International Online Journal of Primary Education (IOJPE)

Message from the Editor

2026-01-04T23:41:01+00:00

Message from the Editor,

I am very pleased to inform you that we have published the first issue in 2026. As an editor of International Online Journal of Primary Education (IOJPE), this issue is the success of our authors, very valuable reviewers who undertook the rigorous peer review of the manuscripts, and those of the editorial board who devoted their valuable time through the review process. In this respect, I would like to thank to all reviewers, researchers and the editorial board members. The articles should be original, unpublished, and not in consideration for publication elsewhere at the time of submission to International Online Journal of Primary Education (IOJPE). For any suggestions and comments on IOJPE, please do not hesitate to send me e-mail. The countries of the authors contributed to this issue (in alphabetical order): Taiwan and Türkiye.

Prof. Dr. Nergüz BULUT SERİN

Editor in Chief

The Complete Issue : volume 15 issue 1 2026

2026-01-06T00:59:32+00:00

The Complete Issue : volume 15 issue 1 2026

EXPLORING VIETNAMESE PRIMARY SCHOOL TEACHERS’ KNOWLEDGE, EXPERIENCES, AND PERSPECTIVES IN CLIL IMPLEMENTATION

2025-10-22T12:18:08+00:00

In Vietnam, content and language integrated learning (CLIL) has been introduced as an innovative approach to simultaneously develop elementary students’ language skills and academic subject knowledge. This study aims to investigate elementary teachers’ knowledge, experiences, and perspectives on CLIL implementation in Vietnam. Employing a mixed-methods design, this study administered a questionnaire comprising 20 five-point Likert-scale items to 100 teachers in the pilot phase and 183 teachers in the main phase, and conducted individual interviews with six teachers using nine open-ended questions. The findings reveal that although teachers possessed basic insights, relevant experience, and positive perspectives on CLIL (with mean scores exceeding 3.6), they faced several challenges related to professional development, collaboration and administrative support, and disparities in students’ language proficiency. In addition, teachers’ knowledge and experience were positively associated with their perspectives on CLIL (r = .68, p < .001; r = .52, p < .001, respectively), with knowledge emerging as a significant predictor (β = .62, p < .001), and a positive trend was observed between teachers’ language proficiency and their attitudes toward CLIL. Based on the participants’ responses, this study proposes several suggestions concerning training programmes, cooperation, and administrative support to enhance the effectiveness of CLIL implementation in Vietnamese elementary schools.

Keywords: Bilingual education, CLIL implementation, primary school, teacher, Vietnam.

Ethics and Conflict of Interest

This study involved voluntary participation of in-service elementary teachers and did not include any physical or psychological interventions. All procedures were conducted in accordance with research ethics principles and the guidelines. Specifically, participants were invited via email and were clearly informed about the purpose of the study and the confidentiality of their responses. The survey was administered using Google Forms, and participants had the option to provide their email addresses or remain anonymous. All participants were fully informed about the study and provided their informed consent by completing a consent form at the beginning of the Google Form survey. They could proceed to the main questions only after confirming their agreement to participate. In addition, no potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

REFERENCES

Banegas, D. L., Montgomery, P., & Raud, N. (2024). Student-teachers’ understanding of language teaching through the CLIL Language Triptych. Learning and Instruction, 95, 1-9. Article 102044. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2024.102044

Barrios, E., & Milla Lara, M. (2020). CLIL methodology, materials and resources, and assessment in a monolingual context: An analysis of stakeholders’ perceptions in Andalusia. The Language Learning Journal, 48(1), 60–80. https://doi.org/10.1080/09571736.2018

Belobrovy, A., & Nygård Larsson, P. (2020). Meaning-making in science from the perspective of students’ hybrid language use. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 18(7), 1363–1384. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-019-09994-z

Campillo-Ferrer, J., Miralles-Martínez, P., & Sánchez-Ibáñez, R. (2020). CLIL teachers’ views on cognitive development in primary education. Palgrave Communications, 6, Article 97. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-020-0480-x

Campillo, J. M., Sánchez, R., & Miralles, P. (2019). Primary Teachers’ Perceptions of CLIL Implementation in Spain. English Language Teaching, 12(4), 149-156. https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v12n4p149

Cenoz, J., Genesee, F., & Gorter, D. (2014). Critical analysis of CLIL: Taking stock and looking forward. Applied Linguistics, 35(3), 243–262. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amt01

Chen, H. (2023). Teaching CLIL to primary school students under Taiwan’s bilingual 2030 plan. TESOL Communications, 3(1), 66–86. https://doi.org/10.58304/tc.20240105

Coyle, D. (2007). Content and language integrated learning: Towards a connected research agenda for CLIL pedagogies. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 10(5), 543–562.
https://doi.org/10.2167/beb459.0

Coyle, D., Hood, P., & Marsh, D. (2010). CLIL: Content and language integrated learning. Cambridge University Press. https://assets.cambridge.org/97805211/30219/excerpt/9780521130219_excerpt.pdf

Creswell, J. W., & Clark, V. L. P. (2018). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (3rd ed.). SAGE.

Custodio Espinar, M., & García Ramos, J. (2020). Are accredited teachers equally trained for CLIL? The CLIL teacher paradox. Porta Linguarum, (33), 9–25. http://hdl.handle.net/10481/62800

Do, T. M. H. (2020). Bilingual curriculum enactment in Vietnam in an era of economic and social reform. Doctoral Dissertation, School of Teacher Education and Leadership Faculty of Education, Queensland University of Technology. https://eprints.qut.edu.au/208014/1/Thi%20My%20Ha_Do_Thesis.pdf

Doiz, A., & Lasagabaster, D. (2017). Management teams and teaching staff: Do they share the same beliefs about obligatory CLIL programmes and the use of the L1? Language and Education, 31(2), 93–109. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500782.2017.1290102

Durán-Martínez, R., & Beltrán-Llavador, F. (2020). Key issues in teachers’ assessment of primary education bilingual programmes in Spain. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 23(2), 170–183. https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2017.1345851

Field, A. (2018). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics (5th ed.). SAGE.

García, O. (2011). Bilingual education in the 21st century: A global perspective. John Wiley and Sons.

