Fen ve Matematik Egitiminde Kuresel Yonelimler: Turkiye Yuzyili Maarif Modeli ve Cin 2022 Mufredatinin Karsilastirmali Analizi

Abstract

ÖZ: Amaç: Bu çalışma, Türkiye Yüzyılı Maarif Modeli ile Çin’in 2022 Zorunlu Eğitim Müfredatını, temel yapısal göstergeler üzerinden fen ve matematik programları bağlamında karşılaştırmaktadır. Yöntem: Nitel karşılaştırmalı tarama deseni benimsenmiş; resmi müfredat belgeleri ve ilgili alanyazın doküman analiziyle incelenmiştir. Elde edilen bulgular içerik analiziyle sınıflandırılmıştır. Bulgular: Her iki müfredat; bütüncül gelişim, 21. yüzyıl yetkinlikleri, okuryazarlık ve sürece dayalı ölçme-değerlendirme ekseninde kurgulanmıştır. Türkiye eğitim modeli, “Bütüncül İnsan” anlayışına dayanarak içeriği sadeleştirmeyi ve günlük yaşamla ilişkilendirerek anlamlı öğrenmeyi öncelemektedir. Buna karşılık Çin müfredatı, “beş eğitimin birlikte yürütülmesi” yaklaşımı ve temel yetkinlikler çerçevesinde standartlaştırılmış ve ölçeklenebilir bir öğretme–öğrenme süreci benimsemektedir. Türkiye eğitim modelinde sürdürülebilirlik, okuryazarlık boyutlarına ve ünite yapısına entegre edilirken; Çin’de okul–aile–toplum iş birliği bağlamında ele alınmaktadır. Ölçme-değerlendirme açısından Türkiye eğitim modeli, rubrikler ve performans görevleri gibi uygulamalarla “öğrenmenin kanıtı” anlayışı altında süreç odaklı bütüncül bir yaklaşım kurarken; Çin sistemi standartlaştırılmış soru madde havuzları ve kalite izleme mekanizmalarını daha belirgin biçimde vurgulamaktadır. Özgün Değer: Bu çalışma, Türkiye’nin 2024 TYMM’si ile Çin’in 2022’de güncellenen müfredatlarını; amaçlar, içerik, sürdürülebilirlik ve ölçme-değerlendirme gibi temel öğeler üzerinden yapılandırılmış biçimde karşılaştıran ilk analizlerden birini sunmaktadır. Eğitim politikalarına yönelik anlamlı çıkarımlar üretmenin yanı sıra, ileride yapılacak müfredat karşılaştırmalarında kullanılabilecek bir kodlama şeması da önermektedir.

Keywords

• 21. yüzyıl becerileri
• Çin’in zorunlu eğitim müfredatı
• matematik eğitimi
• fen eğitimi
• TYMM

Supporting Institution

Bu çalışma kapsamında herhangi bir kurum veya kuruluştan mali ya da ayni destek alınmamıştır.

Ethical Statement

Bu çalışma, yalnızca resmî müfredat dokümanları ve yayımlanmış alanyazın kaynakları üzerinden yürütülen doküman analizi ve içerik analizine dayanmaktadır. Araştırma kapsamında insan katılımcılardan veri toplanmadığı, herhangi bir müdahale/uygulama yapılmadığı ve kişisel veri işlenmediği için etik kurul onayı alınması gerekmemiştir. Bununla birlikte süreç boyunca bilimsel etik ilkeler gözetilmiş; kullanılan dokümanların özgünlüğü kontrol edilmiş, çeviri işlemleri anlam bütünlüğünü koruyacak biçimde yürütülmüş ve tüm kaynaklara uygun atıf yapılmıştır.

Global Trends in Science and Mathematics Education: A Comparative Analysis of the Century of Turkiye Education Model and China’s 2022 Curriculum

Abstract

ABSTRACT: Aim: This study compares the science and mathematics curricula of the Turkiye Century Education Model and China’s 2022 Compulsory Education Curriculum across key structural indicators. Methods: The study adopted a qualitative comparative design and examined official curriculum documents and related literature using document analysis. Findings: Both curricula are structured around holistic development, 21st-century competencies, literacy, and process-based assessment. The Türkiye education model prioritizes meaningful learning by simplifying content and linking it to daily life, grounded in the “Whole Person” paradigm. Conversely, the Chinese curriculum adopts a standardized, scalable teaching–learning process based on the “five educations together” approach and core competencies. In the Türkiye education model, sustainability is integrated into literacy and unit structures, while in China, it is framed within school–family–community cooperation. For assessment, the Türkiye education model constructs a process-oriented holistic approach (e.g., rubrics, performance tasks) as “evidence of learning,” whereas China’s system emphasizes standardized item banks and quality-monitoring mechanisms. Originality/Value: This study presents the first structured analysis comparing Turkiye’s 2024 education model and China's 2022 updated curricula on fundamental elements: aims, content, sustainability, and assessment. Providing significant insights for educational policy, the research also offers a coding scheme for future curriculum comparison studies

