Layered Curriculum® in Tax Education: A Qualitative Inquiry

Ufuk Gencel

doi:10.25229/beta.1831474

EN TR

Layered Curriculum® in Tax Education: A Qualitative Inquiry

Abstract

Tax education poses persistent challenges due to the dynamic nature of tax legislation and the abstract, cognitively demanding nature of its content. Within this context, the Turkish Tax System (TTS) course in the Department of Public Finance exemplifies the complexity of fostering both conceptual understanding and learner autonomy. The course requires an innovative instructional design that enables students to learn how to learn, adapt to ongoing legislative changes, and actively manage their own learning processes. This study examined students’ experiences and metaphoric perceptions regarding the implementation of the Layered Curriculum model in the TTS course. Conducted with 42 third-year students during the 2024–2025 academic year, the research was designed as a basic qualitative study grounded in a social constructivist approach. Data were collected through metaphor analysis conducted with all 42 students enrolled in the course and semi-structured interviews carried out with a volunteer subsample of 20 students drawn from this group. The findings indicated that students perceived the Layered Curriculum as enhancing their participation, analytical reasoning, and self-directed learning skills, offering a flexible and motivating learning environment for conceptually intensive courses such as tax education. The metaphors produced by students further reflected these perceptions.

Keywords

Layered Curriculum®, Qualitative Research, Metaphor Analysis, Tax Education

Supporting Institution

This research received no external funding.

Ethical Statement

This study received ethical approval from the İzmir Democracy University Social and Human Sciences Scientific Research and Publication Ethics Committee (Protocol No: 2025/131; Decision Date: 07/05/2025; Decision No: 2025-05-25). The research was reviewed and confirmed as ethically appropriate, and no procedure requiring additional ethical assessment was identified. All participants were informed about the purpose, scope, and voluntary nature of the study, and verbal consent was obtained prior to participation. A portion of this study was previously presented as an oral paper at the XIII International Conference on Curriculum and Instruction (ICCI–EPOK 2025), held on 25–28 October 2025 in Gazimağusa, North Cyprus.

Vergi Eğitiminde Katmanlı Program® Uygulaması: Nitel Bir İnceleme

Abstract

Vergi eğitimi, vergi mevzuatının dinamik yapısı, içeriğin soyut ve bilişsel olarak zorlayıcı niteliği nedeniyle öğrenme sürecinde güçlükler barındırmaktadır. Bu bağlamda, Maliye Bölümünde okutulan Türk Vergi Sistemi (TVS) dersi, hem kavramsal anlayışı hem öğrenen özerkliğini geliştirme açısından bu güçlüklerin belirgin biçimde yaşandığı derslerden biridir. TVS dersi, öğrencilerin öğrenmeyi öğrenme becerilerini geliştirmelerini, mevzuattaki değişikliklere uyum sağlamalarını ve kendi öğrenme süreçlerini etkin biçimde yönetmelerini destekleyecek yenilikçi bir öğretim tasarımını gerektirmektedir. Bu çalışmada, TVS dersinde Katmanlı Öğretim Programının uygulanmasına ilişkin öğrenci deneyimleri ve metaforik algıları incelenmiştir. 2024–2025 akademik yılı güz döneminde 42 üçüncü sınıf öğrencisiyle yürütülen araştırma, sosyal yapılandırmacı yaklaşıma dayalı temel nitel araştırma deseninde gerçekleştirilmiştir. Bulgular, Katmanlı Öğretim Programının öğrencilerin derse katılımını, analitik düşünme ve öz-yönetimli öğrenme becerilerini güçlendirerek kavramsal olarak yoğun dersler için esnek ve motive edici bir öğrenme ortamı sunduğunu göstermiştir. Öğrenciler tarafından üretilen metaforların da bu bulguları desteklediği belirlenmiştir.

Keywords

Katmanlı Program®, Nitel Araştırma, Metafor Analizi, Vergi Eğitimi

Supporting Institution

Bu araştırma herhangi bir dış fon tarafından desteklenmemiştir.

Ethical Statement

Bu çalışma, İzmir Demokrasi Üniversitesi Sosyal ve Beşeri Bilimler Bilimsel Araştırma ve Yayın Etik Kurulu tarafından onaylanmıştır (Protokol No: 2025/131; Karar Tarihi: 07/05/2025; Karar No: 2025-05-25). Araştırma etik açıdan değerlendirilmiş ve uygun bulunmuş olup, ek bir etik inceleme gerektiren herhangi bir işleme rastlanmamıştır. Araştırmaya katılan tüm öğrenciler çalışma amacı, kapsamı ve gönüllülük esasları hakkında bilgilendirilmiş, katılımlarından önce sözlü onamları alınmıştır. Bu çalışmanın bir bölümü, 25–28 Ekim 2025 tarihlerinde Gazimağusa, Kuzey Kıbrıs’ta düzenlenen XIII International Conference on Curriculum and Instruction (ICCI–EPOK 2025) kapsamında sözlü bildiri olarak sunulmuştur.