Ho Chi Minh City Department of Education and Training [HCMC DET]. (2017). A signing ceremony between Ho Chi Minh City Department of Education and Training, EMG Education and ACT. http://edu.hochiminhcity.gov.vn/tin-tuc/leky-ket-hop-tac-giua-so-giao-duc-va-dao-tao-emg-education-va-actcmobile41153-57805.aspx

Huang, Y.-C. (2020). The effects of elementary students’ science learning in CLIL. English Language Teaching, 13(2), 1‑15. https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v13n2p1

Joyce, C., Bull, A., Hipkins, R., & MacIntyre, B. (2008). Putting the nature of science strand into the water cycle. set: Research Information for Teachers, (2), 10–15. https://doi.org/10.18296/set.0486

Kao, Y. T. (2022). Exploring translanguaging in Taiwanese CLIL classes: an analysis of teachers’ perceptions and practices. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 36(1), 100-121. https://doi.org/10.1080/07908318.2022.2033762

Karimi, P., Lotfi, A. R., & Biria, R. (2017). Efficacy of Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) pedagogical techniques in improving aviation students’ engagement in attaining specific learning outcomes. Journal of Teaching English for Specific and Academic Purposes, 5(4), 781–794. https://doi.org/10.22190/JTESAP1704781K

Kováčiková, E., & Luprichová, J. (2023). CLIL as the vehicle of transition from mono- to bilingual instruction at Slovak universities. Journal of Teaching English for Specific and Academic Purposes, 11(3), 753–763. https://doi.org/10.22190/JTESAP231003056K

Lasagabaster, D., & Sierra, J. M. (2010). Classroom observation and teachers’ perceptions in a CLIL program. Language Awareness, 19(1), 79–97. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658410903464433

Marsh, D. (2012). Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL): A Development Trajectory. Cambridge University Press. https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/60884824.pdf

McDougald, J. (2015). Teachers' attitudes, perceptions and experiences in CLIL: A look at content and language. Colombian Applied Linguistics Journal, 17(1), 25-41. http://dx.doi.org/10.14483/udistrital.jour.calj.2015.1.a02

Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implement. John Wiley & Sons.

Milla Lara, M., & Casas Pedrosa, A. (2018). Teacher perspectives on CLIL implementation: A within-group comparison of key variables. Porta Linguarum, (29), 159–180. https://doi.org/10.30827/Digibug.54032

Moreno de Diezmas, E. (2019). Students, teachers and management teams in bilingual programmes: Shared perceptions and areas for improvement. Journal of English Studies, 17, 277–297. https://doi.org/10.18172/jes.3564

Nguyen, H. T. M., Nguyen, H. T. T., Gao, X., Hoang, T. H., & Starfield, S. (2023). Developing professional capacity for Content Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) teaching in Vietnam: tensions and responses. Language and Education, 38(1), 118–138. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500782.2023.2260374

Nguyen, T. T. H., & Nguyen, T. M. H. (2024). Content and language integrated learning (CLIL) in Vietnam: Challenges and solutions. VNU Journal of Foreign Studies, 40(2), 1-14. https://doi.org/10.63023/2525-2445/jfs.ulis.5246

Pavón Vázquez, V., & Méndez García, M. (2017). Analysing teachers’ roles regarding cross-curricular coordination in Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL). Journal of English Studies, 15, 235–260. https://doi.org/10.18172/jes.3227

Pérez Cañado, M. L. (2016). Teacher training needs for bilingual education: In-service teacher perceptions. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 19(3), 266–295. https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2014.980778

Pérez Cañado, M. L. (2018a). CLIL and pedagogical innovation: Fact or fiction? International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 28(3), 369–390. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijal.12208

Pérez Cañado, M. L. (2018b). The evolution of bilingual education in monolingual contexts: An Andalusian case study. In P. Romanowski and M. Jedynak (Eds.), Current Research in Bilingualism and Bilingual Education (pp. 207–241). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-92396-3_12

Piacentini, V. (2021). CLIL and science education: A review for a language focus in science teaching. Ricerche di Pedagogia e Didattica. Journal of Theories and Research in Education, 16(3), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.1970-2221/12646

Porcedda, M. E., & González-Martínez, J. (2020). CLIL teacher training: Lacks and suggestions from a systematic literature review. Enseñanza and Teaching, 38(1), 49–68. https://doi.org/10.14201/et20203814968

Romo Escudero, B., & Durán-Martínez, R. (2019). The human factor in Primary bilingual programmes : The management teams’ perspective. Porta Linguarum, (31), 131–145. https://dialnet.unirioja.es/descarga/articulo/7015460.pdf

Rutgers, D., Admiraal, W., & Westhoff, G. (2020). The knowledge base of CLIL teaching in multilingual primary education settings. https://www.teachingenglish.org.uk/sites/teacheng/files/L019_ELTRA_FINAL.pdf

Savic, V. (2010, May). Are we ready for implementing CLIL in primary language classrooms? British Council Serbia ELTA Newsletter. http://www.britishcouncil.org/ro/serbia-elta-newsletter-2010-may.htm

Szczesniak, A., & Luna, R. M. (2022). Teachers’ perceptions of Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) in primary schools in Andalusia. Porta Linguarum, (37), 237–257. https://doi.org/10.30827/portalin.vi37.18414

Trinh, T. T. H. (2023). Promoting gender equality in education in Vietnam currently. International Journal of Advanced Multidisciplinary Research and Studies, 3(1), 22–28. https://www.multiresearchjournal.com/admin/uploads/archives/archive-1702444251.pdf

SPECIAL EDUCATION TEACHERS' VIEWS ON TWICE EXCEPTIONAL PRIMARY SCHOOL STUDENTS’ PROBLEMS AND SOLUTIONS

2026-01-26T07:10:25+00:00

Twice-exceptional students (2E) exhibit a combination of two distinct conditions. Consequently, 2E students face a dual disadvantage compared to their peers. Throughout primary school, classroom teachers and special education teachers are responsible for supporting 2E students. The opinions of special education teachers regarding the problems and solutions faced by 2E students are particularly valuable. Therefore, the current study aims to reveal the views of special education teachers on the issues of twice-exceptional students, including their challenges and proposed solutions. Regarding the research method, qualitative research and content analysis were used. A total of 71 special education teachers participated in the study. As a result of the research, the special education teachers defined twice-exceptional students in 6 different forms. They generated 20 themes and 360 codes related to the problems and solutions for twice-exceptional students. The problem themes with the highest number of codes were identification problems, lack of teacher training, and lack of education programs. The solution themes are early and detailed identification, psychological and behavioral support, and individualized mixed programs. Based on the research findings, the necessity of early identification, teacher education, and an educational and psychological-behavioral program has emerged. Research findings are discussed within the framework of the relevant literature.

Keywords: Twice-exceptional, special education, student, teacher.

Ethics and Conflict of Interest

Ethical approval was given for the research by the Atatürk University Educational Sciences Unit Ethics Board with (the meeting number: 12/29, and decision number: E-56785782-050.02.04-2400002251) approved this study dated 28.12.2023. The research was conducted in strict adherence to the principles of voluntary participation, participant confidentiality, and informed consent, and data were used exclusively for scientific purposes. The author declares that they acted in accordance with ethical rules in all processes of the research. The author declares that there is no potential conflict of interest in the work.

