Anadolu Türk Eğitim Dergisi
ISSN (Online): 2687-5314

Araştırma Makalesi    |    Açık Erişim
Anadolu Türk Eğitim Dergisi 2026, Clt. 8(1) 112-138

The Opinions of The Classroom Teacher Candidates on The 2024 Primary School Math Course Curriculum

Emine Gözel

ss. 112 - 138   |  DOI: https://doi.org/10.29329/ated.2026.1415.7

Yayın Tarihi: Haziran 29, 2026  |   Görüntüleme Sayısı: 6/5   |   İndirilme Sayısı: 8/9

PDF İndir Download PDF

Özet

The purpose of this research is to evaluate the opinions of classroom teacher candidates on the 2024 primary school first grade math course. The study group of the research consists of the 39 volunteering class teachers, in the senior year of Classroom Education Program, Faculty of Education, Kahramanmaraş Sütçü İmam University. In this research, prepared with the qualitative research pattern, an interview form was used, that is semi-structured, consisting of open-ended questions, as the data gathering tool. The data of the research obtained was analyzed via content analysis. According to the results of the research, the classroom teacher candidates stated positive opinion in general related with the 2024 primary school grade one math course curriculum. However, the classroom teacher candidates voiced as a negative opinion at most that the learning outputs are detailed and complex, the activities related with the content are inadequate, the applicability of the skills is low, and the differentiating activities are not quite applied in the classrooms. Furthermore, the classroom teacher candidates stated that some concrete materials, games and measurement and evaluation activities in the curriculum are not completely reflected in the related course books.

Anahtar kelimeler: Math teaching, curriculum, classroom teacher candidate, content analysis

Bu makaleye nasıl atıf yapılır

APA 7th edition
Gozel, E. (2026). The Opinions of The Classroom Teacher Candidates on The 2024 Primary School Math Course Curriculum. Anadolu Türk Eğitim Dergisi, 8(1), 112-138. https://doi.org/10.29329/ated.2026.1415.7

Harvard
Gozel, E. (2026). The Opinions of The Classroom Teacher Candidates on The 2024 Primary School Math Course Curriculum. Anadolu Türk Eğitim Dergisi, 8(1), pp. 112-138.

Chicago 16th edition
Gozel, Emine (2026). "The Opinions of The Classroom Teacher Candidates on The 2024 Primary School Math Course Curriculum". Anadolu Türk Eğitim Dergisi 8 (1):112-138. https://doi.org/10.29329/ated.2026.1415.7

