AN EXAMINATION OF PRIMARY SCHOOL TEACHERS’ VIEWS ON ORIENTATION TRAININGS OF THE TÜRKİYE CENTURY EDUCATION MODEL
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.46827/ejes.v13i5.6643Keywords:
Turkish Century Education Model, orientation trainings, in-service training, primary school teachers, curriculum changeAbstract
The aim of this study is to examine the opinions of primary school teachers regarding the adaptation training programs organized for the Turkish Century Education Model. Using a qualitative phenomenological design, the study group comprised of 25 primary school teachers from six state primary schools in Diyarbakır province during the 2024-2025 academic year. To reflect the opinions of teachers with different professional experience levels, maximum diversity sampling, a type of purposeful sampling, was used. A semi-structured interview form was prepared as a data collection tool, and face-to-face interviews were conducted with the participants. The obtained data were analysed using the content analysis method. According to the findings of the research, a significant portion of primary school teachers found the adaptation training programs inadequate in terms of scope, duration, and content. Teachers stated that the orientation training programs mostly remained at the theoretical level, that there were limited examples of practical applications, and that their direct contribution to classroom practices was low. The findings reveal that the orientation training programs contributed to teachers at the cognitive level; however, this contribution was not reflected at the behavioural level to the expected extent. Furthermore, problems related to the duration and planning of training sessions have been observed to negatively impact the achievement of the defined training objectives. Based on the research findings, it is suggested that orientation training sessions should be organized around teacher needs, include practice samples, and enable teacher participation. The planning of orientation training sessions should consider the actual classroom conditions and needs that teachers encounter in the field. It is recommended that phased and time-spread training models be adopted instead of short-term and intensive programs.References
Alsubaie, M. A. (2016). Curriculum development: Teacher involvement in curriculum development. Journal of Education and Practice, 7(9), 106–107. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1095725
Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 5(1), 7–74. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969595980050102
Brookfield, S. D. (2015). The skillful teacher: On technique, trust, and responsiveness in the classroom (3rd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Buldu, M. (2014). Öğretmen yeterlik düzeyi değerlendirmesi ve mesleki gelişim eğitimleri planlanmasi üzerine bir öneri. Milli Eğitim Dergisi, 44(204), 114-134. Retrieved from https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/milliegitim/article/406469
Büyüköztürk, Ş., Kılıç Çakmak, E., Akgün, Ö., Karadeniz, Ş. & Demirel, F. (2022). Eğitimde bilimsel araştırma yöntemleri. Ankara: Pegem Akademi.
Creswell, J. W. (2013). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Darling-Hammond, L., Hyler, M. E., & Gardner, M. (2017). Effective teacher professional development. Learning Policy Institute. Retrieved from https://learningpolicyinstitute.org/sites/default/files/product-files/Effective_Teacher_Professional_Development_REPORT.pdf
Demirel, Ö. (2013). Eğitimde program geliştirme: Kuramdan uygulamaya (20. bs.). Pegem Akademi. Retrieved from https://depo.pegem.net/9786053180265.pdf
Demirel, Ö. (2024). Kuramdan Uygulamaya Eğitimde Program Geliştirme (32.bs.). Pegem Akademi. Retrieved from https://depo.pegem.net/9786053180265.pdf
Demirkol, M. (2010). İlköğretim okullarında öğretmenlere yönelik okul temelli hizmet içi eğitim etkinliklerinin değerlendirilmesi. Millî Eğitim Dergisi, 188,158-173. Retrieved from https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/download/article-file/442697
Desimone, L. M. (2009). Improving impact studies of teachers’ professional development: Toward better conceptualizations and measures. Educational Researcher, 38(3), 181–199. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X08331140
Erden, M. (1998). Öğretmenlik Mesleğine Giriş. Alkım Yayınları.
Ertürk, S. (2016). Eğitimde Program Geliştirme. İstanbul: Edge Akademi Yayıncılık.
Flores, M.A. (2005). Teachers’ views on recent curriculum changes: tensions and challenges, Curriculum Journal, Vol. 16, pp. 401-413. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585170500256479
Fullan, M. (2007). The new meaning of educational change (4th ed.). New York: Teachers College Pres. Retrieved from https://michaelfullan.ca/books/new-meaning-educational-change/
Gebel, S., & Bozkurt, A. T. (2022). Öğretmenlerin Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı tarafından yürütülen uzaktan hizmet içi eğitim faaliyetleri hakkındaki görüşleri. Gaziantep Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Dergisi, 6(1), 42-62.
Gözütok, F. D. (2019). Öğretim ilke ve yöntemleri. Ankara: Pegem Akademi.