References

Abedini, Y. (2022). Metacognition as a core skill for wise decision-making in higher education: Investigating gender differences. Journal of Applied Research in Higher Education. https://doi.org/10.1108/JARHE-11-2020-0400
Afifah, N., & Kamilia, I. (2021). Layered Curriculum as a learning model to improve students’ motivation and achievement. Journal of Education and Learning (EduLearn), 15(4), 595–602. https://doi.org/10.11591/edulearn.v15i4.20691
Anthonysamy, L., Koo, A. C., & Hew, S. H. (2020). Self-regulated learning strategies in higher education: Fostering digital literacy for sustainable lifelong learning. Education and Information Technologies, 25(3), 2393–2414. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-020-10201-8
Anthonysamy, L., Sugendran, P., & Wei, L. O. (2024). An improved metacognitive competency framework to inculcate analytical thinking among university students. Education and Information Technologies. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-024-12678-z
Apostolou, B., Dorminey, J. W., Hassell, J. M., & Rebele, J. E. (2017). Accounting education literature review (2016). Journal of Accounting Education, 39, 1–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaccedu.2017.03.001
Beckham, H. (2010). Student perceptions of layered curriculum vs. traditional coursework on class grades for 11th–12th grade economics and government students [Master’s thesis, University of Tennessee at Chattanooga]. ERIC. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED518907.pdf
Bailey, C. (2019, April 5). How to get your brain to focus [Address]. TEDxManchester, Manchester, U.K. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hu4Yvq-g7_Y
Biggs, J., & Tang, C. (2011). Teaching for quality learning at university (4th ed.). McGraw-Hill/Open University Press.
Bou-Ammar, N., Zgheib, G., & El-Khoury, H. (2025). Transforming higher education for ethical and adaptive learning. International Journal of Educational Reform, 34(1), 45–62.
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa

Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2021). Thematic analysis: A practical guide. SAGE Publications.
Brinkmann, S. (2018). The interview. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative research(5th ed., pp. 576–599). SAGE.
Camacho, J. E. D., Espino, E. A. G., & Mercado, P. N. (2024). MOOC for lifelong learning: Training critical, reflective and self-regulating students at university level. IntechOpen. https://www.intechopen.com/chapters/1195379
Cameron, L., & Maslen, R. (2010). Metaphor analysis: Research practice in applied linguistics, social sciences and the humanities. Equinox.
Chen, X., Li, X., Zou, D., & Wang, F.-L. (2025). Metacognition research in education: Topic modeling and bibliometric analysis. Educational Technology Research and Development. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-025-10451-8
Creswell, J. W. (2013). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (3rd ed.). SAGE Publications.
Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2018). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (4th ed.). SAGE Publications.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227–268. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327965PLI1104_01
Dewey, J. ([1938] 2015). Experience and education. The Free Press.
Edeh, N. I., Ugwoke, E. O., & Anaele, E. O. (2022). Effects of innovative pedagogies on academic achievement and development of 21st-century skills of taxation students in colleges of education. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 59(5), 533–542. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2021.1919174
Evin Gencel, İ., & Saracaloğlu, A. S. (2018). The effect of layered curriculum on reflective thinking and on self-directed learning readiness of prospective teachers. International Journal of Progressive Education, 14(1), 8–20. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1170957.pdf
Fábián, G. (2013). The application of improved metaphor analysis in education research. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 93, 1025–1029. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.09.323
Finch, D. J., Levallet, N., Saunders, C., & Field, E. (2023). A dynamic capability view of career adaptation: An exploratory study. Education + Training. https://doi.org/10.1108/ET-06-2021-0235
Gencel, İlke E., & Erdoğan, M. (2022). A study on Kolb’s revised learning style classification. Journal of Education for Life, 36(3), 813–833. https://doi.org/10.33308/26674874.2022363492
Gencel, U. (2015). Türkiye’de vergiye bakış: Metaforik bir analiz. Ekin Yayınevi.
Gencel, U., & Evin Gencel, İ. (2018). Teaching tax law: Undergraduates’ thoughts regarding the implementation of six thinking hats technique. International Journal of Financial Research, 9(2), 31–38. https://doi.org/10.5430/ijfr.v9n2p31
Gencel, U., & Evin Gencel, İ. (2019, March). Türk Vergi Sistemi dersinde aktif öğrenme uygulamasına ilişkin öğrenci görüşleri. In International Congress on Science and Education 2019 (ICSE 2019) (pp. 639–645).
Geyik, O., Şeren, G. Y., & Yakşi, Y. (2024a). The effect of tax education on Generation Alpha’s tax awareness: An experimental study. International Journal of Public Finance, 9(2), 223–246. https://doi.org/10.30927/ijpf.1537069
Geyik, O., Şeren, G. Y., & McGee, R. W. (2024b). An empirical analysis on the effect of taxpayers’ educational level and marital status factor on their attitudes and behaviors towards taxes. Bulletin of Economic Theory and Analysis, 9(2), 427–449.
Gibbs, R. W. (Ed.). (2008). The Cambridge handbook of metaphor and thought. Cambridge University Press.
Haynie, J. M., & Shepherd, D. A. (2012). Cognitive adaptability and an entrepreneurial task. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 36(2), 237–265. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2010.00410.x
Herrington, J., & Oliver, R. (2000). An instructional design framework for authentic learning environments. Educational Technology Research and Development, 48(3), 23–48. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02319856
Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2004). Problem-based learning. Educational Psychology Review, 16(3), 235–266. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:EDPR.0000034022.16470.f3
Ia, K. N., & Ye, T. S. (2020). Cognitive and metacognitive aspects of the development of lifelong learning competencies in law students. Research in Science, Engineering and Education. https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/cognitive-and-metacognitive-aspects-of-the-development-of-lifelong-learning-competencies-in-law-students
Kallio, H., Pietilä, A.-M., Johnson, M., & Kangasniemi, M. (2016). Developing a framework for a qualitative semi-structured interview guide. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 72(12), 2954–2965. https://doi.org/10.1111/jan.13031
Karsten, I., & Steenekamp, K. (2020). Empowering accounting students. South African Journal of Higher Education, 34(2), 144–163. https://doi.org/10.20853/34-2-3487
Kolb, D. A., & Kolb, A. Y. (2017). Experiential learning theory as a guide. ELI Review. https://learningfromexperience.com/
Kurniawan, D. (2020). The influence of tax education. Journal of Indonesian Economy and Business, 35(1), 57–72.
Lakoff, G. (2004). Don’t think of an elephant!. Chelsea Green Publishing. Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (2003). Metaphors we live by. University of Chicago Press.
Leavy, A. M., McSorley, F. A., & Boté, L. A. (2007). Metaphor construction and teacher beliefs. Teaching and Teacher Education, 23(7), 1217–1233. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2006.07.009
Levy, H. M. (2008). Meeting the needs of all students. The Clearing House, 81(4), 161–164. https://doi.org/10.3200/TCHS.81.4.161-164
Malan, M. (2024). An integrated tutorial programme [Doctoral dissertation, University of Pretoria]. ProQuest.
Malan, M., Els, G., & Karsten, I. (2025). Developing self-regulated learning. Journal of Management and Business Education, 4(1), 1–18.
Malan, D., & Karsten, I. (2025). Developing ethical reasoning in public sector accounting education. Journal of Accounting Education, 62(1), 100759.
Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research. Jossey-Bass.
Nowell, L. S., Norris, J. M., White, D. E., & Moules, N. J. (2017). Trustworthiness in thematic analysis. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 16(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406917733847
Nunley, K. F. (2004a). Layered Curriculum® (2nd ed.). Morris Publishing.
Nunley, K. F. (2004b). Layered Curriculum®. Brains.org.
Nunley, K. F., & Evin Gencel, İ. (2019). Katmanlı Program®. Mersin Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 15(2), 349–362.
OECD. (2018). The future of education and skills: Education 2030 – Learning Compass 2030. OECD Publishing.
Panadero, E. (2017). A review of self-regulated learning. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 422. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00422
Patton, M. Q. (2014). Qualitative research & evaluation methods (4th ed.). SAGE Publications.
Saban, A. (2008). Okula ilişkin metaforlar. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Yönetimi, 55, 459–496.
Saban, A. (2009). Öğretmen adaylarının öğrenci kavramına ilişkin zihinsel imgeleri. Türk Eğitim Bilimleri Dergisi, 7(2), 281–326.
Sandelowski, M. (2000). Whatever happened to qualitative description? Research in Nursing & Health, 23(4), 334–340. https://doi.org/10.1002/1098-240X(200008)23:4<334::AID-NUR9>3.0.CO;2-G
Shi, H. (2022). Metaphor analysis of EFL graduate students’ beliefs. Frontiers in Education, 7, 972996. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2022.972996
Smith, P. A. (2001). Understanding self-regulated learning. Issues in Accounting Education, 16(4), 663–690. https://doi.org/10.2308/iace.2001.16.4.663
Sun, Q., Efklides, A., & Vauras, M. (2021). Metacognitive experiences. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 744842. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.744842
Taranto, D., & Buchanan, M. T. (2020). Sustaining lifelong learning. Discourse and Communication for Sustainable Education, 11(1), 28–41. https://doi.org/10.2478/dcse-2020-0002
Terblanche, E. A. J., & De Clercq, B. (2021). Critical thinking competency framework. Accounting Education, 30(4), 373–397. https://doi.org/10.1080/09639284.2021.1913614
Tomlinson, C. A. (2001). How to differentiate instruction in mixed-ability classrooms (2nd ed.). ASCD.
Torgler, B. (2007). Tax compliance and tax morale: A theoretical and empirical analysis. Edward Elgar Publishing.
Trawule, A. Y., Gadzo, S. G., Kportorgbi, H. K., & Sam-Quarm, R. (2022). Tax education and fear-appealing messages. Cogent Business & Management, 9(1), 2049436. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2022.2049436
Tracy, S. J. (2020). Qualitative research methods (2nd ed.). Wiley-Blackwell.
Williams, D., & Johns, M. (2025). Reflective pedagogies. Journal of Educational Innovation, 12(2), 90–108.
Wolcott, S. K. (2021). Metacognition and ethical judgment. Journal of Business Ethics Education, 18, 175–192.
Zimmerman, B. J. (2002). Becoming a self-regulated learner. Theory into Practice, 41(2), 64–70. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4102_2