Kaynakça
  1. Açıkgöz, G., & Özmen, E. R. (2024). Öğrenme güçlüğü risk grubunda olan ana sınıfı çocuklarının özelliklerinin aile ve öğretmen görüşlerine göre belirlenmesi [Determination of the Traits of the Children who are in the Learning Disability risk group per family and teacher opinions]. International Journal of Education Technology and Scientific Researches, 9(28), 575-593. http://dx.doi.org/10.35826/ijetsar.743 [Google Scholar]
  2. Akkuş-Sevigen, F. (2013). Oyun temelli matematik eğitim programının çocuğun matematik gelişimine etkisinin incelenmesi [Evaluation of the effect of game based math curriculum on the development of math]. Yüksek lisans tezi (Postgraduate thesis], Gazi Üniversitesi (Postgraduate thesis), Turkey. [Google Scholar]
  3. Akpınar, B., Özer, B., Oral, B., & Köksalan, B. (2024). Türkiye Yüzyılı Maarif Modelinin program geliştirme ve felsefi düzlemden analizi [Analysis of the Turkish Century Education Model from a curriculum development and philosophical plane]. EKEV Akademi Dergisi (EKEV Academic Journal), 99, 59-73. https://doi.org/10.17753/sosekev.1489135 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  4. Aktan, O. (2020). İlkokul matematik öğretim programı dersi kazanımlarının yenilenen Bloom taksonomisine göre incelenmesi [Investigation of primary school mathematics curriculum lesson acquisitions according to renewed Bloom Taxonomy ]. Pamukkale Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi (Pamukkale University Journal of Education), 48, 15-36. doi: 10.9779/pauefd.523545 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  5. Altun, A. (2005). Gelişen teknolojiler ve yeni okuryazarlıklar [Developing Technologies and new literacies]. Anı Yayıncılık. [Google Scholar]
  6. Anderson, L. W. (2005). Objectives, evaluation, and the improvement of education. Studies in educational evaluation, 31(2-3), 102-113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2005.05.004 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  7. Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom's taxonomy of educational objectives: Complete edition. Addison Wesley Longman, Inc. [Google Scholar]
  8. Arslan, S. (2020). Yeni ilköğretim matematik dersi öğretim programının gerçekleşmesine ilişkin öğretmen görüşleri [Teachers’ opinions on performing the new primary school math course curriculum]. International Social Sciences Studies Journal, 6(60), 1553-1562. http://dx.doi.org/10.26449/sssj.2272 [Google Scholar]
  9. Arslan, S., & Özpınar, İ. (2009). İlköğretim 6. sınıf matematik ders kitaplarının öğretmen görüşleri doğrultusunda değerlendirilmesi [Evaluation of the primary school 6th grade math course books according to the opinions of the teachers]. Dicle Üniversitesi Ziya Gökalp Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi (Dicle University Ziya Gökalp Education Faculty Journal), 12, 97–11. Retrieved from https://dergipark.org.tr/en/download/article-file/787134 [Google Scholar]
  10. Avcı, A. (2020). Matematik öğrenme güçlüğü yaşayan ilkokul öğrencilerine yönelik öğretim uygulamalarının değerlendirilmesi [Evaluation of the educational applications for the first school students experiencing math learning disability]. Yüksek lisans tezi (Postgraduate thesis), Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi (Dokuz Eylül University), Turkey. [Google Scholar]
  11. Bal, P. (2008). Yeni ilköğretim matematik öğretim programının öğretmen görüşleri açısından değerlendirilmesi [Evaluation of new primary school math curriculum with respect to teachers’ opinions]. Çukurova Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi (Cukurova University Institute of Social Sciences Journal), 17(1), 53-68. Retrieved from https://dergipark.org.tr/en/download/article-file/50411 [Google Scholar]
  12. Bates, A. W. (2002). Managing technological change: Strategies for college and universities. CA: Jassey Bass. [Google Scholar]
  13. Bayar, M. (2023). Sınıf öğretmenlerinin ilkokul matematik programını uygularlarken karşılaştıkları sorunlar ve çözüm önerileri [Problems faced by classroom teachers when applying primary school math curriculum and the solutions proposed]. Uluslararası Sosyal Bilimlerde Mükemmellik Arayışı Dergisi (International Search for Perfection in Social Sciences Magazine), 5, 44-54. Retrieved from https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/download/article-file/3616244 [Google Scholar]
  14. Berg, B. L., & Lune, H. (2015). Qualitative research methods in social sciences. (Trans. Aydın H.). Eğitim Yayınevi. [Google Scholar]
  15. Bloom, B. S. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals. Handbook I: Cognitive Domain. New York: David McKay Company. [Google Scholar]
  16. Bol, L. (2004). Teachers' assessment practices in a high-stakes testing environment. Teacher Education and Practice, 17(2), 162-181. [Google Scholar]
  17. Bol, L., Ross, M., Nunnery, J., & Alberg, M. (2002). A Comparison of teachers' assessment practices in school restructuring models by year of implementation. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk (JESPAR), 7(4), 407-423. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327671ESPR0704_3 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  18. Boran, A. İ., & Aslaner, R. (2008). Bilim ve sanat merkezlerinde matematik öğretiminde probleme dayalı öğrenme [Problem based learning in the mathematic education in science and art centers]. İnönü Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi (Inonu University Faculty of Education Journal), 9(15), 15-32. Retrieved from https://dergipark.org.tr/en/download/article-file/92327 [Google Scholar]
  19. Bottino, R. M., & Ott, M. (2006). Mind games, reasoning skills and the primary school curriculum: Hints from a field experiment. Learning Media & Technology, 31(4), 359375. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17439880601022981. [Google Scholar]
