Intertextual Reading in the Turkish Curriculum of the Turkish Century Education Model and Pre-Service Classroom Teachers' Views

Öz

This study aims to analyze the extent to which the intertextual reading method is incorporated into the updated 2024 Turkish Language Teaching Curriculum within the framework of the Türkiye Century Maarif Model, as well as the perspectives of pre-service primary school teachers on this method. Intertextual reading is a cognitive and critical approach that enables individuals to construct meaning by establishing connections between texts. In the study, a basic qualitative research design was adopted; the data sources included the Elementary School Turkish Language Teaching Program and semi-structured interviews. Content analysis was conducted. The study group consists of 17 pre-service primary school teachers who have completed the Turkish language teaching course. Findings indicate that while the 2024 Turkish Language Teaching Curriculum does not explicitly include the intertextual reading concept, it incorporates various instructional activities that encourage students to establish connections between different texts. Pre-service teachers acknowledge the method's contribution to reading comprehension and critical thinking skills, yet emphasize the lack of explicit guidelines in the curriculum to facilitate its classroom implementation. Challenges such as time management issues, lack of instructional materials, and insufficient pedagogical guidance were identified during the application process. In conclusion, the findings highlight the need for enhanced practical content in teacher education programs and the development of more structured guidelines within the curriculum to support the effective implementation of the intertextual reading method at the primary school level.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Intertextual Reading
• Türkiye Century Maarif Model
• Turkish Language Curriculum.

Türkiye Yüzyılı Maarif Modeli Türkçe Öğretim Programında Metinlerarası Okuma ve Öğretmen Adaylarının Görüşleri

Öz

Bu çalışma, 2024 Türkiye Yüzyılı Maarif Modeli doğrultusunda güncellenen İlkokul Türkçe Öğretim Programı’nda metinlerarası okuma yönteminin yerini ve sınıf öğretmeni adaylarının bu yönteme dair görüşlerini analiz etmeyi amaçlamaktadır. Metinlerarası okuma, bireylerin metinler arasında bağ kurarak anlam inşa etmelerine olanak tanıyan bilişsel ve eleştirel bir yaklaşımdır. Araştırmada temel nitel desen benimsenmiş; veri kaynağı olarak İlkokul Türkçe Öğretim Programı ve yarı yapılandırılmış görüşmeler kullanılmıştır. İçerik analizi yapılmıştır. Çalışma grubunu, Türkçe öğretimi dersini tamamlamış 17 sınıf öğretmeni adayı oluşturmaktadır. Bulgular, 2024 Türkçe Öğretim Programı’nda metinlerarası okumanın doğrudan yer almadığını, ancak bağlantı kurmayı teşvik eden etkinliklerin bulunduğunu göstermektedir. Öğretmen adayları yöntemin okuma, anlama ve eleştirel düşünmeye katkı sağladığını belirtmekle birlikte, programın açık yönergeler içermediğini vurgulamıştır. Uygulamada zaman yönetimi, materyal eksikliği ve pedagojik rehberlik yetersizliği gibi sorunlarla karşılaşılmıştır. Sonuç olarak, yöntemin etkili uygulanabilmesi için öğretmen eğitim programlarında uygulamalı içeriklerin artırılması ve öğretim programlarında daha yapılandırılmış yönergeler geliştirilmesi önerilmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Metinlerarası Okuma
• Türkiye Yüzyılı Maarif Modeli
• Türkçe Öğretim Programı.

Kaynakça

1. Adetuyi, C. A., & Olatayo, O. F. (2016). Intertextuality awareness as a tool for effective understanding of texts. International Journal of Advanced Academic Research, 2(1), 1-6.
2. Ahangari, S., & Sepehran, H. (2014). The effect of intertextuality on Iranian EFL learners’ critical writing. Iranian Journal of Language Teaching Research, 2(1), 85-98.
3. Ahmadian, M., & Yazdani, H. (2013). A study of the effects of intertextuality awareness on reading literary texts: The case of short stories. Journal of Educational and Social Research, 3(2), 155-161.
4. Akdal, D., & Şahin, A. (2014). The Effects of Intertextual Reading Approach on the Development of Creative Writing Skills. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 54, 171-186.
5. Akpınar, B., & Köksalan, B. (2024). Eğitimde maarif ve müfredat yenileme ihtiyacı: Türkiye Yüzyılı Maarif Modeli üzerinden teorik bir analiz [The need for maarif and curriculum renewal in education: A theoretical analysis based on the Türkiye Century Maarif Model]. Journal of History School, 17(68), 27–48.
6. Arslankara, V. B., & Arslankara, E. (2024). Türkiye Yüzyılı Maarif Modeli’nin felsefi temelleri: Ontolojik, epistemolojik ve aksiyolojik bakış açılarından bir değerlendirme [Philosophical foundations of the Türkiye Century Maarif Model: An evaluation from ontological, epistemological, and axiological perspectives]. İstanbul Eğitim Dergisi, 1(1), 121–145.
7. Aslan, E. (2011). Türkiye Cumhuriyeti'nin ilkokullarda izlediği ilk öğretim programı: “1924 İlk Mektepler Müfredat Programı” [The first primary education curriculum implemented in the Republic of Turkey: “The 1924 Primary Schools Curriculum Program”]. İlköğretim Online, 10(2), 717–734.
8. Balcı, A. (2010). 1338 (1922) ilköğretim Türkçe dersi programı [The 1338 (1922) primary school Turkish language curriculum]. Türklük Bilimi Araştırmaları, (27), 111–119.