Keywords

• 21st-century skills
• China’s compulsory education curriculum
• mathematics education
• science education
• TYMM

Supporting Institution

No financial or in-kind support was received from any institution or organization for this study.

Ethical Statement

This study is based solely on document analysis and content analysis of official curricula and published academic sources. Since no data were collected from human participants, no intervention was conducted, and no personal data were processed, ethical committee approval was not required. Nevertheless, scientific ethical principles were observed throughout the process; the authenticity of the documents was verified, translation procedures were carried out to preserve meaning, and all sources were cited appropriately.

References

1. Akbulut, E., & Mumcu, H. Y. (2024). Comparative analysis of the 2018 and 2024 lower-secondary mathematics curricula. In O. Cezikturk (Ed.), International research in mathematics education (pp. 1–20). Egitim Yayinevi.
2. Akcay, S. (2024). Comparison of Turkish science curricula and British science curriculum in terms of environmental education. Journal of the Human and Social Science Researches, 13(5), 1852–1872. https://doi.org/10.15869/itobiad.1470356
3. Akpinar, B., & Koksalan, B. (2024). The need for educational and curriculum renewal: A theoretical analysis through the Turkiye Century Education Model. Journal of History School, 68, 27–48. http://dx.doi.org/10.29228/joh.74735
4. Akpinar, B., Ozer, B., Oral, B., & Koksalan, B. (2024). An analysis of the Turkiye Century Education Model from a curriculum-development and philosophical perspective. EKEV Academic Journal, 99, 59–73. https://doi.org/10.17753/sosekev.1489135
5. Altintas, S., & Gorgen, İ. (2014). Comparative analysis of the mathematic curriculums of Turkey and South Korea. Education Sciences, 9(2), 191-216. http://dx.doi.org/10.12739/NWSA.2014.9.2.1C0614
6. Arslankara, V. B., & Arslankara, E. (2024). The philosophical foundations of the Turkiye Century Education Model: An evaluation from ontological, epistemological, and axiological perspectives. Istanbul Journal of Education, 1(1), 121–145. https://doi.org/10.71270/istanbulegitim.istj.1557889
7. Bakac, E. (2014). Comparison of primary science and technology curriculum with Canada and Finland curriculums. Journal of Research in Education and Teaching, 3(1), 1-17.
8. Baki, A., & Bektas Baki, B. (2016). Comparison of secondary school mathematics teacher training programs in Turkey and Germany Turkish Journal of Computer and Mathematics Education (TURCOMAT), 7(1), 229-258. https://doi.org/10.16949/turcomat.30594