  20. Bowen, G. A. (2009). Document analysis as a qualitative research method. Qualitative Research Journal, 9(2), 27-40. https://doi.org/10.3316/QRJ0902027 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  21. Braun, H. (2016). Meeting the challenges to measurement in an era of accountability. (p. 436) Taylor & Francis. [Google Scholar]
  22. Bulut, S., & Boz-Yaman, B., & Yavuz, F. D. (2016). 7. sınıf matematik ders kitaplarında dönüşüm geometrisi işlenişinin öğretim programları açısından değerlendirilmesi [Evaluation of teaching of transformation geometry in the 7th grade math course books with respect to the curriculums]. İlköğretim Online (Primary School Online), 15(4), 1164-1190. http://dx.doi.org/10.17051/io.2016.86316 [Google Scholar]
  23. Butterworth, B. (2003). Dyscalculia screener: Highlighting pupils with specifics learning difficulties in maths, age 6-14 years. London: NFER-Nelson. [Google Scholar]
  24. Cacicio, S., Cote, P., & Bigger, K. (2023). Investing in multiple literacies for individual and collective empowerment. [White Paper]. The Adult Literacy and Learning Impact Network. https://allinliteracy.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/Investing-in-Multiple-Literacies-forIndividual-and-Collective-Empowerment.pdf [Google Scholar]
  25. Chapman, O. (2012). Challenges in mathematics teacher education. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 15(4), 263-270. DOI 10.1007/s10857-012-9223-2 [Google Scholar]
  26. Cırık, İ., Genç, E., Demirel, E., & Yılmaz, M. İ. (2023). K12 beceriler çerçevesi öğretim tasarımı modeli: Anahtar ögeler [K 12 skills framework education design: Key factors]. Millî Eğitim (National Education), 52, 997-1026. https://doi.org/10.37669/milliegitim.1307715 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  27. Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2007). Research methods in education (5th Ed.). London and New York: Routledge Falmer. [Google Scholar]
  28. Cortiella, C., & Horowitz, S. H. (2014). The state of learning disabilities: Facts, trends and emerging issues. New York: National center for learning disabilities, 25(3), 2-45. [Google Scholar]
  29. Creswell, J. W. (2018). Qualitative research methods – qualitative research and research pattern per five approaches (M. Bütün ve S. B. Demir, Trans. Ed). Siyasal Kitapevi. [Google Scholar]
  30. Çakır, S., & Kılınç, H. H. (2016). İlkokul 4. sınıf matematik dersi programına ilişkin öğretmenlerin görüşleri [Opinions of the teachers on the primary school grade 4 math curriculum]. Mehmet Akif Ersoy Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi (Mehmet Akif Ersoy University Faculty of Education Journal), 1(39), 112-124. https://doi.org/10.21764/efd.97596 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  31. Çetin, D. (2010). İlköğretim 1. sınıf matematik programına yönelik öğretmen görüşleri [Opinions of Teachers for primary school grade 1 math curriculum]. Yüksek lisans tezi (Postgraduate thesis), Adnan Menderes Üniversitesi (Adnan Menderes University), Turkey. [Google Scholar]
  32. Dai, A. (2019). İlkokul matematik dersi öğretim programında önerilen ölçme ve değerlendirme araçlarına ilişkin sınıf öğretmenlerinin görüşleri (Afyonkarahisar il örneklemi) [Opinions of classroom teachers on the measurement and evaluation tools recommended in the primary school math course curriculum (Afyonkarahisar Province sample)]. Yüksek lisans tezi (Postgraduate thesis), Afyon Kocatepe Üniversitesi (Afyon Kocatepe University), Turkey. [Google Scholar]
  33. Dede, S. Ç., & Arslan, S. (2019). Türkiye’de 2002-2018 yılları arasında matematik ders kitapları üzerine yapılmış tezlerin ve makalelerin analizi [Analysis of the thesis and assays made on the math course books between 2002-2018 in Turkey]. Necatibey Faculty of Education Electronic Journal of Science and Mathematics Education (Necatibey Faculty of Education Electronic Journal of Science and Mathematics Education), 13(1), 176-195. Doi: 10.17522/balikesirnef.546301 [Google Scholar]
  34. Demeuse, M., & Strauven, C. (2016). Curriculum development in education, from political decisions to application (Y. Budak, Trans.) Pegem. [Google Scholar]
  35. Demirel, Ö. (2012). Kuramdan uygulamaya eğitimde program geliştirme [Curriculum development in education from theory to application]. (19. Baskı). PegemA yayıncılık. [Google Scholar]
  36. Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1998). Collecting and interpreting qualitative materials. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. [Google Scholar]
  37. Duru, A., & Korkmaz, H. (2010). Öğretmenlerin yeni matematik programı hakkındaki görüşleri ve program değişim sürecinde karşılaşılan zorluklar [Opinions of the teachers on the new math curriculum and the difficulties they face in the curriculum change]. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi (Hacettepe University Faculty of Education Journal), 38, 67-81. Retrieved from https://dergipark.org.tr/en/download/article-file/87441 [Google Scholar]
  38. Durualp, E., & Aral, N. (2010). Altı yaşındaki çocukların sosyal becerilerine oyun temelli sosyal beceri eğitiminin etkisinin incelenmesi [Evaluation of the effect of game based social skill education to the social skills of six year old children]. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi (Hacettepe University Faculty of Education Journal), 39(39), 160-172. Retrieved from https://dergipark.org.tr/en/download/article-file/87465 [Google Scholar]