9. Banaz, E. (2024). 2024 Türkiye Yüzyılı Maarif Modeli Ortaokul Türkçe Dersi Öğretim Programı’nın dijital okuryazarlık açısından incelenmesi [An analysis of the 2024 Türkiye Century Maarif Model middle school Turkish course curriculum in terms of digital literacy]. Kuram ve Uygulamada Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 8(1), 279–290.
10. Baş, Ö., Avşar Tuncay, A., & Akyol, H. (2014). Metinlerarası anlayışla Türk destanlarının eğitim-öğretimde kullanılması [Using Turkish epics in education with an intertextual understanding]. Cito Eğitim: Kuram ve Uygulama, 26, 23–36.
11. Bekpenbetova, S., Satkenova, S., Zholdybayev, O., Yerzhanova, S., Ibrayeva, Z., & Seyitova, B. (2025). Intertextuality in Modern Kazakh Prose: Enhancing Cultural Identity and Academic Success in Higher Education. Journal of Ethnic and Cultural Studies, 12(1), 62–85. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejecs/2408
12. Binbaşıoğlu, C. (1999). İlkokuma ve yazma öğretiminin ve alfabe kitaplarının tarihsel gelişimi [The historical development of initial reading and writing instruction and alphabet books]. Eğitim ve Bilim, 24(114).
13. Bloome, D., & Egan-Robertson, A. (1993). The social construction of intertextuality in classroom reading and writing lessons. Reading Research Quarterly, 28(4), 304–333. https://doi.org/10.2307/747928
14. Chi, F. M. (1995). EFL readers and a focus on intertextuality. Journal of reading, 38(8), 638-644.
15. Creswell, J. W. (2013). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. Sage.
16. Currie, G., & Knights, D. (2003). Reflecting on a critical pedagogy in the MBA: Power and control in the business school. Management Learning, 34(1), 27–49. https://doi.org/10.1177/1350507603034001129
17. Çayır, M., & Ünveren, D. (2025). 2024 Türkçe dersi öğretim programındaki derin anlama yönelik öğrenme çıktılara ulaştıracak yol ve stratejiler: Etkinlik örnekleri [Ways and strategies to achieve deep comprehension learning outcomes in the 2024 Turkish course curriculum: Sample activities]. Tarih Okulu Dergisi, 18(76), 2384–2409. https://doi.org/10.29228/joh.78470
18. Dehler, G. E., Welsh, M. A., & Lewis, M. W. (2001). Critical pedagogy in the “new paradigm”: The struggle against the hegemony of management education. Management Learning, 32(4), 493–511. https://doi.org/10.1177/1350507601324005
19. Duke, N. K., & Pearson, P. D. (2002). Effective practices for developing reading comprehension. In A. E. Farstrup & S. J. Samuels (Eds.), What research has to say about reading instruction (3rd ed., pp. 205-242). International Reading Association.
20. Elkad-Lehman, I., & Greensfeld, H. (2011). Intertextuality as an interpretative method in qualitative research. Narrative Inquiry, 21, 258-275. https://doi.org/10.1075/NI.21.2.05ELK.
21. Fobes, C., & Kaufman, P. (2008). Critical pedagogy in the sociology classroom: Challenges and concerns. Teaching Sociology, 36(1), 26–33. https://doi.org/10.1177/0092055X0803600104
22. Fraenkel, J., Wallen, N., & Hyun, H. (2023). How to design and evaluate research in education (11th ed.). McGraw-Hill.
23. Giroux, H. A. (2021). Critical pedagogy. In R. Becker & W. Helsper (Eds.), Handbuch Bildungs- und Erziehungssoziologie (pp. 1–16). Springer VS. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-31395-1_19-1
24. Hartman, D. K. (1995). Eight readers reading: The intertextual links of proficient readers reading multiple passages. Reading Research Quarterly, 30(3), 520–561. https://doi.org/10.2307/747631
25. Hartman, D. K., & Langer, J. A. (2001). Intertextuality and reading: The text, the reader, and the context. In P. Mosenthal, M. L. Kamil, & P. D. Pearson (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 3, pp. 487-508). Lawrence Erlbaum.
26. Jin, M. (2024). Application of Intertextuality in English Literary Works in Senior High School Students‘ English Reading. Frontiers in Humanities and Social Sciences. https://doi.org/10.54691/mx7fqx05
27. Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Sage Publications.