REFERENCES

Alabdallat, B., Alkhamra, H., & Alkhamra, R. (2021). Special education and general education teacher perceptions of collaborative teaching responsibilities and attitudes towards an inclusive environment in Jordan. Frontiers in Education, 6(1),1-11, https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2021.739384

Alameddine, M. M. (2025). What can educators do to accommodate twice-exceptional learners in Lebanon: a case study. South Florida Journal of Development, 6(1), e4899. https://doi.org/10.46932/sfjdv6n1-009

Assouline, S. G., & Foley-Nicpon, M. (2007). Twice-exceptional learners: Implications for the classroom. NAGC Communiqué Teaching for High Potential, Spring, 9–13.

Assouline, S. G., Foley Nicpon, M., & Whiteman, C. (2010). Cognitive and psychosocial characteristics of gifted students with written language disability. Gifted Child Quarterly, 54(2), 102-115. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986209355974

Assouline, S., & Whiteman, C. (2011). Twice-exceptionality: Implications for school psychologists in the post-IDEA 2004 area. Journal of Applied School Psychology, 27(4), 380-402. https://doi.org/10.1080/15377903.2011.616576

Austermann, Q., Reis, S. M., & Delgado, J. (2024). Evidence-based ınstructional practices for twice-exceptional students with autism. Gifted Child Quarterly, 69(1), 34-48. https://doi.org/10.1177/00169862241285151

Baum, S. M., & Schader, R. M. (2021). Twice-exceptionality: a field whose time has come in Understanding twice‑exceptional learners, London: Routledge, 7–31.

Baum, S. M., Schader, R. M., & Hébert, T. P. (2014). Through a different lens: Reflecting on a strengths-based, talent‑focused approach for twice-exceptional learners. Gifted Child Quarterly, 58(4), 311-327. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986214547632

Baykoç, N. (2017). Children with special needs and special education. Ankara: Eğiten Kitap Publishing.

Berg, B. L., & Lune, H. (2015). Qualitative research methods in the social sciences (Translator, Aydın H.). Konya: Educational Publishing House.

Beumann, S., Weber, D., & Benölken, R. (2025). Identifying and fostering giftedness in students with disabilities – potential barriers in ıdentification and support from a mathematics educational perspective. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-025-10587-2

Bianco, M. (2005). The effects of disability labels on special education and general education teachers’ referrals for gifted programs. Learning Disability Quarterly, 28(4), 285-293. https://doi.org/10.2307/4126967

Bianco, M., & Leech, N. L. (2010). Twice-exceptional learners: Effects of teacher preparation and disability labels on gifted referrals. Teacher Education and Special Education, 33(4), 319-334. https://doi.org/10.1177/0888406409356392

Bonti, E., & Sofologi, M. (2022). Rethinking inclusion of gifted and twice-exceptional 2E students. In M. Efstratopoulou (Ed.), Rethinking Inclusion and Transformation in Special Education. IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-6684-4680-5.ch002

Buic•-Belciu, C., & Popovici, D. V. (2014). Being twice exceptional: Gifted students with learning disabilities. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 127, 519-523. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.03.302

Cansız, M., & Bayar, A. (2024). Problems and solutions faced by teachers with inclusive students in their classrooms. Eurasian Journal of Social and Economic Research (EJSER), 11(3), 88-106. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/asead/issue/86477/1485833#article_cite

Dare, L., & Nowicki, E. A. (2015). Twice-exceptionality: Parents’ perspectives on 2E identification. Roeper Review, 37(4), 208–218. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783193.2015.1077911

Erdimez, Ö. (2023). Pre-service special education teachers' perceptions of giftedness. ATLAS Journal International Refereed Journal on Social Sciences, 9(52), 83-94. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10298234

Firat, T., & Bildiren, A. (2022). The characteristics of gifted 2E students with learning disabilities according to preschool teachers. Early Years, 43(4–5), 921–937. https://doi.org/10.1080/09575146.2022.2034755

Flowers, C., Test, D. W., Povenmire-Kirk, T. C., Diegelmann, K. M., Bunch-Crump, K. R., Kemp-Inman, A., & Goodnight, C. I. (2018). A demonstration model of ınteragency collaboration for students with disabilities: A multilevel approach. The Journal of Special Education, 51(4), 211-221. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022466917720764

Foley-Nicpon, M., & Teriba, A. (2022). Policy considerations for twice-exceptional students. Gifted Child Today, 45(4), 212-219. https://doi.org/10.1177/10762175221110943

Foley-Nicpon, M., Assouline, S. G., & Colangelo, N. (2013). Twice-exceptional learners: Who needs to know what? Gifted Child Quarterly, 57(3), 169-180. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986213490021

Gallagher, J. (2006). The twice-exceptional dilemma. Washington, DC: National Education Association.

Gierczyk, M., & Hornby, G. (2021). Twice-exceptional students: Review of implications for special and inclusive education. Educ. Sci., 11(1), 85. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci11020085

Gilman, B. J., Lovecky, D. V., Kearney, K., Peters, D. B., Wasserman, J. D., Silverman, L. K., Postma, M. G., Robinson, N. M., Amend, E. R., Ryder-Schoeck, M., Curry, P. H., Lyon, S. K., Rogers, K. B., Collins, L. E., Charlebois, G. M., Harsin, C. M., & Rimm, S. B. (2013). Critical issues in the identification of gifted students with co-existing disabilities: The twice-exceptional. Sage Open, 3(3). https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244013505855

Gómez-Arízaga, M. P., & Conejeros-Solar, M. L. (2021). Gifted and twice-exceptional 2e students in the South of the World: Chilean students’ experiences within regular classrooms. In: Smith, S.R. (eds) Handbook of Giftedness and Talent Development in the Asia-Pacific. Springer International Handbooks of Education. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-3041-4_8

Gürsel, O. (2013). Students with special educational needs and special education (Ed. H. İbrahim Diken). Ankara: Pegem Academy.

Hawes, J. M. (2004). Teaching is not telling: The case method as a form of interactive learning. Journal for Advancement of Marketing Education, 5(1), 47-54. https://doi.org/10.63963/001c.150425

Hernandez, D. A., Hueck, S., & Charley, C. (2016). General education and special education teachers’ attitudes towards inclusion. Journal of the American Academy of Special Education Professionals, 11(3), 79-93. https://doi.org/10.64546/jaasep.318

Heward, W. L. (2006). Exceptional 2E students: An introduction to special education. New Jersey, NJ: Pearson Education.

