Research article    |    Open Access
Educational Policy Analysis and Strategic Research 2025, Vol. 20(3) 21-46

21st Century Türkiye Maarif Model: Teachers’ Opinions on the Renewed Preschool Education Program

Okan Sarıgöz, Cansel Güçük, Ebru Nisa Yıldız

pp. 21 - 46

Publish Date: September 30, 2025  |   Single/Total View: 0/0   |   Single/Total Download: 0/0


Abstract

The purpose of this study is to evaluate the status of the preschool education program developed based on the 21st Century Türkiye Maarif Model and to analyze the effectiveness of the model through Eisner’s Educational Criticism Model. In the research, the qualitative research method was adopted as the model, and the case study design was preferred as the pattern. The study group of the research consists of a total of 15 preschool teachers who provided education to 5-year-old children in public kindergartens in the Kırıkhan district of Hatay province during the 2024–2025 academic year. In the selection of participants, the criterion sampling method was used. A semi-structured interview form was employed as the data collection tool, and the data obtained were analyzed through descriptive analysis and content analysis methods. The data obtained from the research were examined and analyzed within the framework of the four basic dimensions of Eisner’s Educational Criticism Model, namely description, interpretation, evaluation, and thematization. The results of the study revealed that teachers evaluated the preschool education programs developed in accordance with the 21st Century Türkiye Maarif Model as innovative programs that respond to the needs of the era, are suitable for the developmental level of children, and support holistic development. The research also yielded findings that certain negative situations were experienced during the implementation of the education program, such as a lack of materials, an insufficient number of activities, and inadequacy of in-service training for teachers. In the study, teachers suggested that for the education program to be implemented more effectively, guidance activities and in-service training should be increased.

Keywords: 21 st Century Türkiye Maarif Model, Eisner’s Educational Criticism Model, maarif model, preschool education


How to Cite this Article?

APA 7th edition
Sarigoz, O., Gucuk, C., & Yildiz, E.N. (2025). 21st Century Türkiye Maarif Model: Teachers’ Opinions on the Renewed Preschool Education Program. Educational Policy Analysis and Strategic Research, 20(3), 21-46.

Harvard
Sarigoz, O., Gucuk, C. and Yildiz, E. (2025). 21st Century Türkiye Maarif Model: Teachers’ Opinions on the Renewed Preschool Education Program. Educational Policy Analysis and Strategic Research, 20(3), pp. 21-46.

Chicago 16th edition
Sarigoz, Okan, Cansel Gucuk and Ebru Nisa Yildiz (2025). "21st Century Türkiye Maarif Model: Teachers’ Opinions on the Renewed Preschool Education Program". Educational Policy Analysis and Strategic Research 20 (3):21-46.

