Aligning Curriculum with Cognition: A Comparative Analysis of Problem-Solving Structures in Turkish Mathematics Curricula Through a Neuropedagogical Alignment Framework (2018–2024)
Öz
Mathematics curriculum reforms are increasingly oriented toward cognitively responsive instructional structures. Yet comparative studies examining how curriculum structures align with the neurocognitive principles underlying mathematical problem solving remain limited. This study aims to comparatively analyse the problem-solving structures embedded in the 2018 and 2024 Turkish mathematics curricula at the 5th-grade level through a neuropedagogical alignment framework. A theory-driven comparative qualitative document analysis was employed; operational indicators derived from eight neuropedagogical principles including cognitive load regulation, metacognitive scaffolding, attention activation, emotional safety, and multiple representation were systematically applied to both curriculum documents. Findings suggest that the 2024 curriculum contains more alignment indicators than its 2018 counterpart, with the most prominent indicators observed in the metacognitive scaffolding dimension. Emotional safety emerged as the dimension with the least structural alignment in both programmes. This study makes no direct neuroscientific causal claims; rather, it proposes an interpretive lens for curriculum analysis, drawing on existing alignment and learning sciences literature. The neuropedagogical alignment framework offers a comparative and transferable analytic tool for evaluating curriculum reforms with respect to students' cognitive and metacognitive functioning.
Anahtar Kelimeler
neuropedagogy, Curriculum analysis, Problem solving, Mathematical thinking, Cognitive load, Metacognition
Destekleyen Kurum
Proje Numarası
Etik Beyan
Kaynakça
- Ansari, D., & Coch, D. (2006). Bridges over troubled waters: Education and cognitive neuroscience. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 10(4), 146-151. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2006.02.007
- Baddeley, A. (2012). Working memory: Theories, models, and controversies. Annual Review of Psychology, 63, 1-29. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-120710-100422
- Biggs, J., & Tang, C. (2011). Teaching for quality learning at university: What the student does (4th ed.). McGraw-Hill/Open University Press.
- Bowen, G. A. (2009). Document analysis as a qualitative research method. Qualitative Research Journal, 9(2), 27-40. https://doi.org/10.3316/QRJ0902027
- Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77-101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
- Chen, O., Paas, F., & Sweller, J. (2023). A cognitive load theory approach to defining and measuring task complexity through element interactivity. Educational Psychology Review, 35, Article 63. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-023-09782-w
- Chinofunga, M. D., Chigeza, P., & Taylor, S. (2022). A framework for content sequencing from junior to senior mathematics curriculum. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 18(4), Article em2100. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/11930
- Cutting, C., & Lowrie, T. (2023). Bounded learning progressions: A framework to capture young children's development of mathematical activity in play-based contexts. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 35, 317-337. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13394-022-00424-y
- Diamond, A. (2013). Executive functions. Annual Review of Psychology, 64, 135-168. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-113011-143750
- Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive-developmental inquiry. American Psychologist, 34(10), 906-911. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.34.10.906