Guskey, T. R. (2002). Professional development and teacher change. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 8(3), 381–391. https://doi.org/10.1080/135406002100000512
Gültekin, M. (2013). The metaphors that primary education teacher candidates use regarding curriculum. Education and Science, 38(169), 126–141. Retrieved from https://educationandscience.ted.org.tr/article/view/1162
Günbayı, İ. & Taşdöğen, B. (2012). İlköğretim okullarında çalışan öğretmenlerin hizmet içi eğitim programları üzerine görüşleri: bir durum çalışması. İnsan ve Toplum Bilimleri Araştırmaları Dergisi, 1(3), 87-117. Retrieved from https://www.ajindex.com/insan-ve-toplum-bilimleri-arastirmalari-dergisi-itobiad/ilkogretim-okullarinda-calisan-ogretmenlerin-hizmet-ici-egitim-programlari-uzerine-gorusleri-bir-durum-calismasi-15578
Hargreaves, A. (2004). Inclusive and Exclusive Educational Change: Emotional Responses of Teachers and Implications for Leadership. School Leadership & Management 24 (2): 287–309. https://doi.org/10.1080/1363243042000266936
Harris, R., & Graham, S. (2019). Engaging with curriculum reform: Insights from English history teachers’ willingness to support curriculum change. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 51(1), 43–61. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220272.2018.1513570
Kotter, J. P. (2014). Accelerate: Building strategic agility for a faster moving world. Harvard Business Review Press. Retrieved from https://www.hbs.edu/faculty/Pages/item.aspx?num=49745
Kutlu, Ö., Doğan, C. D., & Karakaya, İ. (2014). Ölçme ve değerlendirme: Performansa ve portfolyoya dayalı durum belirleme. Ankara: Pegem Akademi Yayıncılık
Küçükahmet, L. (2011). Öğretim ilke ve yöntemleri. Ankara: Pegem Akademi.
Law, M. Y. (2022). A review of curriculum change and innovation for higher education. Journal of Education and Training Studies, 10(2), 16. https://doi.org/10.11114/jets.v10i2.5448
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Establishing trustworthiness. Naturalistic inquiry, 289(331), 289-327. https://doi.org/10.1016/0147-1767(85)90062-8
Merriam, S. B., & Bierema, L. L. (2014). Adult learning: Linking theory and practice. Jossey-Bass. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı. (2023). Öğretmen mesleki gelişimi politika belgesi. Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı.
Moustakas, C. (1994). Phenomenological research methods. SAGE Publications.
Mutch, C. (2012). Curriculum change and teacher resistance. Curriculum Matters, 8, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.18296/cm.0145
OECD. (2025). OECD Teaching Compass Reimagining Teachers as Agents of Curriculum Change. OECD Publishing.
Oliva, P. F., & Gordon, W. R. (2009). Developing the curriculum (8th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.
Ornstein, A. C., & Hunkins, F. P. (2018). Curriculum: Foundations, principles, and issues (8th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.
Özdemir, S. (2010). Eğitimde program geliştirme. Ankara: Pegem Akademi.
Özdemir, S. M. (2011). Toplumsal değişme ve küreselleşme bağlaminda eğitim ve eğitim programlari: kavramsal bir çözümleme. Ahi Evran Üniversitesi Kırşehir Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 12(1), 85-110.
Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative research & evaluation methods (4th ed.). SAGE Publications.
Priestley, M. (2011). Schools, teachers, and curriculum change: A balancing act? Journal of Educational Change, 12(1), 1–23. Retrieved from https://books.google.ro/books/about/Qualitative_Research_Evaluation_Methods.html?id=ovAkBQAAQBAJ&redir_esc=y
Priestley, M., Edwards, R., Priestley, A., & Miller, K. (2012). Teacher Agency in Curriculum Making: Agents of Change and Spaces for Manoeuvre. Curriculum Inquiry, 42(2), 191–214. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-873X.2012.00588.x
Print, M. (1993). Curriculum development and design (2nd ed.). Allen & Unwin.
Rahimi, M., & Alavi, J. (2017). The role of teaching experience in language teachers’ perceptions of a top-down curriculum change. The Curriculum Journal, 28(4), 479–503. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585176.2017.1344134
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
Seferoğlu, S. S. (2004). Öğretmen yeterlikleri ve mesleki gelişim. Bilim ve Aklın Aydınlığında Eğitim Dergisi, (58), 40–45.
Tekin, H. (2000). Eğitimde ölçme ve değerlendirme. Ankara: Yargı Yayınevi.
Türnüklü, A. (2000). Eğitim bilim araştırmalarında etkin olarak kullanılabilecek nitel bir araştırma tekniği: Eylem araştırması. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Yönetimi, 6(4), 543–559. Retrieved from https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/kuey/article/126941
Tyler, R. W. (1949). Basic principles of curriculum and instruction. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
UNESCO. (2021). Reimagining our futures together: A new social contract for education. Retrieved from https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000379707.locale=en
Ülçay, O. (2024). Türkiye Yüzyılı Maarif Modeli değerlendirmesi. Ulusal Eğitim Toplum ve Dünya Dergisi, 1(2), 70–75. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.11097248
Yıldırım, A., & Şimşek, H. (2021). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri (12. Ed.). Ankara: Seçkin Yayıncılık.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).