  39. Duyul, S., Duyul, Y., Kesman, M., & Kesman, M. (2025). Türkiye Yüzyılı Maarif Modeli Konusunda Öğretmen Görüşleri [Opinions of teachers on the Turkish Century Education Model]. Ulusal Eğitim Dergisi (National Education Journal), 5(3), 20262-20262. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.15002346 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  40. English, L. D., & Watson, J. M. (2015). Statistical literacy in the elementary school: Opportunities for problem posing. In Mathal problem posing: from research to effective practice (pp. 241-256). New York, NY: Springer New York. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-6258-3_11 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  41. Erdoğan, F., Hamurcu, H., & Yeşiloğlu, A. (2016). Türkiye, Singapur TIMSS 2011 sonuçlarının matematik programı açısından değerlendirilmesi [Evaluation of Turkish Singapore TIMSS 2011 results with respect to math curriculum]. Cumhuriyet International Journal of Education (Cumhuriyet International Journal of Education), 5(5), 31-43. Retrieved from https://dergipark.org.tr/en/download/article-file/314349 [Google Scholar]
  42. Ersoy, Y. (2006). İlköğretim matematik öğretim programındaki yenilikler-I: Amaç, içerik ve kazanımlar [Innovations in the primary school math curriculum -I: Purpose, content and gains]. İlköğretim online (Primary School online), 5(1), 30-44. Retrieved from https://dergipark.org.tr/en/download/article-file/91060 [Google Scholar]
  43. Faiz, M., & Avcı, E. K. (2018). 4. ve 5. sınıf sosyal bilgiler ders kitapları “etkin vatandaşlık” öğrenme alanında yer alan becerilerin ve değerlerin incelenmesi [Evaluation of skills and values included in the “active citizenship” learning field of the social sciences course books of grades 4 and 5.]. International Journal of New Approaches in Social Studies (International Journal of New Approaches in Social Studies), 2(1), 1-21. Retrieved from https://dergipark.org.tr/en/download/article-file/503075 [Google Scholar]
  44. Felton, R. H. (1992). Early identification of children at risk for reading disabilities. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 12(2), 212-229. https://doi.org/10.1177/027112149201200206 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  45. Fırat, T., & Erdem, E. (2019). Matematik öğrenmede güçlük yaşayan ı̇lkokul öğrencilerinin 1. ve 4.sınıftaki süreçlerine ı̇lişkin sınıf öğretmenlerinin görüşleri [Opinions of classroom teachers on the progresses in the grade 1 and 4 of the primary school students experiencing math learning disability]. Erzincan Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi (Erzincan University Faculty of Education Journal), 22(1), 66-86. https://doi: 10.17556/erziefd.504004 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  46. Fı̇lı̇z, T. (2021). Matematik öğrenme güçlüğü yaşayan öğrencilere yönelik öğretimsel müdahalelerin öğrencilerin akademik başarılarına etkisinin incelenmesi [Opinions of educational interventions for the students experiencing math learning disability on their academic successes]. Ankara Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Fakültesi Özel Eğitim Dergisi (Ankara University Faculty of Educational Sciences Special Education Journal), 22(4), 1025-1055. https://doi.org/10.21565/ozelegitimdergisi.713496 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  47. Fortus, D., & Krajcik, J. (2011). Curriculum coherence and learning progressions. In Second international handbook of science education (pp. 783-798). Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands. [Google Scholar]
  48. Frith, V., & Prince, R. (2006). Reflections on the role of a research task for teacher education in data handling in a Mathematical Literacy education course. Pythagoras, 12(1), 52-61. [Google Scholar]
  49. Garcia, J., & Dolores, C. (2017). Intra-mathematical connections made by high school students in performing calculus tasks. International Journal of Mathematical Education, 49(2), 227-252. [Google Scholar]
  50. Garris, R., Ahlers, R., & Driskell, J. E. (2017). Games, motivation, and learning: A research and practice model. In Simulation in aviation training (pp. 475-501). Routledge. [Google Scholar]
  51. Gedik, H., & Açıl, F. (2020). 21. yüzyılda sosyal bilgiler için farklı okuryazarlıklara bakış [Approach to different literacies for social sciences in 21st century]. N. E. Akhan ve S. Demirezen (Ed.), Sosyal Bilgiler Öğretiminde Alternatif Konular (Alternative topics in social science education) (137-176). Nobel Yayıncılık. [Google Scholar]
  52. Gezgin, İ. (2020). İlkokul 1. sınıf matematik dersi öğretim programı ve uygulanması üzerine bir inceleme [An evaluation on the primary school grade 1 math course curriculum and its application]. Yüksek lisans tezi (Postgraduate thesis), Çukurova Üniversitesi (Çukurova University), Turkey. [Google Scholar]
  53. Gipps, C., & Stobart, G. (2003). Alternative assessment. In International handbook of educational evaluation (pp. 549-575). Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands. [Google Scholar]
  54. Glencross, M. J., & Oliver, J. (1994). An analysis of teachers' opinions of a senior primary math syllabus. Psychological Reports, 75(3), 1347-1353. https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.1994.75.3.1347 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  55. Guidelines for assessment and instruction in statistics education [GAISE] (2005). A curriculum framework for PreK–12 statistics education. The American Statistical Association (ASA). [Google Scholar]
