Analysis of Maarif Model of Century of Türkiye Secondary School Mathematics Curriculum According to SOLO Taxonomy

Abstract

Curricula are regularly updated to keep pace with social developments and scientific advancements. In this context, a new curriculum called the Maarif Model of Century of Türkiye was introduced into the Turkish Education System in 2024. Taxonomic approaches are often employed in the development of curricula; however, the specific taxonomic approach used in this curriculam has not been disclosed. The aim of this study is to analyze the secondary school Mathematics Course outcomes of the Maarif Model of Century of Türkiye Educational Program using the SOLO taxonomy. The study utilized document analysis, a qualitative research method. The outcomes were analyzed according to the SOLO taxonomy using software developed by the researchers. The results of the analysis were then reported and discussed.

Keywords

• SOLO Taxonomy
• Türkiye Maarif Model
• Secondary school
• Mathematics curriculum

References

1. Acar, S., & Peker, B. (2023). 2018 Ortaokul matematik dersi öğretim programı kazanımlarının solo taksonomisine göre incelenmesi. İnönü Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 24(2), 1155-1171. https://doi.org/10.17679/inuefd.1220514
2. Aktan, O. (2019). İlkokul matematik öğretim programı dersi kazanımlarının yenilenen Bloom taksonomisine göre incelenmesi. Pamukkale Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 1-18. 10.9779/pauefd.523545
3. Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. Longman.
4. Arı, A. (2013). Revised Bloom, SOLO, Fink, Dettmer taxonomies in cognitive area classification and their international recognition cases. Uşak University Journal of Social Sciences, 6(2), 259-290.
5. Arı, S. (2023). SOLO taksonomisi temelinde hayat bilgisi dersi öğretim programı kazanımlarının incelenmesi. Anadolu Dil ve Eğitim Dergisi, 1(2), 58-68. 10.5281/zenodo. https://10445720
6. Aronshtam, L., Shrot, T., & Shmallo, R. (2021). Can we do better? A classification of algorithm run-time-complexity improvement using the SOLO taxonomy. Education and Information Technologies, 26(5), 5851–5872. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-021-10532-0
7. Aslan, S. A. (2023). Investigation of the learning outcomes in the Turkish course curriculum (from 5th grade to 8th grade) in terms of the SOLO taxonomy. Trakya Eğitim Dergisi, 13(1), 682-694. https://doi.org/10.24315/tred. https://1084426
8. Ay, Ş. (2005). Critical thinking instruction and Bloom’s taxonomy. Abant İzzet Baysal University Journal of Education, 5(2), 164-173.

