education practices in the elementary social studies curriculum. Ahi Evran University Journal of Kırşehir Education Faculty, 14(1), 195-213.
  8. Baş, M. (2017). Comparison of the 2009, 2015, and 2017 elementary mathematics curricula. Van Yüzüncü Yıl University Journal of Education Faculty, 14(1), 1219-1258.
  9. Bulut, İ., & Arslan, S. (2010, November). Evaluation of the effectiveness of the 6th grade social studies curriculum in practice. In International Conference on New Trends in Education and Their Implications (pp. 367-379).
  10. Can, B. (2019). An examination of the 2005 and 2018 social studies curricula [Unpublished master’s thesis]. Balıkesir University.
  11. Coşkun, A. (2007). A qualitative study on teachers’ views regarding the social studies curriculum in 4th and 5th grades (Ankara case) [Unpublished master’s thesis]. Başkent University.
  12. Çalişkan, U. (2014). Evaluation of the 5th grade social studies curriculum according to teachers’ views [Unpublished master’s thesis]. Abant İzzet Baysal University.
  13. Çakmak, Z., & Yiğen, V. (2023). Social studies teachers’ perspectives on the high school entrance examination: The case of the Turkish Republic history of revolution and Kemalism course. Journal of Innovative Research in Social Studies, 6(1), 19-36.
  14. Çatak, M. (2015). An examination of social studies education curricula in Turkey. EKEV Academy Journal, (62), 69-94.
  15. Çelikkaya, T. (2011). The level of acquiring skills included in the social studies curriculum: Teachers’ views. Kastamonu Education Journal, 19(3), 969-990.
  16. Çelikkaya, T., & Kürümlüoğlu, M. (2018). Teachers’ views on the renewed social studies curriculum. International Journal of Turkish Educational Sciences, (11), 104-120.
  17. Çiftçi, B., & Akça, D. (2005). Comparison of geographic skills and learning outcomes in the 2005 and 2018 social studies curricula. Journal of New Approaches in Education, 2(1), 33-59.
  18. Çiğdem, K. A. N. (2010). The historical development of social studies in the United States and Turkey. Gazi University Journal of Gazi Education Faculty, 30(2).
  19. Çiydem, E., & Kaymakcı, S. (2023). Understanding a new course during the transition from village institutes to teacher schools: An analysis of the 1953 social studies curriculum. Vakanüvis: International Journal of Historical Research, 8(1), 321-370.
  20. Çoban, O., & Akşit, İ. (2018). Comparison of the 2005 and 2017 social studies curricula in terms of learning areas, outcomes, concepts, values, and skills. Journal of History, Culture and Art Research, 7(1).
  21. Çopur, A., & Seyhan, C. (2022). Examination of the 2018 social studies curriculum’s compliance with the spiral curriculum model at the learning outcome level. Uludağ University Journal of Education Faculty, 35(3), 722-740.
  22. Darling-Hammond, L., & Richardson, N. (2009). Teacher learning: What matters? Educational Leadership, 66(5), 46-53.
  23. Demir, M. K. (2006). An investigation of 4th and 5th grade students’ critical thinking levels in social studies courses. Gazi University Journal of Education Faculty, 26(3), 155-170.
  24. Dinç, E., & Doğan, Y. (2010). Teachers’ views on the lower secondary social studies curriculum and its implementation. Journal of Social Studies Education Research, 1(1), 17-49.
  25. Doğan Çeken, Y. (2006). Globalization and education policies in Turkey: An analysis of the new elementary social studies curriculum [Unpublished master’s thesis]. Ege University.
  26. Doğan, D. (2016). Evaluation of teachers’ views on the 6th and 7th grade social studies curriculum (Balıkesir case) [Unpublished master’s thesis]. Balıkesir University.
  27. Doğanay, A., & Sarı, M. (2008). The new social studies curriculum through teachers’ eyes: A study in Adana. Elementary Education Online, 7(2), 468-484.