  56. Guo, Q., Wu, D., Zhu, S., & Yang, H. H. (2025). Using a digital game to assess middle school students’ information literacy: An evidence-centered game design approach. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 41(12), 7463-7481. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2024.2398910 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  57. Güneş, İ., Dursun, F., & Alcı, B. (2025). Türkiye Yüzyılı Maarif Modeli ortaokul matematik dersi öğretim programında ölçme ve değerlendirme yaklaşımının analizi [Analysis of measurement and evaluation approach in the Turkish Century Education Model medium school math course curriculum]. İstanbul Eğitim Dergisi (Istanbul Education Journal), (2), 132-159. https://doi.org/10.71270/istanbulegitim.istj.1648231 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  58. Güzel, Ü., Bakır, A., & Yılmaz, S. (2023). Temel eğitimde matematik dersi öğretim programına yönelik öğretmen görüşlerinin belirlenmesi [Determination of the teachers’ opinion for the math course curriculum in the basic education]. International Academic Social Resources Journal, 8(47), 2355-2364. http://dx.doi.org/10.29228/ASRJOU RNAL.68572 [Google Scholar]
  59. Halat, E. (2007). Yeni ilköğretim matematik programı (1-5) ile ilgili sınıf öğretmenlerinin görüşleri [Opinions of classroom teachers related with the new primary school math curriculum (1-5)]. Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi (Social Sciences Journal), 9(1), 63-88. Retrieved from https://www.ajindex.com/dosyalar/makale/acarindex-1423867251.pdf [Google Scholar]
  60. Henniger, M. L. (1987). Learning math and science through play. Childhood education, 63(3), 167-171. https://doi.org/10.1080/00094056.1987.10520781 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  61. Hesapçıoğlu, M. (1998). Öğretim ilke ve yöntemleri [Education principles and methods]. Beta Yayınları. [Google Scholar]
  62. İşeri, A. (2019). Uluslararası PISA yeterlikleri ve Türkiye öğretim programları kazanımları [International PISA competences and Turkish curriculum gains]. Mersin Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi (Mersin University Education Faculty Journal), 15(2), 392-418. https://doi.org/10.17860/mersinefd.537194 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  63. Jenkins, J. R., & O'Connor, R. E. (2002). Early identification and intervention for young children with reading/learning disabilities. In Identification of learning disabilities (pp. 99-149). Routledge. [Google Scholar]
  64. Kabakçı, Ö. F., & Totan, T. (2013). Sosyal ve duygusal öğrenme becerilerinin çok boyutlu yaşam doyumuna ve umuda etkisi [The effect of the social and emotional learning skills on the multidimensional life satisfaction and hope]. Kuramsal Eğitimbilim Dergisi (Theoretical Pedagogy Journal), 6(1), 40-61. [Google Scholar]
  65. Kablan, Z., Baran, T., & Hazer, Ö. (2013). İlköğretim matematik 6-8 öğretim programında hedeflenen davranışların bilişsel süreçler açısından incelenmesi [Evaluation of the behaviors aimed in the primary school math 6-8 curriculums with respect to cognitive processes]. Ahi Evran Üniversitesi Kırşehir Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi [ (Ahi Evran University Kırşehir Education Faculty Journal (KEFAD)], 14(1), 347-366. Retrieved from https://dergipark.org.tr/en/download/article-file/1490671 [Google Scholar]
  66. Kaçar, H. (2018). İlkokul öğrencilerinin matematik öğrenme güçlüğünün sınıf öğretmenlerinin gözlem ve deneyimlerine göre incelenmesi [Assessment of the math learning disability of the primary school students per the observations and experiences of the class teachers]. Yüksek lisans tezi (Postgraduate thesis), Necmettin Erbakan Üniversitesi (Necmettin Erbakan University), Turkey. [Google Scholar]
  67. Kaiser, G., & Willander, T. (2005). Development of mathematical literacy: Results of an empirical study. Teaching mathematics and its applications, 24(2-3), 48-60. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1093/teamat/hri016 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  68. Karaduman, G. B. (2010). Üstün yetenekli öğrenciler için uygulanan farklılaştırılmış matematik eğitim programları [Differentiated math education curriculums applied for gifted students]. HAYEF Journal of Education, 7(1), 1-12. [Google Scholar]
  69. Katz, L. G. (1993). Dispositions: Definitions and implications for early childhood practices. Perspectives from ERIC/EECE: A Monograph Series, No. 4. [Google Scholar]
  70. Kember, D., & McNaught, C. (2007). Enhancing university teaching: Lessons from research into award-winning teachers. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203962947 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  71. Kılınç, M. B., & Anılan, H. (2019). Birinci sınıf öğretmenlerinin birinci sınıf matematik dersi öğretim programına ilişkin görüşlerinin incelenmesi [Evaluation of the opinions of the first grade classroom teachers on the first grade math course curriculum]. Eskişehir Osmangazi Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi (Eskisehir Osmangazi University Social Sciences Journal), 20, 1033-1061. https://doi.org/10.17494/ogusbd.555117 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  72. Kılınç, Ş. (2025). İlköğretim öğrencilerinin okuryazarlık becerilerinin ölçülmesi: Sistematik inceleme [Measuring the literacy skills of the primary school students: A systematic research]. Milli Eğitim Dergisi (National Education), 54(246), 1147-1196. DOI: 10.37669/milliegitim.1593297 [Google Scholar]
  73. Klenowski, V. (2010). Curriculum evaluation: Approaches and methodologies. International encyclopedia of education, 1, 335-341. [Google Scholar]
  74. Koehler, M. S., & Grouws, D. A. (1992). Math teaching practices and their effects. In D. A. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on math teaching and learning: A project of the National Council of Teachers of Math. (pp. 115-125). New York: Macmillan. [Google Scholar]
  75. Krutetskii, V. A. (1976). The psychology of mathal abilities in schoolchildren. London: The University of Chicago Pres, Ltd. [Google Scholar]