28. Matthews, C. (2014). Critical pedagogy in health education. Health Education Journal, 73(5), 600–609. https://doi.org/10.1177/0017896913510511
29. Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation (2nd ed.). Jossey-Bass.
30. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. Sage.
31. Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı. (2019). Türkçe dersi öğretim programı [Turkish language course curriculum]. https://mufredat.meb.gov.tr/Dosyalar/20195716392253-02-T%C3%BCrk%C3%A7e%20%C3%96%C4%9Fretim%20Program%C4%B1%202019.pdf
32. Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı. (2024). Türkçe dersi öğretim programı [Turkish language course curriculum]. https://tymm.meb.gov.tr/ogretim-programlari/ilkokul-turkce-dersi
33. Moje, E. B. (2008). Foregrounding the disciplines in secondary literacy teaching and learning: A call for change. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 52(2), 96-107. https://doi.org/10.1598/JAAL.52.2.1 Murtiningsih, S., Nugroho, H., Ariani, I., & Utomo, A. (2024). The role of education for poverty alleviation in the perspective of critical pedagogy. Digital Press Social Sciences and Humanities, 6, 15–27. https://doi.org/10.29037/digitalpress.411465
34. OECD. (2019). PISA 2018 results: What students know and can do (Volume I). OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/5f07c754-en
35. Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative research & evaluation methods: Integrating theory and practice (4th ed.). Sage Publications.
36. Pearson, P. D. (2004). The Reading Wars. Educational Policy, 18(1), 216-252. https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904803260041
37. Pengfei, X. (2023). Exploration of high school english group reading teaching based on ıntertextuality theory. Frontiers in Educational Research, 6(29).
38. Pinedo, A., Vossoughi, N., & Lewis, N. (2021). Critical pedagogy and children’s beneficial development. Policy Insights from the Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 8(2), 183–191. https://doi.org/10.1177/23727322211033000
39. Polat, İ., Sağlam, A., & Çelik, S. (2023). Education-themed TED talks from the perspective of critical pedagogy. Review of Education, Pedagogy, and Cultural Studies, 45(4), 310–332. https://doi.org/10.1080/10714413.2023.2202592
40. Rechin, S. (2023). Intertextuality and its role in the classroom. Learning to Teach. Retrieved from https://openjournals.utoledo.edu/index.php/learningtoteach/article/view/568
41. Staarman, J. K., Aarnoutse, C., & Verhoeven, L. (2003). Connecting discourses: Intertextuality in a primary school CSCL practice. International Journal of Educational Research, 39(8), 807-816. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2004.11.003
42. Tarchi, C., & Ledesma, L. C. (2024). Readers’ awareness in the use of intertextual strategies when writing from multiple texts. Journal of Writing Research, 16(2), 249-269. https://doi.org/10.17239/jowr-2024.16.02.03
43. Ülçay, O. (2024). Türkiye Yüzyılı Maarif Modeli değerlendirmesi [An evaluation of the Türkiye Century Maarif Model]. Ulusal Eğitim, Toplum ve Dünya Dergisi, 1(2), 70–75. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.11097248
44. Varelas, M., & Pappas, C. C. (2006). Intertextuality in read-alouds of integrated science-literacy units in urban primary classrooms: Opportunities for the development of thought and language. Cognition and Instruction, 24(2), 211-259. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci2402_2
45. Yıldırım, Y., & Çalışkan, A. (2024). Türkiye Yüzyılı Maarif Modeli’nin 21. yüzyıl insan profili açısından değerlendirilmesi [An evaluation of the Türkiye Century Maarif Model in terms of the 21st-century human profile]. Electronic Journal of Education Sciences, 13(26), 204–220. https://doi.org/10.55605/ejedus.1548121
46. Yurdakal, İ. H. (2024). Türkiye Yüzyılı Maarif Modeli: 2024 ilkokul Türkçe dersi öğretim programı'nın (1, 2, 3 ve 4. sınıflar) incelenmesi [Türkiye Century Maarif Model: An analysis of the 2024 primary school Turkish language course curriculum (grades 1, 2, 3, and 4)]. Temel Eğitim, (24), 76–88.