gefad Gazi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi 1301-9058 3108-5342 Gazi Üniversitesi 10.17152/gefad.1741120 Curriculum Evaluation in Education Eğitimde Program Değerlendirme An Examination of Learning Outcomes in Science and Art Center from a Systems Thinking Perspective within the Framework of the Türkiye Century Education Model Türkiye Yüzyılı Maarif Modeli Perspektifinde BİLSEM Öğrenme Çıktılarının Sistem Düşüncesi Bakımından İncelenmesi https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4480-6220 Atik Hatice Karatay Bilim ve Sanat Merkezi https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4210-7733 Özcan Hasan AKSARAY ÜNİVERSİTESİ 04 27 2026 46 1 145 164 07 12 2025 01 08 2026 Copyright © 1985, Gazi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi 1985 Gazi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi

Systems thinking, considered within the scope of 21st century skills, plays a significant role in developing gifted students’ complex problem solving skills. In this context, this study aims to contribute to the literature by analyzing the Science and Art Centers Support Education Framework Curriculum, developed under the Türkiye Century Education Model, from a systems thinking perspective. Conducted using the document analysis method one of the qualitative research methods this study systematically examined the 112 learning outcomes of the relevant program using the Systems Thinking Hierarchy model developed by Ben-Zvi-Assaraf and Orion (2005) as an analytical framework. The research findings indicate that the learning outcomes are highly aligned with systems thinking skills. An examination of the cognitive distribution revealed that the highest concentration was at the application level, which is the top step of the model, followed by the synthesis and analysis levels. This hierarchical distribution indicates that the curriculum was designed with a holistic and application oriented approach that supports higher order cognitive processes. This study provides an evidence based resource that outlines the program’s theoretical foundations and potential for curriculum developers, education policymakers, teachers, and other stakeholders. Furthermore, it is believed that the program’s robust structural design at the document level lays the groundwork for future empirical and longitudinal studies examining its impact on implementation processes, teacher experiences, and the development of students’ systems thinking skills.

Yirmi birinci yüzyıl becerileri kapsamında ele alınan sistem düşüncesi, özel yetenekli öğrencilerin karmaşık problem çözme becerilerini geliştirmede önemli bir rol oynar. Bu doğrultuda bu araştırma, Türkiye Yüzyılı Maarif Modeli kapsamında geliştirilen Bilim ve Sanat Merkezleri Destek Eğitimi Çerçeve Öğretim Programı’nı sistem düşüncesi perspektifinden analiz ederek alanyazına katkı sunmayı amaçlamaktadır. Nitel araştırma yöntemlerinden doküman incelemesi ile yürütülen bu çalışmada, ilgili programa ait 112 öğrenme çıktısı, Ben-Zvi-Assaraf ve Orion (2005) tarafından geliştirilen Sistem Düşüncesi Hiyerarşisi modeli analitik bir çerçeve olarak kullanılarak sistematik biçimde incelenmiştir. Araştırma bulguları, öğrenme çıktılarının sistem düşüncesi becerileriyle yüksek düzeyde uyumlu olduğunu göstermektedir. Bilişsel dağılım incelendiğinde en yüksek yoğunluğun modelin en üst basamağı olan uygulama düzeyinde olduğu; bunu sentez ve analiz düzeylerinin izlediği belirlenmiştir. Bu hiyerarşik dağılım, öğretim programının üst düzey bilişsel süreçleri destekleyen bütüncül ve uygulama odaklı bir anlayışla hazırlandığını göstermektedir. Çalışma, müfredat geliştiricileri, eğitim politikası yapıcıları, öğretmenler ve diğer paydaşlar için programın teorik temellerini ve potansiyelini ortaya koyan kanıta dayalı bir kaynak sunmaktadır. Ayrıca, programın doküman düzeyindeki güçlü yapısının uygulama süreçlerine, öğretmen deneyimlerine ve öğrencilerin sistem düşüncesi becerilerinin gelişimine etkisini inceleyecek gelecekteki ampirik ve boylamsal araştırmalar için zemin oluşturduğu düşünülmektedir.