9. Balci, A. (2021). Comparative education systems. Pegem Akademi.
10. Bas, M. (2017). Comparison of 2009, 2015 primary school mathematics curricula and 2017 primary school mathematics curriculum. YYU Journal of EducationFaculty, 14(1), 1219-1258. https://izlik.org/JA46LG36GP
11. Bayirli, A. (2020). A comparison of the Singaporean and Turkish education systems and implications for Turkiye. International Journal of Social Sciences Academy, (4), 1103–1131. https://doi.org/10.47994/usbad.830544
12. Benli Ozdemir, E., Yilmaz, E., & Selvi, M. (2025). Comparative analysis of the 2018 and 2024 science curricula about environmental topics based on Bloom’s taxonomy. Kastamonu Education Journal, 33(1), 35-47. https://doi.org/10.24106/kefdergi.1628228
13. Berk, S., & Ozer, B. (2024). Opinions regarding the “Turkiye Century” Education Model (TYMM) curricula. Journal of History School, 73, 3241–3256. http://dx.doi.org/10.29228/joh.78177
14. Bilir, U. (2025). A comparison of the 2018 and 2024 science curricula in Turkiye in terms of basic components. Journal of National Education, 54(246), 793–836. https://doi.org/10.37669/milliegitim.1532604
15. Bowen, G. A. (2009). Document analysis as a qualitative research method. Qualitative Research Journal, 9(2), 27-40. https://doi.org/10.3316/QRJ0902027
16. Bozkurt, A., Cirak Kurt, S., & Tezcan, S. (2020). A Comparison of the Middle School Mathematics Curricula of Turkey and Singapore with Respect to the Learning Domain of Algebra. PAU Journal of Education, 48, 152-173. https://doi.org/10.9779/pauefd.540142
17. Caliskan, I., & Erol, M. (2025). STEAM model based criteria development in national and global science education politics. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 24(1), 19-36. https://doi.org/10.33225/jbse/25.24.19
18. Chen, C. (2024). Research trends and hotspots in the core competencies of Chinese students following the issuance of the compulsory education curriculum scheme (2022 Edition). Journal of Higher Education Teaching, 1(5), 251–260. https://doi.org/10.62517/jhet.202415541
19. Chen, L., & Lin, S. (2024). Examining China’s “Double Reduction” policy: Promises and challenges for balanced and quality development in compulsory education. ECNU Review of Education. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/20965311241265123
20. Cicek, Y., Kuzu, O., & Caliskan, N. (2021). A comparison of mathematics curriculum of Turkey and Germany in the context of geometry learning domain [Türkiye ve Almanya matematik dersi öğretim programlarının geometri öğrenme alanı bağlamında karşılaştırılması]. İstanbul Aydin University Journal of Social Sciences, 13(1), 225-260. https://doi.org/10.17932/IAU.IAUD.2757.7252/iaud_v13i1008
21. Coban, A., & Asci, M. (2022). Comparison of the content of primary school mathematics curricula in the United States, England, and Turkey. Manisa Celal Bayar University Journal of Social Sciences, 20(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.18026/cbayarsos.489571
22. Coban, A., & Ergenekon, O. (2021). A comparison of the preschool education systems of Turkiye and the founding countries of the European Union. International Journal of Social and Humanities Sciences Research (JSHSR), 8(72), 1683–1699. http://dx.doi.org/10.26450/jshsr.2570
23. Demirci, B., & Ozdemir, A. (2025). Value transmission in mathematics education: A comparative examination of educational media content and the mathematics curriculum. International Journal of Psycho-Social Educational Research, 5(8), 121–141. https://doi.org/10.29329/upsead.2025.1335.7
24. Demirel, O. (2000). Comparative education and development [Karşılaştırmalı eğitim ve gelişimi]. Pegem A Publishing.
25. Derman, M., & Gurbuz, H. (2015). Examination of environmental learning outcomes in the primary science curricula of Australia, Singapore, Ireland, Canada, and Turkey. The Journal of Academic Social Science Studies, 9, 411–426. https://doi.org/10.16992/ASOS.482
26. Ding, M., Wu, Y., Liu, Q., & Cai, J. (2022). Mathematics learning in Chinese contexts. ZDM–Mathematics Education, 54, 477–496. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-022-01385-z
27. Duyul, S., Duyul, Y., Kesman, M., & Kesman, M. (2025). Teachers’ views on the Turkiye Century Education Model. National Education Journal, 5(3), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.15002345.
28. Eker Celebi, M., & Taskin Ekici, F. (2025). Sustainability in the Turkiye Century Education Model science curriculum and its relation to the Sustainable Development Goals. Denizli Provincial National Education Directorate Journal of Science and Education, 1(1), 29–39.