Hughes, C. E. (2019). Targeted professional learning for twice-exceptional students: A double target. In A. M. Novak & C. L. Weber (Eds.), Best practices in professional learning and teacher preparation: Special topics for gifted professional development. Prufrock Press Inc.

Jolly, J. L., & Barnard-Brak, L. (2024). Special education status and underidentification of twice-exceptional students: insights from ECLS-K data. Education Sciences, 14(10), 1048. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci14101048

Josephson, J., Wolfgang, C., & Mehrenberg, R. (2018). Strategies for supporting students who are twice-exceptional. The Journal of Special Education Apprenticeship, 7(2), 1-11. https://doi.org/10.58729/2167-3454.1073

Kaufman, S. B. (2018). Twice exceptional: Supporting and educating bright and creative students with learning difficulties. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Kaya, F. (2015). Teachers’ conceptions of giftedness and special needs of gifted students. Education and Science, 40(177), 59-74. https://doi.org/10.15390/EB.2015.2885

King, S. (2022). The education context for twice-exceptional students: An overview of issues in special and gifted education. Neurobiology of learning and memory, 193, 107659. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nlm.2022.107659

Klingner, R. (2022). Twice-exceptional 2E students and their challenges in dealing with normality. Education Science, 12, 268. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci12040268

LeBeau, B., Schabilion, K., Assouline, S.G., Nicpon, M. F., Doobay, A. F., & Mahatmya, D. (2022). Developmental milestones as early indicators of twice-exceptionality. Neurobiology of Learning and Memory, 194, 107671. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nlm.2022.107671

Maddocks, D. L. S. (2018). The identification of students who are gifted and have a learning disability: A comparison of different diagnostic criteria. Gifted Child Quarterly, 62(2), 175–192. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986217752096

Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. B. (2014). Designing qualitative research. New York: Sage. Miles, M, B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded Sourcebook. (2nd ed). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Mayes, R. D., & Moore, J. L. (2016). The intersection of race, disability, and giftedness: Understanding the education needs of twice-exceptional, African American students. Gifted Child Today, 39(2), 98-104. https://doi.org/10.1177/1076217516628570

MacNeil, K. A., Butler, D. L., & Schnellert, L. M. (2023). From accountability to shared responsibility: A case study of a multi-layered educational change initiative. Journal Educational Change, 24(1), 213–241. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-021-09440-4

MNE (Türkiye Ministry of National Education), (2012). Regulation on special education services. The Official Newspaper, No. 28360, Ankara.

Morrison, W. F., & Rizza, M. G. (2007). Creating a toolkit for identifying twice-exceptional students. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 31(1), 57-76. https://doi.org/10.4219/jeg-2007-513

Neihart, M. (2008). Identifying and providing services to twice exceptional children. Pfeiffer, S. I. (Ed.). Handbook of giftedness in children: Psychological theory, research and best practices, 115-137. New York: Springer.

Pamungkas, B., Wahab, R., Suwarjo, S., & Susen, A. (2023). School and family collaboration on twice-exceptional academic program services. International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research, 22(12), 351-367. https://doi.org/10.26803/ijlter.22.12.17

Patton, M. Q. (1990b). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (2^nd Ed.). London: Sage Publications.

Randall, C. (2021). The underrepresentation of twice-exceptional students in gifted programs. Piedmont College.

Rapp, A. C., & Corral-Granados, A. (2024). Understanding inclusive education – a theoretical contribution from system theory and the constructionist perspective. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 28(4), 423–439. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2021.1946725

Reis S., Baum S., & Burke, E. (2014). An operational definition of twice-exceptional learners: Implications and applications. Gifted Child Quarterly, 58(3), 217–230. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986214534976

Reis, S. M., & Renzulli, S. J. (2025). Research-based strength-based teaching and support strategies for twice-exceptional high school students with autism spectrum disorder. Behavioral Sciences, 15(6), 834. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs15060834

Renzulli, S. J., & Gelbar, N. (2019). Leadership roles for school counselors in identifying and supporting twice-exceptional (2E) students. Professional School Counseling, 23(1), 1–11. https://www.jstor.org/stable/27136496

Speirs Neumeister, K. L. (2024). Maximizing the potential of twice-exceptional learners: Creating a framework of stakeholder supports. Gifted Child Quarterly, 68(1), 19-33. https://doi.org/10.1177/00169862231193699

Şentürk, Ş., Kefeli, İ., & İlhan Emecan, B. (2022). Policy recommendation for twice exceptional (2E) students in Turkey. Ondokuz Mayis University Journal of Education Faculty, 41(2), 677-696. https://doi.org/10.7822/omuefd.1202248

MFSS-Turkish Ministry of Family and Social Services, (2021). Disability and aging statistics bulletin https://www.aile.gov.tr/media/74722/eyhgm_istatistik_bulteni_mart_2021.pdf [Access Date: 20.01.2025]

Tortop, H. S., & Agaoglu, O. (2022). Special education teacher’ selection, education and appointment policy: Türkiye case. Journal for the Child Development, Exceptionality and Education, 3(2), 95-102.

Tortop, H. S., & Ilgaz, G. (2023). Developing of in-service training program for teacher working with gifted learning disabled students. Journal for the Education of Gifted Young Scientists, 11(3), 263-279. http://dx.doi.org/10.17478/jegys.1329220

Townend, G., & Brown, R. (2016). Exploring a sociocultural approach to understanding academic self-concept in twice-exceptional students. Int. J. Educ. Res. 80, 15–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2016.07.006

Unda, L. A., Gong, Z., Benati, K., & Loh, C. M. (2023). Role expectations and shared accountability: A framework for school governance. Financial Accountability & Management, 39, 790-808. https://doi.org/10.1111/faam.12322

Villanueva, A. S. A., & Huber, T. (2019). The issues in identifying twice exceptional students: a review of the literature. International Journal of Development Research, 9(9), 30101-30112.

Wang, W. C., & Neihart, M. (2015). How do supports from parents, teachers, and peers influence academic achievement of twice-exceptional students. Gifted Child Today, 38, 148-159.

Weber, D., Beumann, S., & Benölken, R. (2023). Teachers’ view of twice-exceptional students– outline of the challenges in recognizing mathematical giftedness and supporting needs of hearing impairment. Thirteenth Congress of the European Society for Research in Mathematics Education (CERME13), Alfréd Rényi Institute of Mathematics; Eötvös Loránd University of Budapest, July, Budapest, Hungary. https://hal.science/hal-04407409/document (Access Date: 09/02/2025).