 Türkiye Yüzyılı Maarif Modeli Bilim ve Sanat Merkezleri Destek Eğitim Programı Özel yetenekli öğrenciler öğrenme çıktısı sistem düşüncesi. Türkiye Century Education Model Science and Art Centres Support Education Curriculum Gifted students learning outcome System Thinking Bu araştırmada herhangi bir kurum, kuruluş ya da kişiden destek alınmamıştır. Akyıldız, S., & Aytar, A. (2024). Fen bilimleri dersi öğretim programı ile sosyal bilgiler dersi öğretim programının sistem düşüncesi açısından incelenmesi. Trakya Eğitim Dergisi, 14(Özel Sayı), 347-363. https://doi.org/10.24315/tred.1518995 Arnold, R. D., & Wade, J. P. (2015). A definition of systems thinking: A systems approach. Procedia Computer Science, 44, 669–678. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2015.03.050 Arnold, R. D., & Wade, J. P. (2017). A complete set of system thinking skills. Insight, 20(3), 9–17. https://doi.org/10.1002/inst.12159 Behl, D. V., & Ferreira, S. (2014). Systems thinking: An analysis of key factors and relationships. Procedia Computer Science, 36, 104–109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2014.09.045 Ben-Zvi-Assaraf, O., & Orion, N. (2005a). A study of junior high students’ perceptions of the water cycle. Journal of Geoscience Education, 53(4), 366–373. https://doi.org/10.5408/1089-9995-53.4.366 Ben-Zvi-Assaraf, O., & Orion, N. (2005b). Development of system thinking skills in the context of earth system education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(5), 518–560. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20061 Boardman, J., & Sauser, B. (2008). Systems thinking: Coping with 21st century problems. CRC Press. https://doi.org/10.1201/9781420054927 Bruner, J. S., Olver, R. R., & Greenfield, P. M. (1966). Studies in cognitive growth: A collaboration at the Center for Cognitive Studies. John Wiley & Sons. Creswell, J. W. (2008). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (3rd ed.). Pearson/Merrill Prentice Hall. Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2018). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (4th ed.). SAGE Publications. Cuevas, P., Lee, O., Hart, J., & Deaktor, R. (2005). Improving science inquiry with elementary students of diverse backgrounds. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(3), 337–357. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20053 Evagorou, M., Korfiatis, K., Nicolaou, C., & Constantinou, C. (2009). An investigation of the potential of interactive simulations for developing system thinking skills in elementary school: A case study with fifth-graders and sixth‐graders. International Journal of Science Education, 31(5), 655–674. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690701749313 Forrester, J. W. (2007). System dynamics—A personal view of the first fifty years. System Dynamics Review, 23(2–3), 345–358. https://doi.org/10.1002/sdr.382 Goldstone, R. L., & Wilensky, U. (2008). Promoting transfer by grounding complex systems principles. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 17(4), 465–516. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508400802394898 Göktepe, E. (2020). Sistem düşüncesi temel becerileri. E. Göktepe (Ed.), Eğitimde sistem düşüncesi yıllığı içinde (Cilt 7, ss. 23-45). Sistem Düşüncesi Derneği. Guest, G., MacQueen, K. M., & Namey, E. E. (2012). Applied thematic analysis. SAGE Publications. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781483384436 Hanedar, Gökçe M. (2024). Exploring the inclusion of the systems thinking approach in the Turkish middle school science curriculum and textbooks (Yayın No. 886806) [Yayımlanmamış yüksek lisans tezi, Boğaziçi Üniversitesi]. YÖK Ulusal Tez Merkezi. https://tez.yok.gov.tr/UlusalTezMerkezi/tezDetay.jsp?id=BlhT4geC8ee6PHawgL3tpw&no=ieLlB2WbQV4qTR_UMXFaMw Hébert, T. P. (1993). Reflections at graduation: The long-term impact of elementary school experiences in creative productivity. Roeper Review, 16(1), 22–28. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783199309553529 Heller, K. A., Perleth, C., & Lim, T. K. (2005). The Munich Model of Giftedness designed to identify and promote gifted students. In R. J. Sternberg & J. E. Davidson (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (2nd ed., pp. 172–197). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511610455.010 Hmelo-Silver, C. E., & Azevedo, R. (2006). Understanding complex systems: Some core challenges. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(1), 53–61. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls1501_7 Honig, M. I. (2006). Complexity and policy implementation. In M. I. Honig (Ed.), New directions in education policy implementation: Confronting complexity (pp. 1–25). State University of New York Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/jj.18254222.4 Hsieh, H.