  76. Lee, J. E. (2012). Prospective elementary teachers’ perceptions of real-life connections reflected in posing and evaluating story problems. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 15(6), 429-452. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10857-012-9220-5 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  77. Makar, K. (2016). Developing young children’s emergent inferential practices in statistics. Mathal Thinking and Learning, 18(1), 1-24. https://doi.org/10.1080/10986065.2016.1107820 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  78. Malhotra, V. (2006). Methods of teaching mathematics. New Delhi, India: Crescent Publication. [Google Scholar]
  79. Manouchehri, A., & Goodman, T. (1998). Math curriculum reform and teachers: Understanding the connections. The Journal of Educational Research, 92(1), 27-41. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220679809597573 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  80. McHugh, J. M. (2011). Program evaluation of developmental math instruction at the community college level. Gardner-Webb University. [Google Scholar]
  81. McMillan, H., Myran, S., & Workman, D. (2002). Elementary teachers' classroom assessment and grading practices. The journal of educational research, 95(4), 203-213. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220670209596593 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  82. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (2016). An expanded resource book: Qualitative data analysis (Akbaba Altun S, Ersoy A, Trans. ed.) Pegem Akademi. [Google Scholar]
  83. Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı [MEB] (2024a). İlkokul matematik dersi öğretim programı (1, 2, 3 ve 4. Sınıflar) [Primary school math course curriculum (grades 1, 2, 3 and 4,)]. Retrieved from https://mufredat.meb.gov.tr/ [Google Scholar]
  84. Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı [MEB] (2024b). Türkiye yüzyılı maarif modeli öğretim programları ortak metni [Common texs of the Turkish Century Education Model curriculums]. Retrieved from https://mufredat.meb.gov.tr/ [Google Scholar]
  85. Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı [MEB] (2024c). İlkokul matematik 1. sınıf ders kitabı (2. Kitap) [Primary school math grade one course book (2nd book)]. Retrieved from https://tymm.meb.gov.tr/upload/kitap/matematik_1_1.pdf [Google Scholar]
  86. Moghaddam, M. R. (2014). Assuming city as a playgorund survey on reclaiming design of some elements in city for responding to children's need of spontaneous play activities in built environment. (Doctoral thesis), Çankaya University, Turkey. [Google Scholar]
  87. National Council of Teachers of Math [NCTM] (2000). Principles and Standards for School Math. Reston, VA: Author. [Google Scholar]
  88. Obro, S. (2021). The internet and quality social studies education for sustainable development in Post-Covid-19: A review. Jurnal Penelitian dan Pengkajian Ilmu Pendidikan: e-Saintika, 5(1), 15-26. https://doi.org/10.36312/e-saintika.v5i1.425 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  89. Omoniyi, M. E. (2023). Social studies education: A veritable tool for achieving value re-orientation and sustainable development in Nigeria. International Journal of Learning and Development, 13(2), 59-69. https://doi.org/10.5296/ijld.v13i2.21021 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  90. Orbeyi, S. (2007). İlköğretim matematik dersi öğretim programının öğretmen görüşlerine dayalı olarak değerlendirilmesi [Evaluation of the primary school math course curriculum depending on the opinions of the teachers]. Yüksek lisans tezi (Postgraduate thesis), Çanakkale Onsekiz Mart Üniversitesi (Çanakkale Onsekiz Mart University), Turkey. [Google Scholar]
  91. Ornstein, A. C., & Hunkins, F. (1993). Curriculum foundations: Principles and theory. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. [Google Scholar]
  92. Ott, M., & Pozzi, F. (2012). Digital games as creativity enablers for children. Behaviour and Information Technology, 31(10), 1011-1019. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0144929X.2010.526148. [Google Scholar]
  93. Özçelik, D. A. (2016). Ölçme ve değerlendirme (5. Baskı) [Measurement and evaluation (5th print)]. Pegem Akademi. [Google Scholar]
  94. Özhan, M. B., Taşgın, A., & Kandırmaz, M. (2024). K12 beceriler çerçevesi: Türkiye bütüncül modeli bağlamında sosyal duygusal öğrenme becerileri [K12 skills framework: social emotional learning skills in the scope of Turkish holistic model]. Milli Eğitim Dergisi (National Education Journal), 52(1), 1027-1054. https://doi.org/10.37669/milliegitim.1308964 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  95. Özyaprak, M. (2012). Üstün zekâlı ve yetenekli öğrencilere yönelik farklılaştırılmış matematik öğretiminin erişi, tutum ve yaratıcılığa etkisi [The effect of math education differentiated for the student with gifted intelligence and skills on the access, attitude and creativity]. Doktora tezi (Doctorate thesis), İstanbul Üniversitesi (İstanbul University), Turkey. [Google Scholar]
  96. Patton, M. Q. (1987). How to use qualitative methods in evaluation. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. [Google Scholar]
  97. Perkins, D. N. (1994). The intelligent eye: Learning to think by looking at art (Vol. 4). Getty Publications. [Google Scholar]
  98. Piaget, J., & Cook, M. (1952). The origins of intelligence in children (Vol. 8, No. 5, pp. 18-1952). New York: International universities press. [Google Scholar]