Will, M. C. (1986). Educating children with learning problems: A shared responsibility. Exceptional Children, 52(5), 411‑415. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440298605200502

Wilson, A. (2015). A guide to phenomenological research. Nursing Standard, 29(34), 38-43. https://doi.org/10.7748/ns.29.34.38.e8821

Yıldırım, A., & Şimşek, H. (2016). Qualitative research methods in the social sciences. Ankara: Seçkin Publishing.

Zigmond, N. P., Kloo, A., & Rock, M. L. (2024). Necessary differences between general and special education. In J. M. Kauffman, D. P. Hallahan, & P. C. Pullen (Eds.), Handbook of special education. Routledge.

EXPLORING CITIZENSHIP AND CITIZENSHIP EDUCATION FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF PRIMARY SCHOOL TEACHERS IN TÜRKİYE

2026-01-08T07:51:00+00:00

This study aims to explore classroom teachers' views on the concept of citizenship and citizenship education. In line with this purpose, teachers' views on citizenship, their interpretations of the concept of "active" citizenship, the aims of citizenship education, and their classroom practices related to citizenship education were investigated. The study employed an exploratory phenomenological approach, a qualitative research method. The results revealed that teachers conceptualized citizenship as the acquisition of national legal status and identity, rights and responsibilities, participation, and patriotism. It was concluded that teachers often emphasized the themes of "responsibility," "social sensitivity," "participation," and "collaboration" when defining the qualities that an active citizen should possess. In teachers' opinions about the aim of citizenship education, the categories "contributing to the political socialization of students, teaching rights and responsibilities, and contributing to the development of students' values and skills" were most emphasized. It was concluded that teachers mainly included citizenship education in social studies and life sciences courses and used "providing examples" and "direct narration." Teachers also reported school councils and class president elections as extracurricular activities.

Keywords: Citizenship, citizenship education, primary education.

Ethics and Conflict of Interest

This study was approved by Çukurova University, Social and Humanities Research Ethics Board, no 957032, on 14.03.2024. The author declares that they acted in accordance with ethical rules in all processes of the research. The author declared no conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

REFERENCES

Akar, H., & Aschenberger, F. K. (2016). Students’ civic knowledge and perceptions of civic concepts in a private school: a comparative international perspective. International Journal of Curriculum and Instructional Studies, 6(12), 115‑132.

Akhtar, S. (2010). The understanding, perspectives, and attitudes of Scottish primary school teachers towards education for citizenship (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). The University of Strathclyde.

Arslan, K. (2022). Velilerin bakış açılarına göre vatandaşlık eğitimi [Citizenship education according to parents' views] (Unpublished master thesis). Sakarya University.

Brod, M., Tesler, L. E., & Christensen, T. L. (2009). Qualitative research and content validity: Developing best practices based on science and experience. Quality of Life Research, 18, 1263–1278.

Bakioglu, A., & Kurt, T. (2009). Öğretmenlerin demokrasi, vatandaşlık ve vatanseverlik algılarının nitel olarak incelenmesi [A qualitative analysis of teachers’ perceptions of democracy citizenship and patriotism]. Marmara University Atatürk Education Faculty Journal of Educational Sciences, 29(29), 19-39.

Baralt, M. (2011). Coding qualitative data. Research methods in second language acquisition: A practical guide, 222–244.

Bıçak, İ., & Ereş, F. (2018). Öğretmenlerin vatandaşlık eğitimi ve vatandaşlık eğitimi sürecine yönelik görüşleri [Teachers’ views concerning citizenship education and the citizenship education process]. The Journal of Turkish Educational Sciences, 16(2), 257–279.

Boadu, K. (2013). Teachers’ perception of the importance of teaching citizenship education to primary school children in Cape Coast, Ghana. Journal of Arts and Humanities, 2(2), 137-147.

Brenner, M. (2006). Interviewing in educational research. In: J. L. Green, G. Camilli, G. & P. B. Elmore (Eds.), Handbook of complementary methods in education research (p. 357–370). Washington, DC: Routledge.

Ceylan, A., & Bozkurt, E. (2023). Examining the good citizenshıp percepiıons of prospective primary school teachers. International Journal of Education, Technology and Science, 3(4), 1323–1347.

Chin, K., & Barber, C. E. (2010). A multi-dimensional exploration of teachers' beliefs about civic education in Australia, England, and the United States. Theory & Research in Social Education, 38(3), 395–427.

Cleovoulou, Y. (2021). 21st century pedagogies and citizenship education: Enacting elementary school curriculum using critical ınquiry-based learning. Spain: Universidad de Salamanca. https://doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.96998

Çelik, H. (2009). Sosyal bilgiler öğretmenlerinin vatandaşlık eğitiminin bugünkü durumu ve geleceğine ilişkin görüşleri [Views of social studies teachers related to the present circumstance and future of citizenship education] (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Marmara University.

Çetiner, A. (2023). Sosyal bilgiler ve sınıf öğretmenlerinin vatandaşlık eğilimleri ve sınıf içi uygulamalara ilişkin görüşleri [Social studies and classroom teachers' tendencies and views on classroom practices] (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Necmettin Erbakan University.

Çetiner, A., & Şimşir, M. (2024). The views of classroom teachers with the title of head teacher on citizenship education. Journal of Research in Social Sciences and Language, 4(1), 47–64.

Çolak, K., Kabapınar, Y., & Öztürk, C. (2019). Sosyal bilgiler derslerini veren öğretmenlerin küresel vatandaşlığa ve küresel vatandaşlık eğitimine bakışları [Social studies courses teachers' views on global citizenship and global citizenship education]. Education and Science, 44(197), 335-352. https://doi.org/10.15390/EB.2019.7721

Davis, L. L. (1992). Instrument review: Getting the most from a panel of experts. Applied Nursing Research, 5(4), 194–197. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0897-1897(05)80008-4

De Schaepmeester, L., van Braak, J., & Aesaert, K. (2022). Teach what you preach? The relationship between teachers’ citizenship beliefs and citizenship education in the classroom. The Journal of Social Studies Research, 46(4), 363‑378.

Değirmenci, Y., & Eskici, B. (2019). Öğretmen adaylarının etkin vatandaşlık algılarının incelenmesi [Examination of prospective teachers’ perceptions of active citizenship]. OPUS International Journal of Society Researches, 11(18), 232-256. https://doi.org/10.26466/opus.537074

Dijkstra, A. B., Geijsel, F., Ledoux, G., van der Veen, I., & ten Dam, G. (2015). Effects of school quality, school citizenship policy, and student body composition on the acquisition of citizenship competences in the final year of primary education. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 26(4), 524–553. https://doi.org/10.1080/09243453.2014.969282

Doğanay, A. (2009). Öğretmen adaylarının vatandaşlık algısının ve eylemlerinin siyasal toplumsallaşma bağlamında değerlendirilmesi [in Turkish]. I. Uluslararası Avrupa Birliği, Demokrasi, Vatandaşlık ve Vatandaşlık Eğitimi Sempozyumu Bildirileri [Proceedings of the 1st International Symposium on the European Union, Democracy, Citizenship and Citizenship Education] (p. 2844).