-F., & Shannon, S. E. (2005). Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 15(9), 1277–1288. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732305276687 Jacobson, M. J., & Wilensky, U. (2006). Complex systems in education: Scientific and educational importance and implications for the learning sciences. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(1), 11–34. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls1501_4 Kali, Y., Orion, N., & Eylon, B. (2003). Effect of knowledge integration activities on students’ perception of the Earth’s crust as a cyclic system. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(6), 545–565. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.10096 Karaarslan Semiz, G., & Teksöz, G. (2020). Developing the systems thinking skills of pre-service science teachers through an outdoor ESD course. Journal of Adventure Education and Outdoor Learning, 20(4), 337–356. https://doi.org/10.1080/14729679.2019.1686038 Kim, D. H., & Senge, P. M. (1994). Putting systems thinking into practice. System Dynamics Review, 10(2-3), 277–290. https://doi.org/10.1002/sdr.4260100213 Knippels, M. C. P. (2002). Coping with the abstract and complex nature of genetics in biology education: The yo-yo learning and teaching strategy [Doctoral thesis, Utrecht University]. Utrecht University Reposi-tory. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Coping-with-the-abstract-and-complex-nature-of-in-%3A-Knippels/95d6c78c91631d3c46570f5da794c14b3106d4e9 Korstjens, I., & Moser, A. (2018). Series: Practical guidance to qualitative research. Part 4: Trustworthiness and publishing. European Journal of General Practice, 24(1), 120–124. https://doi.org/10.1080/13814788.2017.1375092 Krippendorff, K. (2004). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology (2nd ed.). Sage Publicati-ons. https://web.stanford.edu/class/comm1a/readings/krippendorf-ch1and4.pdf Kuckartz, U., & Rädiker, S. (2019). Analyzing qualitative data with MAXQDA: Text, audio, and video. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-15671-8 Lesh, R. (2006). Modeling students modeling abilities: The teaching and learning of complex systems in education. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(1), 45–52. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls1501_6 Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. SAGE Publications. https://doi.org/10.1016/0147-1767(85)90062-8 Liu, L., & Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2009). Promoting complex systems learning through the use of conceptual representations in hypermedia. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(9), 1023–1040. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20297 Lubinski, D., Webb, R. M., Morelock, M. J., & Benbow, C. P. (2001). Top 1 in 10,000: A 10-year follow-up of the profoundly gifted. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(4), 718–729. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.86.4.718 Mandinach, E. B. (1989). Model-building and the use of computer simulation of dynamic systems. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 5(2), 221–243. https://doi.org/10.2190/7W4F-XY0H-L6FH-39R8 Méheut, M., & Psillos, D. (2004). Teaching-learning sequences: Aims and tools for science education research. International Journal of Science Education, 26(5), 515–535. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690310001614762 Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation (4th ed.). Jossey-Bass. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). SA-GE Publications. Nowell, L. S., Norris, J. M., White, D. E., & Moules, N. J. (2017). Thematic analysis: Striving to meet the trustworthiness criteria. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 16(1). https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406917733847 O’Connor, C., & Joffe, H. (2020). Intercoder reliability in qualitative research: Debates and practical guidelines. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 19. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406919899220 O’Connor, J., & McDermott, I. (1997). The art of systems thinking: Essential skills for creativity and problem solving. Thorsons. Orion, N. (1993). A model for the development and implementation of field trips as an integral part of the science curriculum. School Science and Mathematics, 93(6), 325–331. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1949-8594.1993.tb12254.x Orion, N. (2002). An earth systems curriculum development model. In V. J. Mayer (Ed.), Global science literacy (pp. 159–168). Kluwer Academic Publishers. https://doi.org/10.1007/0-306-47574-X_11 Ossimitz, G. (2000, August 6-10). Teaching system dynamics and systems thinking in Austria and Germany [Conference presentation]. 