  99. Prensky, M. (2008). Students as designers and creators of educational computer games: Who else?. British Journal of Educational Technology, 39(6), 1004-1019. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2008.00823_2.x [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  100. Reçber, H. (2012). Türkiye 8. sınıf matematik ders kitabındaki etkinliklerin bilişsel düzeylerinin programdakilerle ve ülkeler arası karşılaştırılması [Comparison of the cognitive levels of the activities in the 8th grade math course book in Turkey with the ones in the curriculum and internationally]. Yüksek lisans tezi (Postgraduate thesis), Ankara Üniversitesi (Ankara University), Turkey. [Google Scholar]
  101. Reddy, P., Sharma, B., & Chaudhary, K. (2020). Digital literacy: A review of literature. International Journal of Technoethics, 11(2), 65-94. DOI: 10.4018/IJT.20200701.oa1 [Google Scholar]
  102. Renzulli, J. S., & Reis, S. M. (1985). The schoolwide enrichment model: A comprehensive plan for educational excellence. Creative Learning Press. [Google Scholar]
  103. Rogayan, Jr. D. V., & Villanueva, E. E. N. (2019). Implementation status of K12 social studies program in Philippine public schools. PEOPLE: International Journal of Social Sciences, 5(3), 233-250. https://dx.doi.org/10.20319/pijss.2019.53.233250 [Google Scholar]
  104. Russell, B. (1981). Education and social order. (Trans. Nail Bezel). Varlık Yayınları. [Google Scholar]
  105. Sargın, S. (2016). Yenilenen ortaokul matematik dersi öğretim programına yönelik öğretmen görüşleri [Opinions of teachers for the renewed secondary school math course curriculum]. Yüksek lisans tezi (Postgraduate Thesis), Necmettin Erbakan Üniversitesi (Necmettin Erbakan University), Turkey. [Google Scholar]
  106. Schlesinger, J., Persky, A., & Learning Community F. (2015). Bloom's taxonomy in action. MedEdPORTAL, 11, 10031. https://doi.org/10.15766/mep_2374-8265.10031 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  107. Scott, D. (2018). Knowledge and the curriculum. In Creating Curricula: Aims, Knowledge and Control (pp. 25-39). Routledge. [Google Scholar]
  108. Seale, C. (2002). Quality issues in qualitative inquiry. Qualitative social work, 1(1), 97-110. https://doi.org/10.1177/14733250020010010 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  109. Sevim, K. (2019). Veri işleme öğrenme alanının ortaokul matematik ders kitaplarında işlenişinin öğretim programı açısından değerlendirilmesi [Evaluation of the data processing field in the teaching in the secondary school math course books with respect to the curriculum]. Yüksek lisans tezi (Postgraduate Thesis), Marmara Üniversitesi (Marmara University), Turkey. [Google Scholar]
  110. Sezer, B. B., & Dedeoğlu, H. (2024). Maarif Modeli ilkokul öğretim programında okuryazarlık becerileri: Finansal, görsel ve eleştirel [Literacy skills in the Education Model primary school curriculum]. TEBD, 22(3), 2007-2027. https://doi.org/10.37217/tebd.1511168 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  111. Sheffield, L. J. (1994). The development of gifted and talented mathematics students and the national council of teachers of mathematics standards. Storrs CT: National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented. [Google Scholar]
  112. Sisk, D. (1987). Creative teaching of the gifted. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company. [Google Scholar]
  113. Sosniak, L. A., Ethington, C. A., & Varelas, M. (1991). Teaching math without a coherent point of view: Findings from the IEA Second International Math Study. J. Curriculum Studies, 23(2), 119-131. https://doi.org/10.1080/0022027910230202 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  114. Sowell, E., & Zambo, R. (1997). Alignment between standards and practices in math education: Experiences in Arizona. Journal of Curriculum and Supervision, 12(4), 344. [Google Scholar]
  115. Şahin, M. (2025). 2015, 2018 ve 2024 İlkokul matematik öğretim programlarının karşılaştırmalı analizi [Comparative analysis of the 2015, 2018 and 2024 primary school math curriculums]. Ondokuz Mayıs Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi (Ondokuz Mayıs University Faculty of Education Journal), 44(1), 71-144. https://doi.org/10.7822/omuefd.1594613 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  116. Tartan, Y. Ş., & Erşen, Z. B. (2024). Ortaokul matematik ders kitaplarındaki etkinliklerin matematiksel ilişkilendirme becerisi açısından incelenmesi [Evaluation of the activities in the secondary school math course books with respect to the association skill]. Fırat Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi (Fırat University Social Sciences Journal), 34(2), 677-689. DOI: 10.18069/firatsbed.1299586 [Google Scholar]
  117. Temli-Durmuş, Y., & Yusufoğlu, S. (2016). İlkokul 4. sınıf matematik öğretim programına yönelik öğretmen görüşleri (Siirt Kurtalan ilçesi örneği) [Teachers’ opinions on the primary school grade 4 math curriculum (Siirt Kurtalan District example)]. Electronic Turkish Studies, 11(14), 685-704. DOI: 10.7827/TurkishStudies.9855 [Google Scholar]
  118. Thornton, H. (2006). Dispositions in action: Do dispositions make a difference in practice?. Teacher Education Quarterly, 33(2), 53-68. Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/stable/23478934 [Google Scholar]
  119. Topal, B. (2024). İlkokullarda özel öğrenme güçlüğü olan öğrencilere destek eğitim veren öğretmenlerin matematik öğretimine ilişkin görüş ve önerileri [Opinions and suggestions of the teachers providing support education to the students with special learning disability in the primary schools about math education]. Yüksek lisans tezi (Postgraduate thesis), Ordu Üniversitesi (Ordu University), Turkey. [Google Scholar]
  120. Toptaş, V. (2010). İlköğretim matematik dersi (1-5) öğretim programındaki becerilerle ilgili sınıf öğretmenlerinin görüşleri [Classroom teachers’ opinions about skills in the primary school math course (1-5) curriculum)]. Millî Eğitim Dergisi (National Education Journal), 40(188), 296-310. [Google Scholar]