Dusi, P., Steinbach, M., & Messetti, G. (2012). Citizenship education in a multicultural society. Teachers’ practices. Procedia – Social and Behavioural Sciences, 69, 1410–1419. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.12.080

Egüz, Ş., & Kafadar, T. (2020). Active citizenship from the perspective of pre-service social studies teachers. Elementary Education Online, 19(2), 565-579. https://doi.org/10.17051/ilkonline.2020.690003

Ereş, F. (2015). Vatandaşlık eğitimi ve karakter eğitimi politikalarının değerlendirilmesine yönelik nitel bir çalışma [A qualitative study on the evaluation of citizenship education and character education policy]. Mehmet Akif Ersoy University Journal of Education Faculty, 1(36), 120–136.

Ersoy, A. F. (2007). Sosyal bilgiler dersinde öğretmenlerin etkili vatandaşlık eğitimi uygulamalarına ilişkin görüşleri [The opinions of teacher regarding the practices of effective citizenship education in social studies course(Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Anadolu University.

Eryılmaz, Ö., Bursa, S., & Ersoy, A. F. (2018). Sosyal bilgiler öğretmenleri ve öğrencilerinin etkin vatandaşlık ile sivil toplum kuruluşu algıları [Social studies teachers' and students' perceptions of active citizenship and non-governmental organisations]. International Online Journal of Educational Sciences, 10(2), 258-276. https://doi.org/10.15345/iojes.2018.02.018

Estellés, M., Amo, F. J., & Romero, J. (2021). There is a consensus on the purposes of citizenship education in teacher education. Social Sciences, 10(5), 164. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci10050164

Eurydice (2017) “Citizenship education at school in Europe”, http:// www.eurydice.org Date of downloading: 05.10.2024.

Evagorou, M., Vrikki, M., & Papanastasiou, E. (2023). Students’ and teachers’ voices on the outcomes of a citizenship education curriculum. Citizenship, Social and Economics Education, 22(2), 100–117.

Evans, M., Ingram, L., Macdonald, A., & Weber, N. (2009). Mapping the ‘global dimension’ of citizenship education in Canada: The complex interplay of theory, practice and context. Citizenship, Teaching and Learning, 5(2), 17–34.

Fives, H., & Buehl, M. M. (2014). Exploring differences in practicing teachers’ valuing of pedagogical knowledge based on teaching ability beliefs. Journal of Teacher Education, 65(5), 435-448.

Fuentes-Moreno, C., Sabariego-Puig, M., & Ambrós-Pallarés, A. (2020). Developing social and civic competence in secondary education through the implementation and evaluation of teaching units and educational environments. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 7. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-020-0530-4

Gürkan, B., & Doğanay, A. (2020). Factors affecting citizenship education according to perceptions and experiences of secondary-school teachers. Turkish Journal of Education, 9(2), 106–133.

Güven, S., Tertemiz, N., & Bulut, P. (2009). Vatandaşlık ve vatandaşlık eğitimine yönelik sınıf öğretmenlerinin görüşleri [Views of class teachers on citizenship and citizenship education]. Black Sea Journal of Socıal Scıences, 1(1), 149–170.

Hoskins, B. L., Janmaat, J. G., & Villalba, E. (2012). Learning citizenship through social participation outside and inside school: An international, multilevel study of young people’s learning of citizenship. British Educational Research Journal, 38(3), 419–446. https://doi.org/10.1080/01411926.2010.550271

Jang, H. Y., Yang, J. E., & Shin, Y. S. (2022). A phenomenological study of nurses’ experience in caring for COVID-19 patients. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(5), 2924.

Jara Ibarra, C., Sánchez Bachmann, M., Cox, C., & Miranda, D. (2023). The meaning of citizenship: Identifying the beliefs of teachers responsible for citizenship education in Chile. Theory & Research in Social Education, 51(3), 464–485.

Jerome, L. (2012). England's citizenship education experiment. England's Citizenship Education Experiment, 1–208.

Kadıoğlu, A., Keyman, F., & Çakmaklı, D. (2016). Vatandaşlık araştırması bulgular raporu [in Turkish]. İstanbul: Konda.

Kayacan, G. (Haz.) (2014). “Biz” kimiz? Ders kitaplarında kimlik, yurttaşlık, haklar [in Turkish]. İstanbul: Tarih Vakfı Publications.

Keyman F (2008). Aydınlanma, Türkiye ve vatandaşlık [in Turkish]. İstanbul: Osmanlı Bankası Arşiv ve Araştırma Merkezi.

Keyman, E. F., & İçduygu, A. (1998). Türk modernleşmesi ve ulusal kimlik sorunu: Anayasal vatandaşlık ve demokratik açılım olasılığı [in Turkish]. A. Ünsal (ed.), 75, 169–180.

Kilci, Z. (2019). Sosyal bilgiler öğretmenlerinin dijital vatandaşlığa yönelik görüşleri ve uygulamaları [Social studies teachers' digital citizenship opinions and applications] (Unpublished master thesis). Anadolu University.

Knowles, R. T., Torney-Purta, J., & Barber, C. (2018). Enhancing citizenship learning with international comparative research: Analyses of IEA civic education datasets. Citizenship Teaching & Learning, 13(1), 7-30.

Koh, C., Liu, W., Chye, E., & Divaharan, S. (2013). Student teachers' views on national education: the need for greater alignment between policy and praxis, Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 33(4), 424–443, https://doi.org/10.1080/02188791.2013.810142

Koutselini, M. (2008). Citizenship education in context: Student teacher perceptions of citizenship in Cyprus. Intercultural Education, 19, 163–175. https://doi.org/10.1080/14675980801889690

Kuş, Z., & Aksu, A. (2017). Vatandaşlık ve vatandaşlık eğitimi hakkında sosyal bilgiler öğretmenlerinin inançları [Social studies teachers’ beliefs on citizenship and citizenship education]. International Journal of Turkish Education Sciences, 2017(8), 18–41.

Kwan-Choi Tse, T. (2000). Deformed citizenship: A critique of the junior secondary economic and public affairs syllabus and textbooks in Hong Kong. Pedagogy, Culture & Society, 8(1), 93–110.

Lee, W. O., & Fouts, J. T. (2005). Education for social citizenship: Perceptions of teachers in the USA, Australia, England, Russia, and China (Vol. 1). Hong Kong University Press.