Details

Primary Language

English

Subjects

Policy of Treasury

Journal Section

Research Article

Authors

Ufuk Gencel ^*
0000-0001-9345-2572
Türkiye

Early Pub Date

April 7, 2026

Publication Date

June 28, 2026

Submission Date

November 27, 2025

Acceptance Date

March 8, 2026

Published in Issue

Year 2026 Volume: 11 Number: 2

DOI

https://doi.org/10.25229/beta.1831474

IZ

https://izlik.org/JA74PJ42SH

APA

Gencel, U. (2026). Layered Curriculum® in Tax Education: A Qualitative Inquiry. Bulletin of Economic Theory and Analysis, 11(2), 755-783. https://doi.org/10.25229/beta.1831474

AMA

1.Gencel U. Layered Curriculum® in Tax Education: A Qualitative Inquiry. Beta. 2026;11(2):755-783. doi:10.25229/beta.1831474

Chicago

Gencel, Ufuk. 2026. “Layered Curriculum® in Tax Education: A Qualitative Inquiry”. Bulletin of Economic Theory and Analysis 11 (2): 755-83. https://doi.org/10.25229/beta.1831474.

EndNote

Gencel U (June 1, 2026) Layered Curriculum® in Tax Education: A Qualitative Inquiry. Bulletin of Economic Theory and Analysis 11 2 755–783.

IEEE

[1]U. Gencel, “Layered Curriculum® in Tax Education: A Qualitative Inquiry”, Beta, vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 755–783, June 2026, doi: 10.25229/beta.1831474.

ISNAD

Gencel, Ufuk. “Layered Curriculum® in Tax Education: A Qualitative Inquiry”. Bulletin of Economic Theory and Analysis 11/2 (June 1, 2026): 755-783. https://doi.org/10.25229/beta.1831474.

JAMA

1.Gencel U. Layered Curriculum® in Tax Education: A Qualitative Inquiry. Beta. 2026;11:755–783.

MLA

Gencel, Ufuk. “Layered Curriculum® in Tax Education: A Qualitative Inquiry”. Bulletin of Economic Theory and Analysis, vol. 11, no. 2, June 2026, pp. 755-83, doi:10.25229/beta.1831474.

Vancouver

1.Ufuk Gencel. Layered Curriculum® in Tax Education: A Qualitative Inquiry. Beta. 2026 Jun. 1;11(2):755-83. doi:10.25229/beta.1831474

images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRvoKvjUr081z-KcdXLcXXPQTR9B7O8m0BOBg&s

The articles published in this journal are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Layered Curriculum® in Tax Education: A Qualitative Inquiry

Abstract

Keywords

Supporting Institution

Ethical Statement

Vergi Eğitiminde Katmanlı Program® Uygulaması: Nitel Bir İnceleme

Abstract

Keywords

Supporting Institution

Ethical Statement

References

Details

Primary Language

Subjects

Journal Section

Authors

Early Pub Date

Publication Date

Submission Date

Acceptance Date

Published in Issue

DOI

IZ

Cite