  28. Dolmaz, M. & İlhan, G. O. (2020). Trends of graduate theses with the subject of education and training conducted on creativity. World Journal of Education, 10(5), 61-79. https://doi.org/10.5430/wje.v10n5p61
  29. Dolmaz, M., & Metin, Ö. (2024). What has been done on creative drama in the field of social studies? a content analysis. Creative Drama Journal, 19(1), 32-58. https://doi.org/10.21612/yader.2024.002
  30. Ece, B. (2007). Evaluation of the 2005 primary-level social studies curriculum according to teachers’ views [Unpublished master’s thesis]. Afyonkarahisar Kocatepe University.
  31. Erköse, E. (2007). Evaluation of the renewed 6th grade social studies curriculum according to teachers’ views (Sakarya case) [Unpublished master’s thesis]. Sakarya University.
  32. Ersoy, A. F., & Kaya, E. (2009). Students’ views on the implementation process of the 2004 social studies curriculum. Kastamonu Education Journal, 17(1), 71-86.
  33. Ersoy, F. G. (2009). Evaluations regarding the implementation of the new elementary social studies curriculum (Konya case) [Unpublished master’s thesis]. Selçuk University.
  34. Esemen, A. (2020). Universal values in the learning outcomes of the 2018 social studies curriculum. National Education Academy Journal, 4(2), 89-109.
  35. Fullan, M. (2016). The new meaning of educational change. Teachers College Press.
  36. Gömleksiz, M. N., & Bulut, İ. (2006). Evaluation of the effectiveness of the new social studies curriculum in practice. Educational Administration: Theory and Practice, (47), 393-421.
  37. Guskey, T. R. (2002). Professional development and teacher change. Teachers and Teaching, 8(3), 381-391.
  38. Kabapınar, Y. (2010). Teachers’ views on assessment and evaluation methods in elementary social studies curricula (Grades 4-5). Elementary Education Online, 9(2), 776-791.
  39. Kalaycı, N., & Baysal, S. B. (2020). A comparative analysis of social studies curricula (2005–2017–2018). Afyon Kocatepe University Journal of Social Sciences, 22(1), 106-129.
  40. Kirtay, A. (2007). Problems encountered in the implementation of the 4th and 5th grade social studies curriculum and proposed solutions (Kars case) [Unpublished master’s thesis]. Kafkas University.
  41. Kılıç Şahin, H. (2010). Teachers’ views on teaching values in elementary social studies curricula [Unpublished master’s thesis]. Gazi University.
  42. Koçoğlu, E., & Aydın, M. (2017). Analysis of the 2017 social studies curriculum within the framework of the 2005 curriculum according to field experts. International Journal of Social Science Research, 6(1), 61-74.
  43. Korkmaz, S., & Uyğur, A. (2021). Instructional tools used in teaching geography topics in social studies curricula from the Republic period to the present. Journal of Innovative Research in Social Studies, 4(1), 34-47.
  44. Koyuncu, B. (2015). An examination of social studies curricula from the Republic period to the present [Unpublished master’s thesis]. Kilis 7 Aralık University.
  45. MEB. (2024). Social studies curriculum (Grades 4-8): Turkey century education model. Ministry of National Education.
  46. Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation (4th ed.). Jossey-Bass.
  47. Ocak, G., & Kocaman, B. (2018). Evaluation of the 2018 5th grade social studies curriculum. International Journal of Field Education, 7(1), 1-24.
  48. Önger, S., & Duman, S. N. (2024). Comparison of the 2018, 2023, and 2024 social studies curricula. Western Anatolia Journal of Educational Sciences, 15(2), 1308-1339.
  49. Önlen, M., Tatan, M., & İbret, B. Ü. (2005). Comparative analysis of the 2005–2018 social studies curriculum outcomes for grades 5, 6, and 7 according to the revised Bloom’s taxonomy. Journal of Turkish Scientific Research, 5(1), 1-13.
  50. Özlek, G. (2019). Determining social studies teachers’ views on teaching intangible cultural heritage [Unpublished master’s thesis]. Aksaray University.