29. Erbas, A. A. (2025). Enhancing the literacy of pre-service classroom teachers on the Turkiye Century Education Model. Journal of Higher Education and Science, 15(2), 322–333. https://doi.org/10.5961/higheredusci.1722555
30. Erdogan, İ. (2003). Comparative education: An area that should be emphasized in Turkish educational science studies. The Journal of Turkish Educational Sciences, 1(3), 265-283.
31. Ghonoodi, A., & Salimi, L. (2011). The study of elements of curriculum in smart schools. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 28, 68-71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.11.014
32. Gokenc Gulez, S. (2023). Traditional traces in modern Chinese education: Revival of confucian education. Journal of the Institute of Social Sciences, Cukurova University, 32(1), 313-327. https://doi.org/10.35379/cusosbil.1259073
33. Gunes, I., Dursun, F., & Alci, B. (2025). An examination of the assessment and evaluation approach of the lower-secondary mathematics curriculum within the Turkiye Century Education Model. Istanbul Journal of Education, (2), 132–159. https://doi.org/10.71270/istanbulegitim.istj.1648231
34. Guzel, I., Karatas, I., & Cetinkaya, B. (2010). Comparing Secondary School Mathematics Curricula: Turkey, Germany, and Canada [Ortaogretim matematik ogretim programlarinin karsilastirilmasi: Turkiye, Almanya ve Kanada]. Turkish Journal of Computer and Mathematics Education (TURCOMAT), 1(3), 309-325.
35. Irmak, Z., & Cetin, D. (2024). A comparison of the 2018 and 2024 lower-secondary science curricula in terms of scientific reasoning skills. Anatolian Journal of Cultural Research, 8(3), 447–474. https://doi.org/10.15659/jancr.v8i3.199
36. Jiang, Y., Shang, J., & Jiao, L. (2023). Review of China’s online education policy, 1999–2022. ECNU Review of Education, 6(1), 155–182. https://doi.org/10.1177/20965311221099581
37. Kahraman, M., & Biber, A. C. (2025). An analysis of the 5th-grade mathematics textbook in terms of the virtue–value–action framework of the Turkiye Century Education Model. Journal of Civilization Educational Research, 9(1), 35–49.
38. Kara, M. (2020). Problems of the Turkish education system according to stakeholders’ views. Ahi Evran University Kirsehir Journal of Faculty of Education, 21(3), 1650–1694. https://doi.org/10.29299/kefad.853999
39. Karali, Y., Palancioglu, V., & Aydemir, H. (2021). Comparison of Turkey and Singapore primary school science programs. İnonu University Journal of the Faculty of Education, 22(1), 866-888. https://doi.org/10.17679/inuefd.883126
40. Karatas, I. H. (2024). About the Turkiye Century Education Model. Alanyazin: Journal of Critical Review in Educational Sciences, 5(1), 6–11.
41. Karatas, I. H. (2025). Did the Turkiye Century Education Model and the National Education Academy bring the end of faculties of education? Alanyazin: Journal of Critical Review in Educational Sciences, 6(1), 1–7.
42. Kemerkaya, G., Altun, S. D. G., & Meydan, A. (2025). An examination of the sustainability competency included in the joint text of the Turkiye Century Education Model curriculum. International Journal of Eurasia Social Sciences, 16(60), 704–723. https://doi.org/10.70736/ijoess.1651
43. Kiryak, Z., Ulger, T. K., Ulger, B. B., Bozkurt, I., & Cepni, S. (2024). A comparison of the learning outcomes of the 2018 and 2024 primary and lower-secondary science and mathematics curricula and an examination in terms of skills. Bayburt Journal of Faculty of Education, 19(44), 3054–3089. https://doi.org/10.35675/befdergi.1507283
44. Kuzu, O., Gocer, V., & Akcay, A. O. (2024). An examination of the primary-school mathematics curriculum within the scope of the Turkiye Century Education Model. RumeliDE Journal of Language and Literature Studies, 41, 640–667. https://zenodo.org/record/13337757
45. Kuzu, O., Toptas, V., & Gocer, V. (2025). A comparison of the 2018 and 2024 primary-school mathematics curricula from the perspective of the Turkiye Century Education Model. Ahi Evran University Kirsehir Journal of Faculty of Education, 26(1), 114–140. https://doi.org/10.29299/kefad.1545275
46. Lim, W. M. (2025). What is qualitative research? An overview and guidelines. Australasian Marketing Journal, 33(2), 199–229. https://doi.org/10.1177/14413582241264619
47. Luo, S. (2023). The current landscape and future direction of curriculum reform in China. Future in Educational Research, 1(1), 5–16. https://doi.org/10.1002/fer3.8
48. Mazlum, M. M. (2017). A comparison of the Turkish and Italian education systems. Van Yuzuncu Yil University Journal of Education Faculty, 14(1), 1141–1177. http://dx.doi.org/10.23891/efdyyu.2017.42
49. Memduhoglu, H. B. (2008). A comparison of the Turkish and Austrian education systems. Turkish Journal of Educational Sciences, 6(3), 545–559.