Leenders, H., & Veugelers, W. (2006). Different perspectives on values and citizenship education. Curriculum and Teaching, 21(2), 5–20.

Leenders, H., Veugelers, W., & De Kat, E. (2008). Teachers' views on citizenship education in secondary education in the Netherlands. Cambridge Journal of Education, 38(2), 155–170.

Lin, A. (2015). Citizenship education in American schools and its role in developing civic engagement: a review of the research. Educational Review, 67, 35, 63. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131911.2013.813440

Malkoç, S., & Ata, B. (2021). Sosyal bilgiler öğretmenlerinin vatandaşlık tiplerinin belirlenmesi [Determination of the citizenship types of social studies teachers]. Ankara University Journal of Faculty of Educational Sciences (JFES), 54(2), 459–496. https://doi.org/10.30964/auebfd.897458

Margot, K. C., & Kettler, T. (2019). Teachers’ perception of STEM integration and education: a systematic literature review. International Journal of STEM Education, 6(1), 1–16.

Marovah, T. (2019). Citizenship formation through curriculum and pedagogical practices: Evidence from two Zimbabwean teachers’ colleges. South African Journal of Education. https://doi.org/10.15700/saje.v39ns2a1411

Martínez-Rodríguez, R., Muñoz-Labraña, C., & Sánchez-Agustí, M. (2019). What does it mean to be a citizen? A comparative study of teachers' conceptions in Spain and Chile. Education as Change, 23(1), 1–24.

Mayring, P. (2014). Qualitative content analysis: theoretical foundation, basic procedures, and software solution. Klagenfurt. https://nbn-resolving.org/urn:nbn:de:0168-ssoar-395173

Merriam, B. (2013). Nitel araştırma türleri [Six common qualitative research designs] (Trans. F. K. Canbaz & M. Öz). in S. Turan (Ed.), Nitel araştırma desen ve uygulama için bir rehber [in Turkish] (p. 21–37) Ankara: Nobel Academic Publishing.

Merriam, S. B., & Grenier, R. S. (Eds.). (2019). Qualitative research in practice: Examples for discussion and analysis. John Wiley & Sons.

Mhlauli, M. B. (2012). The paradox of teaching citizenship education in Botswana primary schools. European Journal of Educational Research, 1(2), 85–105.

Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldana, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook (3^rd Ed). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Neubauer, B. E., Witkop, C. T., & Varpio, L. (2019). How phenomenology can help us learn from others' experiences. Perspectives on Medical Education, 8, 90–97.

Obiagu, A. (2024). Being a good citizen in a postcolonial context: Justice-oriented citizenship implications of Nigerian teachers’ civic education ideologies. Theory & Research in Social Education, 52, 273‑311. https://doi.org/10.1080/00933104.2024.2305463

Ontas, T., & Koc, E. S. (2020). Primary school teacher candidates' views of citizenship and ıdeal citizenship. International Journal of Educational Methodology, 6(2), 455-470.

Önal, G., Öztürk, C., & Kenan, S. (2018). Teachers' perspectives on citizenship education in England. Education & Science, 43(196), 243-256. https://doi.org/10.15390/EB.2018.7060

Özbek, R., & Köksalan, B. (2015). Evaluation of pre-service teachers’opinions concerning the objectives of the citizenship education. Electronic Journal of Social Sciences, 14(54), 129-140. https://doi.org/10.17755/esosder.91761

Parker, W. C. (2003). Teaching democracy: Unity and diversity in public life. Teachers College Press.

Parker, W. C. (2008). Knowing and doing in democratic citizenship education. Handbook of research in social studies education, p. 65–80.

Pederson, P. V. & Cogan, J. J. (2003). Civic education pedagogy and assessment in the pacific rim: Six cases. International Journal of Social Education, 17(1), 16–30.

Pike, M. A. (2007). The state and citizenship education in England: A curriculum for subjects or citizens? Journal of Curriculum Studies, 39(4), 471-489

Polat, S., Özgül, İ., & Bayram, H. (2023). How should citizenship education be given?: A study based on the opinions of social studies teachers. International Journal of Assessment Tools in Education, 10(1), 98–113.

Polit, D. F., & Beck, C. T. (2006). Essentials of nursing research: Methods, appraisal, and utilization (6^th ed.). Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.

Polit, D. F., & Beck, C. T. (2008). Nursing research: Generating and assessing evidence for nursing practice. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.

Rubio D., Berg Weger M., Tebb S., Lee E., Rauch S. (2003). Objectifying content validity: Conducting a content validity study in social work research. Social Work Research, 27, 94–104.

Sampermans, D., Reichert, F., & Claes, E. (2021). Teachers’ concepts of good citizenship and associations with their teaching styles. Cambridge Journal of Education, 51(4), 433–450.

Schreier, M. (2012). Qualitative content analysis in practice. Sage Publications.

Schugurensky, D. (2010). Citizenship learning for and through participatory democracy. in Learning citizenship by practicing democracy: International initiatives and perspectives, 1-19. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.

Schwartz-Shea, P., & Yanow, D. (2013). Interpretive research design: Concepts and processes. Routledge.

Sen, A. (2022). Three evils of citizenship education in Turkey: Ethno-religious nationalism, statism, and neoliberalism. Critical Studies in Education, 63(3), 307–322.

Sen, K. (2023). Citizenship education under authoritarian Islamic nationalism: an exploration of teachers’ conceptions of citizenship in Turkey. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 55(2), 171–186.

Shah, R., Brett, P., & Thomas, D. (2020). Visualizing civic values: Representations of idealized citizenship behaviours in images found in Nepalese social studies textbooks. Citizenship Teaching & Learning, 15(1), 79–99.

Shrotryia, V. K., & Dhanda, U. (2019). Content validity of the assessment instrument for employee engagement. Sage Open, 9(1), 2158244018821751.

Sim, J. B. Y. (2008). What does citizenship mean? Social studies teachers' understandings of citizenship in Singapore schools. Educational Review, 60(3), 253–266.

Smith, B., Neoh, J., McDowall, A., & Kim, E. (2024). Preparing teachers for critical global and democratic practice: shifting inquiries into the teaching of democracy and global citizenship in teacher education. Curriculum Perspectives, 44, 525–536. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41297-024-00235-0

Sunal, C. S., & Haas, M. E. (2011). How do students develop citizenship in democratic and global societies? Social Studies for The Elementary and Middle Grades (A Constructivist Approach), 133–172.