9. Biggs, J. B., & Collis, K. F. (1982). Evaluating the quality of learning: The SOLO Taxonomy. Academic.
10. Biggs, J. B., & Collis, K. F. (1982). The psychological structure of creative writing. Australian Journal of Education, 26(1), 59-70.
11. Biggs, J. B., & Collis, K. F. (1991). Multimodal learning and the quality of intelligent behavior. In H. Rowe (Eds.), Intelligence: Reconceptualization and measurement (pp. 64-67). Lawrence Erlbaum Assoc.
12. Biggs, J. B., & Collis, K. F. (2014). Evaluation the quality of learning: the SOLO taxonomy (structure of the observed learning outcome). Academic Press.
13. Bowen, G. A. (2009). Document analysis as a qualitative research method. Qualitative Research Journal, 9(2), 27-40.
14. Brabrand, C., & Dahl, B. (2009). Using the SOLO taxonomy to analyze competence progression of university science curricula. High Education, 58, 531–549.
15. Bursa, S. (2018). 2018 Sosyal bilgiler öğretim programının solo taksonomisine göre incelenmesi. İnönü Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 23(2), 1015-1032. https://doi.org/10.17679/inuefd.1024442
16. Bümen, N. T. (2006). Program geliştirmede bir dönüm noktası: yenilenmiş Bloom taksonomisi. Eğitim ve Bilim, 142. 3-14.
17. Chan, C., Tsui, M. S., Chan, M., & Hong, J. (2002). Applying the structure of the observed learning outcomes (SOLO) taxonomy on student’s learning outcomes: An empirical study. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 27(6), 511-527.
18. Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2008). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. SAGE Publications, Inc.
19. Creswell, J. W. (2013). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (3rd ed.). Sage Publications.
20. Demirel, Ö. (2015). Program development in education, from theory to practice. Pegem Akademi.
21. Doğan, A. (2020). İlkokul matematik öğretim programındaki kazanımların SOLO sınıflandırmasına göre incelenmesi. İnsan ve Toplum Bilimleri Araştırmaları Dergisi, 9(3), 2305-2325. https://doi.org/10.15869/itobiad.768583
22. Dönmez, H., & Zorluoğlu, S. L. (2020). Fen bilimleri dersi öğretim programı 6., 7. ve 8. sınıf kazanımlarının SOLO Taksonomisine göre incelenmesi. Manisa Celal Bayar Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 18(1), 85-95. https://doi.org/10.18026/cbayarsos.547938
23. Filiz, S. B., & Yıldırım, N. (2019). Ortaokul Türkçe dersi öğretim programı kazanımlarının revize edilmiş Bloom taksonomisine göre analizi. İlkoğretim Online, 18(4). https://doi.org/10.17051/ilkonline.2019.632521
24. Furst, E. J. (1994). Bloom’s taxonomy: Philosophical and educational issues. Bloom’s taxonomy: A forty-year retrospective, 93, 28-40.
25. Göçer, A., & Kurt, A. (2016). Türkçe dersi öğretim programı 6, 7 ve 8. sınıf sözlü iletişim kazanımlarının SOLO taksonomisine göre incelenmesi. Bitlis Eren Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 5(3).
26. Groth, R. E., & Bergner, J. A. (2006). Preservice elementary teachers’ conceptual and procedural knowledge of mean, median, and mode. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 8(1), 37-63.
27. Harwood, T. G., & Garry, T. (2003). An overview of content analysis. The Marketing Review, 3(4), 479-498.
28. Hattie, J. A., & Purdie, N. (1998). The SOLO model: Addressing fundamental measurement issues. In B. Dart & G. Boulton-Lewis (Eds.), Teaching and learning in higher education (pp. 145-176). ACER.
29. Kaharuddin, A., & Hajeniati, N. (2020). An Identification of students’ responses based on solo taxonomy in Mathematics learning toward learning activities and learning outcomes. Al-Jabar: Jurnal Pendidikan Matematika, 11(2), 191–200. http://dx.doi.org/10.24042/ajpm.v11i2.6270
30. Kreitzer, A. E., & Madaus, G. F. (1994). Empirical investigations of the hierarchical structure of the Taxonomy. In L. W. Anderson & L. A. Sosniak (Eds.), Bloom’s taxonomy: A forty-year retrospective: Ninety-third yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, Part II (pp. 64-81). University of Chicago Press.
31. Lian, L. H., & Idris, N. (2006). Assessing algebraic solving ability of form four students. International Electronic Journal of Mathematics Education, 1(1), 55-76.
32. Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Sage Publications.
33. MEB (2024). Türkiye Yüzyılı Maarif Modeli. https://tymm.meb.gov.tr
34. Minogue, J., & Jones, G. (2009). Measuring the impact of haptic feedback using the SOLO taxonomy. International Journal of Science Education, 31(10), 1359-1378.
35. Öner, S. (2022). Coğrafya dersi öğretim programında yer alan 11. ve 12. sınıf kazanımlarının SOLO taksonomisine göre analizi. Social Sciences Studies Journal (SSSJournal), 8(93), 228-235. 10.26449/sssj.3796
36. Padiotis, I., & Mikropoulos, T.A. (2010). Using SOLO to evaluate an educational virtual environment in a technology education setting. Educational Technology & Society, 13(3), 233–245.
37. Tomperi, P. (2016). SOLO taxonomy supporting practical chemistry instruction. LUMAT-B: International Journal on Math, Science and Technology Education, 1(3).
38. Tutkun, Ö. F. (2012). An overview on Bloom’s revised taxonomy. Sakarya University Journal of Education, 2(1), 14-22.
39. Vallecillos, A., & Moreno, A. (2002). Framework for instruction and assessment on elementary inferential statistics thinking. Teaching of Mathematics, 7, 1-6.
40. Weyers, M. (2006). Teaching the FE Curriculum: Encouraging active learning in the classroom. Continuum.
41. Yurtcu, G., & Aktan, O. (2023). Din kültürü ve ahlak bilgisi öğretim programı kazanımlarının SOLO taksonomisine göre incelenmesi. EGE 10th International Conference on Social Sciences, December 22-24, 2023 – İzmir. https://doi.org/10.51553/bozifder.898308
42. Yüksel, S. (2007). New developments and classifications in cognitive domain classification (taxonomy). Türk Eğitim Bilimleri Dergisi, 5(3), 479-509.