50. Mendee, A., & Kosar, D. (2022). A comparison of secondary-education systems in Mongolia and Turkiye. Journal of National Education, 51(235), 2731–2756. https://doi.org/10.37669 milliegitim.897637
51. Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. Jossey-Bass.
52. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). An expanded sourcebook: Qualitative data analysis. Sage.
53. Ministry of Education (MOE). (2022a). Compulsory Education Curriculum Plan (2022 edition) [义务教育 课程方案 (2022年版)]. http://www.moe.gov.cn/srcsite/A26/s8001/202204/W020220420582343217634.pdf
54. Ministry of Education (MOE). (2022b). Compulsory Education Science Curriculum Standards (2022 edition) [义务教育 科学课程标准 (2022年版)]. http://www.moe.gov.cn/srcsite/A26/s8001/202204/W020220420582355009892.pdf
55. Ministry of Education (MOE). (2022c). Compulsory Education Mathematics Curriculum Standards (2022 edition) [义务教育 数学课程标准 (2022年版)]. http://www.moe.gov.cn/srcsite/A26/s8001/202204/W020220420582346895190.pdf
56. Ministry of National Education (MEB). (2024a). Turkiye Century Education Model: Science course (Grades 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8) curriculum. Ministry of National Education Publications.
57. Ministry of National Education (MEB). (2024b). Turkiye Century Education Model: Joint text of curricula. Ministry of National Education Publications.
58. Ministry of National Education (MEB). (2024c). Lower-secondary mathematics course (Grades 5, 6, 7 and 8) curriculum. Ministry of National Education Publications.
59. Mukul, I. (2025). A critical approach to the Turkiye Century Education Model 9th-grade geography curriculum. Journal of Education Science Society, 23(90), 41–65.
60. Müller, M., Schurr, C., Etter, N., & Komposch, N. (2025). A guide for preparing and reporting qualitative research. The Professional Geographer, 77(5), 569–577. https://doi.org/10.1080/00330124.2025.2542817.
61. Ocal, Z. M., Higede, E., & Yuzuak, A. V. (2024). Science teachers’ views and suggestions regarding the Turkiye Century Education Model science curriculum. In I. Dokme & A. V. Yuzuak (Eds.), Current research in social and science education (pp. 35–54). Akademisyan Kitapevi.
62. Ozdemir, O. (2025). A new education paradigm toward the future: Sustainability education. Dokuz Eylul University Buca Journal of Faculty of Education, (64), 2525–2540. https://doi.org/10.53444/deubefd.1644800
63. Ozerbas, M. A., & Safi, B. N. (2022). A comparative examination of the education systems of England, Japan, Norway, Finland, Singapore, Russia, and Turkiye. Manas Journal of Social Studies, 11(1), 63–80. https://doi.org/10.33206/mjss.991068
64. Ozkan, C., & Yaman, S. (2025). An examination of the learning outcomes of the 2024 science curriculum according to the revised Bloom taxonomy. Turkish Journal of Primary Education, 10(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.52797/tujped.1655610
65. Ozturk, E., & Diker Coskun, Y. (2022). Comparison of Secondary School Mathematics Curricula in Turkey and Canada. Anadolu University Journal of Education Faculty, 6(2), 188–202. https://doi.org/10.34056/aujef.1014046
66. Qian, H., Walker, A., & Chen, S. (2024). The “double-reduction” education policy in China: Three prevailing narratives. Journal of Education Policy, 39(4), 602–621. https://doi.org/10.1080/02680939.2023.2222381
67. Qureshi, M. A., Khaskheli, A., Qureshi, J. A., Raza, S. A., & Yousufi, S. Q. (2023). Factors affecting students’ learning performance through collaborative learning and engagement. Interactive Learning Environments, 31(4), 2371–2391. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2021.1884886
68. Sarier, Y. (2020). Turkiye’s performance in TIMSS and variables predicting academic achievement. Primary Education, 2(2), 6–27.
69. Seven, H. G., & Kahramanoglu, R. (2024). Teachers’ curriculum literacy framework through a systems-thinking approach. Inonu University Journal of the Faculty of Education, 25(3), 1389–1413. https://doi.org/10.17679/inuefd.1490164
70. Shi, N. (2022). The revision of mathematics curriculum standards for compulsory education (2022 Edition) and key competencies. Journal of Teacher Education, 9(3), 92–96. https://doi.org/10.13718/j.cnki.jsjy.2022.03.011
71. Tanrisevdi, F., & Kiral, B. (2018). A comparison of the Chinese and Turkish education systems. Journal of Contemporary Management Sciences, 5(3), 223–240. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/download/article-file/612295