  121. Trends in International Math and Science Study [TIMSS] (2023). Turkey 2023 report. Millî Eğitim Bakanlığı Yayınları. [Google Scholar]
  122. Turan, A., & Tabak, S. (2021). Sınıf öğretmenlerinin ilkokul 4.sınıf matematik dersi öğretim programına (2018) yönelik görüşleri: Bir karma yöntem çalışması [Opinions of the classroom teachers on the primary school math course curriculum (2018): A mixed method study]. Millî Eğitim (National Education), 50(229), 463-491. https://doi.org/10.37669/milliegitim.659479 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  123. Tutak, T., & Güder, Y. (2012). İlköğretim 5. sınıf öğretmenlerinin matematik ders kitabı hakkındaki görüş ve düşünceleri [The opinions and thoughts of the primary school 5th grade class teachers on the math course book]. Dicle Üniversitesi Ziya Gökalp Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi (Dicle University Ziya Gökalp Education Faculty Journal), 19, 16-28. Retrieved from https://dergipark.org.tr/en/download/article-file/786958 [Google Scholar]
  124. Tüysüz, N., & Ekici, G. (2022). Matematik ders kitaplarının değerlendirilmesi: 7. ve 8.sınıf örneği [Evaluation of mathematics textbooks: 7. and 8.an example of a class]. Muş Alparslan Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi (MAUN Journal of Education), 2(2), 322-347. Retrieved from https://dergipark.org.tr/en/download/article-file/2437486 [Google Scholar]
  125. Tyson, H., & Woodward, A. (1989). Why students aren’t learning very much from textbooks. Educational Leadership, 47(3), 14-17. [Google Scholar]
  126. Uğurel, I., & Moralı, S. (2008). Matematik ve oyun etkileşimi [Math and game interaction]. Gazi Üniversitesi Gazi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi (Gazi University Gazi Education Faculty Journal), 28(3), 75-98. Retrieved from https://dergipark.org.tr/en/download/article-file/77106 [Google Scholar]
  127. Ulusoy, Ç. A., Saygı, E., & Umay, A. (2017). İlköğretim matematik öğretmenlerinin zeka oyunları dersi ile ilgili görüşleri [Opinions of the primary school math teachers on the intelligence games course]. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi (Hacettepe University Faculty of Education Journal), 32(2), 280-294. Doi: 10.16986/HUJE.2016018494 [Google Scholar]
  128. Uşun, S. (2012). Eğitimde program değerlendirme: Süreçler yaklaşımlar ve modeller [Curriculum evaluation in education: Processes, approaches, and models]. Anı Yayıncılık. [Google Scholar]
  129. Ülçay, O. (2024). Türkiye Yüzyılı Maarif Modeli değerlendirmesi [Evaluation of Turkish Century Education Model]. Ulusal Eğitim Toplum ve Dünya Dergisi (National Education Society and Earth Periodical), 1(2), 70-75. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.11097248 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  130. Ünişen, A., & Kaya, E. (2015). Fen bilimleri dersinin ilkokul üçüncü sınıf programına alınmasıyla ilgili öğretmen görüşlerinin değerlendirilmesi [Evaluation of the teachers’ opinion on taking sciences course to the primary school third grade curriculum]. Adıyaman Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi (Adiyaman University Journal of the Institute of Social Sciences), (20), 546-571. https://doi.org/10.14520/adyusbd.62061 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  131. Varış, F. (1996). Eğitimde program geliştirme teoriler, teknikler [Curriculum development in education, theories, techniques]. İstanbul: Alkım Kitabevi. [Google Scholar]
  132. Walsh, T. (2016). 100 years of primary curriculum development and implementation in Ireland: A tale of a swinging pendulum. Irish Educational Studies, 35(1), 1-16. https://doi.org/10.1080/03323315.2016.1147975 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  133. Wilson, R. J. (1990). Classroom processes in evaluating student achievement. Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 36, 4–17. [Google Scholar]
  134. Woodward, A., & Elliott, D. L. (1990). Textbooks: Consensus and controversy. Teachers College Record, 91(5), 146-161. https://doi.org/10.1177/016146819009100512 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  135. Yalçın, D. (2017). 2015 İlkokul 1-4. matematik öğretim programının geometri öğrenme alanı kazanımlarının öğretmen görüşlerine göre incelenmesi [Evaluation of the geometry learning field gains of the primary school 1-4 math curriculums per the opinions of the teachers]. Yüksek lisans tezi (Postgraduate thesis), Uşak Üniversitesi (Uşak University), Turkey. [Google Scholar]
  136. Yıldırım, A., & Şimşek, H. (2018). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri [Qualitative research methods in social sciences]. (8. Baskı). Seçkin Yayıncılık. [Google Scholar]
  137. Yin, R. K. (2017). Case study research applications (I. Gunbayi, Trans.). Nobel Akademik Yayıncılık. [Google Scholar]
  138. Yun-peng, M., Chi‐chung, L., & Ngai‐ying, W. (2006). Chinese primary school math teachers working in a centralised curriculum system: A case study of two primary schools in North‐East China. Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education, 36(2), 197-212. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057920600741206 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  139. Zhang, Z., & Burry-Stock, J. A. (2003). Classroom assessment practices and teachers' self-perceived assessment skills. Applied measurement in education, 16(4), 323-342. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15324818AME1604_4 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
Meta
Clt. 8 (1)
İndir
Benzer

Cilt 8 Sayı 1

Haziran 2026

Tüm makaleleler

Anadolu Türk Eğitim Dergisi

Copyright © 2026 Anadolu Türk Eğitim Dergisi.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. CC BY
All elements of this website have been created using the BOQ™ - eJournal Management System.