18th International Conference of the System Dynamics Society, Bergen, Norway. Paçacı, Ç. (2024). Gifted education in Turkiye from the perspectives on Science and Art Centers (SAC): Issues and suggestions. Journal of Gifted Education and Creativity, 11(1), 23-35. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.14563132 Palys, T. (2008). Purposive sampling. In L. M. Given (Ed.), The SAGE encyclopedia of qualitative research methods (Vol. 2, pp. 697-698). SAGE Publications. Plate, R., & Monroe, M. (2014). A structure for assessing systems thinking. The Creative Learning Exchange, 23(1), 1-3. Ramage, M., & Shipp, K. (2009). Systems thinkers. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-84882-525-3 Reis, S. M. (2005). Feminist perspectives on talent development: A research-based conception of giftedness in women. In R. J. Sternberg & J. E. Davidson (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (2nd ed., pp. 217–245). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511610455.014 Renzulli, J. S. (2005). The three-ring conception of giftedness: A developmental model for promoting creative productivity. In R. J. Sternberg & J. E. Davidson (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (2nd ed., pp. 246–279). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511610455.015 Renzulli, J. S., & Park, S. (2000). Gifted dropouts: The who and the why. Gifted Child Quarterly, 44(4), 261–271. https://doi.org/10.1177/001698620004400407 Renzulli, J. S., & Reis, S. M. (2003). The development of social capital. In N. Colangelo & G. A. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (3rd ed., pp. 75–87). Allyn & Bacon. Richmond, B. (2000). The “thinking” in systems thinking: Seven essential skills. The Systems Thinker, 11(6), 1-5. Riess, W., & Mischo, C. (2010). Promoting systems thinking through biology lessons. International Journal of Science Education, 32(6), 705-725. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690902769946 Senge, P. M. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. Doubleday/Currency. Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. Sage Publications. Stave, K., & Hopper, M. (2007, July 29 - August 2). What constitutes systems thinking? A proposed taxonomy [Conference presentation]. 25th International Conference of the System Dynamics Society, Boston, MA, United States of America. Sternberg, R. J. (Ed.). (2004). Definitions and conceptions of giftedness. Corwin Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511610455 Sternberg, R. J., & Davidson, J. E. (Eds.). (2005). Conceptions of giftedness (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511610455 Subotnik, R. F., Olszewski-Kubilius, P., & Worrell, F. C. (2011). Rethinking giftedness and gifted education: A proposed direction forward based on psychological science. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 12(1), 3–54. https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100611418056 Sungur, S., & Tekkaya, C. (2003). Students’ achievement in human circulatory system unit: The effect of reasoning ability and gender. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 12(1), 59–64. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022111728683 Sweeney, L. B., & Sterman, J. D. (2000). Bathtub dynamics: Initial results of a systems thinking inventory. System Dynamics Review, 16(4), 249–286. https://doi.org/10.1002/sdr.198 Şahingöz, S. (2021). Are spatial and systems thinking skills identified in Turkish primary science curriculum enough for geography education? Review of International Geographical Education Online, 11(1), 188-214. https://doi.org/10.33403/rigeo.857279 T.C. Millî Eğitim Bakanlığı. (2023). 1739 Sayılı Millî Eğitim Temel Kanunu. https://mevzuat.meb.gov.tr/mevzuat?MevzuatNo=1739&MevzuatTur=1&MevzuatTertip=5 T.C. Millî Eğitim Bakanlığı. (2024). Bilim ve Sanat Merkezleri Destek Eğitim Programı Tanıtımı. https://bilsem.meb.gov.tr/BLS00046.ASPX Tran, L. (2009). Children and adults’ understanding of ocean and climate sciences. Paper prepared for the Committee for the Review of the NOAA Education Program. https://www.scirp.org/reference/referencespapers?referenceid=706820 Verhoeff, R. P., Waarlo, A. J., & Boersma, K. T. (2008). Systems modelling and the development of coherent understanding of cell biology. International Journal of Science Education, 30(4), 543–568. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690701237780 Yakut-Özek, B. (2021). Eğitim reformunun başarısında etkili olan etmenler: BİLSEM modelinin politika nitelikleri kuramı bağlamında analizi. Nevşehir Hacı Bektaş Veli Üniversitesi SBE Dergisi, 11(3), 1192-1222. Zohar, A., & Dori, Y. J. (2003). Higher order thinking skills and low-achieving students: Are they mutually exclusive? The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(2), 145–181. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327809JLS1202_1