72. Timotheou, S., Miliou, O., Dimitriadis, Y., Sobrino, S. V., Giannoutsou, N., Cachia, R., Mones, A. M., & Ioannou, A. (2023). Impacts of digital technologies on education and factors influencing schools’ digital capacity and transformation: A literature review. Education and Information Technologies, 28(6), 6695–6726. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-11431-8
73. Torun, B., & Karamustafaoglu, O. (2025). A comparison of the 2024 Turkiye Century Education Model and the 2018 science curriculum in terms of basic components. Trakya Journal of Education, 15(Special Issue), 346–388. https://doi.org/10.24315/tred.1614676
74. Turgut, T. (2025). An examination of the Turkiye Century Education Model in the context of IFLA information literacy standards. International Journal of New Approaches in Social Studies, 9(1), 1–35. https://doi.org/10.38015/sbyy.1604946
75. Ulcay, O. (2024). An evaluation of the Turkiye Century Education Model. National Education, Society, and World Journal, 1(2), 70–75. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.11097248
76. Uludag Kircil, R., & Ulucinar Sagir, S. (2025). Classroom reflections of the Turkiye Century Education Model: Teachers’ views. Erciyes Journal of Education, 9(1), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.32433/eje.1673094
77. Uredi, P. (2024). Implementing holistic measurement and evaluation practices in curricula to guide teacher-training programs. Journal of Education and New Approaches, 7(2), 10–30. https://doi.org/10.52974/jena.1497259
78. Wang, C. (2022). Resurgence of Confucian education in contemporary China: Parental involvement, moral anxiety, and the pedagogy of memorisation. Journal of Moral Education, 52(3), 325–342. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057240.2022.2066639
79. Wang, H. (2024). Visual analysis of research on Chinese students’ key competencies in mathematics. Advances in Education, 14(3), 739–751. https://doi.org/10.12677/ae.2024.143439
80. Wang, Y., Laochankham, S., & Yang, W. (2024). Research on the construction of evaluation criteria for balanced development of compulsory education policy in China. WSEAS Transactions on Business and Economics, 21, 2363–2371. https://doi.org/10.37394/23207.2024.21.195
81. Wei, T. (2022). An interpretation of the revised compulsory education curriculum program and standards: A revolution in China’s compulsory education. Science Insights Education Frontiers, 13(1), 1845–1853. https://doi.org/10.15354/sief.22.re065
82. Xue, E., & Li, J. (2022). Standardization of compulsory schooling in China: Politics, practices, challenges and suggestions. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 54(12), 2108–2120. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131857.2021.1986696
83. Yenen, E. T., Kartal, S., & Bulut, A. (2018). A comparison of the education systems of Turkiye and Shanghai. Gumushane University Electronic Journal of the Institute of Social Science, 9(22), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.17823/gusb.2526
84. Yildirim, A., & Simsek, H. (2016). Qualitative Research Methods in the Social Sciences [Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri] (10th edition). Seckin Publishing.
85. Yildirim, Y., & Caliskan, A. (2024). Evaluation of the Turkiye Century Education Model in terms of 21st century human profile. Electronic Journal of Education Sciences, 13(26), 204–220. https://doi.org/10.55605/ejedus.1548121
86. Yilmaz, M., & Selvi, M. (2024). The eco-entrepreneurship model in science education. Turkish Journal of Educational Sciences, 22(2), 1497–1523. https://doi.org/10.37217/tebd.1445952
87. Yu, J. (2022). Education for all-round student development: An evaluation of the compulsory education curriculum program and standards 2022. Science Insights, 41(4), 655–661. https://doi.org/10.15354/si.22.re080
88. Yuan, X., & Yu, L. (2024). Integrating sustainable development goals in China’s education curriculum: Analysis and future directions. Geo: Geography and Environment, 11(1), e00145. https://doi.org/10.1002/geo2.145
89. Yurdakal, I. H. (2024). The Turkiye Century Education Model: An analysis of the 2024 primary-school Turkish curriculum (Grades 1–4). Primary Education, (24), 76–88. https://doi.org/10.52105/temelegitim
90. Zhang, T., Sun, X., & Hu, N. (2024). Interdisciplinary thematic learning in mathematics education for primary and secondary schools: Changes, connotations, and implementation. Journal of Teacher Education, 11(3), 95–103. https://link.cnki.net/urlid/50.1211.G4.20230815.1130.002
91. Zhou, Y., Yang, M., & Gan, X. (2023). Education and financial literacy: Evidence from compulsory schooling law in China. Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance, 89, 335–346. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.qref.2022.09.006