  51. Öztürk, C., & Deveci, H. (2011). Evaluation of social studies curricula in different countries. In Social studies curricula in different countries (pp. 1-40).
  52. Öztürk, C., & Kafadar, T. (2018). Evaluation of the 2018 social studies curriculum. Trakya Journal of Education, 10(1), 112-126.
  53. Sağlam, E. (2014). Evaluation of teachers’ views on the 5th grade social studies curriculum [Unpublished master’s thesis]. Erzincan University.
  54. Sarı, M. H., & Tertemiz, N. (2017). The effect of geometry activities structured according to Dienes’ principles on 4th grade students’ achievement and retention. Education and Science, 42(190).
  55. Sönmez, V., & Alacapınar, F. G. (2013). Illustrated scientific research methods. Anı Publishing. Şen, A. (2019). Change and continuity in citizenship education: What kind of citizenship education does the 2018 social studies curriculum propose? Journal of Qualitative Research in Education, 7(1), 1-28.
  56. Tarman, B., Ergür, Ş., & Eryıldız, F. (2012). An evaluation of the renewed social studies curriculum. Gaziantep University Journal of Social Sciences, 11(1), 103-135.
  57. Taş, A. M. (2007). Determination of teachers’ views on new social studies textbooks. Selçuk University Journal of Social Sciences Institute, (17), 519-532.
  58. Taş, H., & Kıroğlu, K. (2017). Evaluation of the elementary social studies curriculum according to teachers’ views. Elementary Education Online, 17(2), 697-716.
  59. Tay, B. (2017). Comparison of the 2005 social studies curriculum and the 2017 draft social studies curriculum. International Journal of Eurasian Social Sciences, 8(27).
  60. Tonga, D., & Erdoğan, E. (2023). The relationship between learning outcomes, values, and skills in the 2018 social studies curriculum. The Journal of International Educational Sciences, 9(30), 58-84.
  61. Turan, S., & Avcı, E. K. (2018). Examination of the 2018 social studies curriculum in the context of digital citizenship. Journal of Education and New Approaches, 1(1), 28-38.
  62. Uygun, K., & Akgül, G. (2024). Social studies teachers’ views on the Turkey century education model. Dumlupınar University Journal of Educational Sciences, 8(2), 81-102.
  63. Yalçın, A., & Akhan, N. E. (2019). Examination of social studies curricula from the Republic period to the present according to social studies teaching approaches. Journal of Theoretical Educational Science, 12(3), 842-873.
  64. Yapıcı, M., & Demirdelen, C. (2007). Teachers’ views on the 4th grade social studies curriculum. Elementary Education Online, 6(2), 204-212.
  65. Yaşar, Ş. (2005). Social studies curriculum and instruction. In Symposium on the Evaluation of New Elementary Education Curricula (pp. 329-342).
  66. Yazar, O. (2008). An examination of teachers’ views on the 4th and 5th grade social studies curriculum [Unpublished master’s thesis]. Atatürk University.
  67. Yıldırım, D., & Çetin, T. (2022). The place of tourism in social studies curricula in the historical process. Ahi Evran University Journal of Social Sciences Institute, 8(3), 926-939.
  68. Yıldırım, A., & Şimşek, H. (2016). Qualitative research methods in the social sciences (10th ed.). Seçkin Publishing.
  69. Yıldırım, Y., & Çalışkan, H. (2022). Values and values education in social studies curricula. In Social studies curricula in Turkey (pp. 281-326).
  70. Yıldırım, Y., & Çalışkan, A. (2024). A comparative analysis of the 2024 social studies curriculum with the 2005, 2015, and 2018 curricula. International Journal of Western Black Sea Social and Humanities Sciences, 8(1), 108-142.
  71. Yıldız, V. A. (2018). Teachers’ views on social studies curricula: A meta-synthesis study. Atatürk University Journal of Social Sciences Institute, 22(Special Issue 2), 2115-2127.