Cognitive Complexity in Elementary Mathematics Curriculum: A SOLO Analysis of the Maarif Model of the Century of Türkiye
Öz
This study investigates the cognitive complexity embedded in the Elementary School Mathematics Curriculum (Grades 1, 2, 3, and 4): The Maarif Model of the Century of Türkiye, using the SOLO (Structure of Observed Learning Outcomes) taxonomy as an analytical lens. Adopting a qualitative document analysis method, the study systematically examined all learning outcomes and their associated process components in the 2024 mathematics curriculum according to the SOLO taxonomy. The findings indicate a gradual progression in cognitive complexity across grade levels, with Multistructural and Relational components being most prevalent. While Unistructural components decrease significantly from Grade 1 to Grade 4, Extended Abstract components begin to emerge in Grade 2 and increase thereafter. However, the presence of Extended Abstract components remains limited, especially in earlier grades and in the theme Data-Driven Research/Probability of Events and Data-Driven Research. The results suggest that the curriculum is structured to support a transition from procedural fluency to conceptual understanding and generalization. Nonetheless, further emphasis on abstract reasoning and generalization tasks may enhance the curriculum’s capacity to foster students who are able to engage in mathematical reasoning.
Anahtar Kelimeler
Mathematics curriculum, elementary school, SOLO taxonomy, cognitive complexity, Maarif model
Etik Beyan
Kaynakça
- Acar, S. & Peker, B. (2023). Investigation of 2018 secondary school mathematics curriculum outcomes according to SOLO Taxonomy. Inonu University Journal of the Faculty of Education, 24(2), 1155-1171.
- Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom's taxonomy of education objectives. Longman.
- Biggs, J., & Collis, K. (1982). Evaluating the quality of learning: The SOLO taxonomy (Structure of the Observed Learning Outcome). Academic Press.
- Biggs, J. B. (2011). Teaching for quality learning at university: What the student does?. McGraw-Hill Education (UK).
- Bloom, B.S., Engelhart , MD, Furst , E.J., Hill , WH, & Krathwohl , D.R. (1956). Taxonomy of education objectives: The classification of educational goals. Handbook I: Cognitive domain. Longmans.
- Bowen, G.A. (2009). Document analysis as a qualitative research method. Qualitative Research Journal 9(2), 27–40.
- Cihan, F., & Doruk, M. (2024). Evaluation of 2024 high school mathematics curriculum according to SOLO taxonomy and cognitive demand levels. Usak University Journal of Educational Research, 10(3), 144-157.
- Diktaş, A., Girgin, D., Satmaz, İ., & Yabanova, U. (2025). Analysis of the social studies course curriculum of the Türkiye century education model according to the solo taxonomy. Abant İzzet Baysal Üniversity Faculty of Education Journal, 25(1), 667-690.
- Findell, B., Swafford, J., & Kilpatrick, J. (Eds.). (2001). Adding it up: Helping children learn mathematics. National Academies Press.
- Hess, K., Jones, B.S., Carlock, D., & Walkup, J.R. (2009). Cognitive rigor: Blending the strengths of Bloom's taxonomy and Webb's depth of knowledge to enhance classroom-level processes. The Standards Company LLC.