References
  1. Aral, N., Kandır, A., & Can Yaşar, M. (2018). Okul öncesi eğitim ve öğretim. Vize Yayıncılık. [Google Scholar]
  2. Aygören, F. (2016). Eisner’in güncellenmiş program planlama modeli. The 4th International Congress on Curriculum and Instruction, Octomber 27-30, Antalya. [Google Scholar]
  3. Aykaç, N. (2022). Eğitimde program değerlendirme ve Türkiye’de eğitim programlarının değerlendirme çalışmaları. Pegem Akademi. [Google Scholar]
  4. Bekiroğlu, D. & Ütkür-Güllühan, N. (2024). 2024 Türkiye yüzyılı maarif modeli okul öncesi eğitim programı karşılaştırmalı bir analiz. 1. Uluslararası Avrasya Bilimsel Araştırmalar ve İnovasyon Kongresi, 22-24 Kasım, Bakü, Azerbaycan. [Google Scholar]
  5. Berk, L. E. (2013). Child development (9th ed.). Pearson Education. [Google Scholar]
  6. Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and design. Harvard University Press. [Google Scholar]
  7. Canbaz, A., & Pesen, A. (2024). Evaluation of preschool education program according to Eisner’s educational criticism model. Journal of Educational Reflections, 8(1), 1–35. [Google Scholar]
  8. Copple, C., & Bredekamp, S. (2009). Developmentally appropriate practice in early childhood programs. NAEYC. [Google Scholar]
  9. Çelik, K., & Büyükalan-Filiz, S. (2018). Ortaöğretim İngilizce dersi öğretim programının (2014) Eisner modeline göre değerlendirilmesi. Eğitim ve Toplum Araştırmaları Dergisi, 5(1), 50–67. [Google Scholar]
  10. Demirel, Ö. (2019). Eğitimde araştırma (5. baskı). Pegem Akademi Yayıncılık. [Google Scholar]
  11. Demirel, Ö. (2021). Eğitimde program geliştirme: Kuramdan uygulamaya (29. Baskı). Pegem Akademi. [Google Scholar]
  12. Dönger, A., Özkartal, Z., & Sarıgöz, O. (2016). An investigation into variables that affect self efficacy beliefs of people working in educational institutions. International Refereed Academic Social Sciences Journal, 24, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.17364/IIB.20162423324 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  13. Eisner, E. W. (1976). Educational connoisseurship and criticism: Their form and functions in educational evaluation. Journal of Aesthetic Education, 10(3–4), 135–150. [Google Scholar]
  14. Eisner, E. W. (1985). The educational imagination: On the design and evaluation of school program (5. baskı). Macmillan Publishing. [Google Scholar]
  15. Eisner, E. W. (1994). The educational imagination: On the design and evaluation of school programs (3rd ed.) Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice Hall. [Google Scholar]
  16. Eisner, E. W. (2002). The arts and the creation of mind. Yale University Press. [Google Scholar]
  17. Eker, H., Ertek Eroğlu, E., & Eker, M. (2025). Türkiye Yüzyılı Maarif Modeli bağlamında okul öncesi öğretmenlerinin hassas beceri kazandırma yeterlikleri. Eğitimde Kuram ve Uygulama (EKU), 41(1), 34–56. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/esosder/issue/90931/1574163 [Google Scholar]
  18. Erden, M. (1998). Eğitimde program değerlendirme (3. baskı). Anı Yayıncılık. [Google Scholar]
  19. Eyiol, K. Ö. (2019). Ortaokul matematik uygulamaları öğretim programının Eisner’in Eğitsel Eleştiri Modeline göre değerlendirilmesi. Yüksek lisans tezi, Pamukkale Üniversitesi. [Google Scholar]
  20. Gelişli, Y. & Yazıcı, E. (2012). Türkiye’de uygulanan okul öncesi eğitim programlarının tarihsel süreç içerisinde değerlendirilmesi. Gazi Üniversitesi Endüstriyel Sanatlar Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 29, 85-93. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/download/article-file/296402 [Google Scholar]
  21. Ginsburg, K. R. (2007). The importance of play in promoting healthy child development and maintaining strong parent-child bonds. Pediatrics, 119(1), 182-191. [Google Scholar]
  22. Karasar, N. (2022). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemi (35. Baskı). Nobel Yayıncılık. [Google Scholar]
  23. Kramer, J.B. (2015). The palace of Eisner's educational connoisseurship and criticism in Jewis education. International Journal of Jewis Education Research, 8, 67-79. [Google Scholar]
  24. Malaguzzi, L. (1998). History, ideas, and basic philosophy. In C. Edwards, L. Gandini, & G. Forman (Eds.), The hundred languages of children. Ablex Publishing. [Google Scholar]
  25. Marsh, C. S. (1992). Curriculum practices and issues. Roseville: McGraw-Hill [Google Scholar]
  26. MEB. (2024). Türkiye Yüzyılı Maarif Modeli okul öncesi eğitim programı. Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı Yayınları. [Google Scholar]
  27. Mutluer, Ö., & Gürol, M. (2022). Evde Eğitim Programının Eisner’ın Eğitsel Uzmanlık ve Eleştiri Modeli’ne göre değerlendirilmesi. Trakya Eğitim Dergisi, 12(3), 1859–1882. https://doi.org/10.24315/tred.883811 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  28. National Association for the Education of Young Children [NAEYC]. (2020). Developmentally appropriate practice position statement. https://www.naeyc.org/sites/default/files/globally-shared/downloads/PDFs/resources/position-statements/dap-statement_0.pdf Erişim Tarihi: 21.08.2025. [Google Scholar]
  29. Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research & evaluation methods: Integrating theory and practice (3rd ed.). Sage Publications. [Google Scholar]
  30. Sarıgöz, O. (2013). Sınıfla ve grupla tartışma yöntemlerinin meslek yüksekokulu öğrencilerinin akademik başarılarına etkisi. Electronic Journal of Vocational Colleges, 3(3), 100-106. [Google Scholar]
  31. Sarıgöz, O. (2015). Meslek yüksekokulu öğrencilerinin yaşam boyu öğrenme yaklaşımına ilişkin görüş ve farkındalıklarının değerlendirilmesi. Doktora Tezi, Yakın Doğu Üniversitesi. [Google Scholar]
  32. Senemoğlu, N. (2018). Gelişim, öğrenme ve öğretim: Kuramdan uygulamaya. Anı Yayıncılık. [Google Scholar]
  33. Shonkoff, J. P., & Phillips, D. A. (Eds.). (2000). From neurons to neighborhoods: The science of early childhood development. National Academies Press. [Google Scholar]
  34. Stake, R. E. (1967). The countenance of educational evaluation. Teachers College Record, 68(7), 523–540. [Google Scholar]
  35. Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. [Google Scholar]
  36. UNICEF. (2021). Measuring what matters: A holistic approach to early learning assessments. [Google Scholar]
  37. UNESCO. (2022). Right from the start: Investment in early childhood education and care. Paris: UNESCO. [Google Scholar]
  38. UNESCO. (2023). Early childhood education and care: Global monitoring report. [Google Scholar]
  39. Wood, B. B. (2001). Stake’s countenance model: Evaluating an environmental education professional development course. The Journal of Environmental Education, 32(2), 18-27. [Google Scholar]
  40. Yavuzer, H. (2013). Çocuk psikolojisi. Remzi Kitabevi. [Google Scholar]
  41. Yıldırım, A. & Şimşek, H. (2021). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri (12. baskı). Seçkin Yayıncılık. [Google Scholar]
  42. Yin, R. K. (2018). Case study research and applications: Design and methods. SAGE Publications. [Google Scholar]
  43. Yüksel, İ. (2010). Türkiye için program değerlendirme standartları oluşturma çabası. Doktora Tezi, Anadolu Üniversitesi. [Google Scholar]