Şentürk, M., Şimşek, U., Tıkman, F., & Yıldırım, E. (2017). Sosyal bilgiler ve sınıf eğitimi öğretmen adaylarının gözünden vatandaşlık eğitimi: Nitel bir çalışma [The views of pre-service social studies teachers and pre-service classroom teachers about citizenship education: A qualitative study]. Dicle University Journal of Ziya Gökalp Faculty of Education, (32), 913–925. https://doi.org/10.14582/DUZGEF.1871

Şimşek, A., & Karaduman, E. (2023). Türkiye’de vatandaşlık eğitiminin yönü (II. Meşrutiyet döneminden günümüze 2022) [The direction of citizenship education in Turkey (From the period of II. constitutionalism to the present 2022). Selçuk University Journal of Studies in Turcolog, (Special Issue), 75–108. https://doi.org/10.21563/sutad.1378237

Tangül, H., & Soykan, E. (2021). Comparison of students’ and teachers’ opinions toward digital citizenship education. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 752059.

Teherani, A., Martimianakis, T., Stenfors-Hayes, T., Wadhwa, A., & Varpio, L. (2015). Choosing a qualitative research approach. Journal of Graduate Medical Education, 7(4), 669–670.

Thornton, S. J. (2008). Continuity and change in social studies curriculum. Handbook of Research İn Social Studies Education, 15–32.

Tomé, V., Sikharulidze, M., Lobzhanidze, S., & Urchukhishvili, G. (2024). Digital Citizenship Education: Perceptions on the concept, self-reported competences, and practices of Georgian school society.

Uğurlu, C. T. (2011). Avrupa Birliği ülkelerinde ve Türkiye'de vatandaşlık eğitimi [Citizenship Education in European Union Countries and Turkey]. Electronic Journal of Social Sciences, 10(37), 153–169.

Ulger, M. (2013). İnsan hakları ve vatandaşlık eğitimi ara disiplin alanı uygulamasının sosyal bilgiler öğretmenlerinin görüşleri bağlamında değerlendirilmesi [Evaluation of ımplementation of human rights and citizenship ınterdiscipline domain in the context of social studies teachers’ opinions]. Turkish Journal of Education, 2(3), 14–29. https://doi.org/10.19128/turje.181061

Üner, S. S., & Yeşil, R. (2014). The examination of the views of primary school teachers and preservice primary teachers on European Union citizenship from the point of different variables: A qualitative study. Participatory Educational Research, 1(2), 68–82.

Veugelers, W. (2007). Creating critical‐democratic citizenship education: empowering humanity and democracy in Dutch education. Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education, 37(1), 105–119.

Veugelers, W. (2011). Theory and practice of citizenship education: The case of policy, science and education in the Netherlands. Revista de Educacion, (1), 209-224.

Walkington, H., & Wilkins, C. (2000). Education for critical citizenship: the impact of teachers' world-view on classroom practice in the teaching of values. School Field, 11(1), 59–78.

Weinberg, J., & Flinders, M. (2018). Learning for democracy: The politics and practice of citizenship education. British Educational Research Journal, 44(4), 573-592. https://doi.org/10.1002/berj.3446

Westheimer, J., & Kahne, J. (2004). What kind of citizen? The politics of educating for democracy. American Educational Research Journal, 41(2), 237–269.

Westheimer, J., & Ladson-Billings, G. (2024). What kind of citizen?: Educating our children for the common good. Teachers College Press.

Willemse, T. M., ten Dam, G., Geijsel, F., van Wessum, L., & Volman, M. (2015). Fostering teachers’ professional development for citizenship education. Teacher and Teaching Education, 49, 118–127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2015.03.008

Wong, K. L., Lee, C. K. J., Chan, K. S. J., & Kennedy, K. J. (2017). The model of teachers’ perceptions of ‘Good Citizens’: Aligning with the changing conceptions of ‘Good Citizens’. Citizenship Teaching & Learning, 12(1), 43–66.

Yıldırım, A., & Şimşek, H. (2011). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri [Qualitative research methods in social sciences] (8^th edition) Ankara: Seçkin Publishing.

Zaman, H. (2006). Teachers' perceptions of citizenship and citizenship education: A comparative study (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Pittsburgh.

TANGIBLE OR INTANGIBLE: IS THAT A DILEMMA FOR GAMIFIED FLIPPED LEARNING IN PRIMARY SCHOOL MATHEMATICS?

2026-01-06T06:04:09+00:00

Gamification plays an important role in flipped learning environments. Recent studies underscore the effectiveness of gamified approaches within these settings, but also indicate that most designs for gamification are predominantly digital-based. This study aims to explore the competition between tangible (physical) and intangible (digital) forms of gamification in the context of flipped learning. Specifically, it assesses the impact of both tangible and intangible gamified flipped learning approaches on students’ mathematical literacy self-efficacy beliefs and their engagement levels towards learning activities. The study group for this quasi-experimental study was composed of 69 fifth-grade students from a public school in Türkiye. The study group was separated into three groups: two experimental groups (tangible and intangible) and one control group. The findings indicate that both tangible and intangible gamification in a flipped learning environment have a positive impact on students’ personal experience of their mathematical literacy self-efficacy beliefs. However, neither approach had a significant impact on students’ engagement levels. These results suggest that gamified flipped learning could be an effective strategy for enhancing students’ personal experience of their mathematical literacy self-efficacy beliefs at the primary education level. The study provides pedagogical implications based on these results and offers recommendations for future research.

Keywords: Gamification, flipped learning, primary education.

Ethics and Conflict of Interest

Ethical approval for the study was obtained from the Ethics Committee of Gazi University (dated 06.03.2023 and numbered E.603958) and the Governorship of Düzce (dated 13.04.2023 and numbered E-10240236-20-74353790). Canva design tools were used to develop gamification elements and research visuals. The authors would like to thank the Gazi University Academic Writing Application and Research Center for proofreading the manuscript. The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

REFERENCES

Ahmed, H. D., & Asiksoy, G. (2021). The effects of gamified flipped learning method on student’s innovation skills, self-efficacy towards virtual physics lab course and perceptions. Sustainability, 13(18), 10163. https://doi.org/10.3390/su131810163

Aldrich, J. O., & Cunningham, J. B. (2016). Using IBM SPSS statistics: An interactive hands-on approach (2nd ed.). Sage.

Arsyad, S., Waluyo, B., & Maisarah, I. (2024). Enhancing TOEFL performance and student motivation through integrated flipped and gamified learning in online settings. Human Behavior and Emerging Technologies, 2024(1), 1054242. https://doi.org/10.1155/2024/1054242

Bakker, A., Cai, J., & Zenger, L. (2021). Future themes of mathematics education research: An international survey before and during the pandemic. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 107(1), 1-24. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-021-10049-w

Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84(2), 191–215. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.84.2.191

Bandura, A., & Schunk, D. H. (1981). Cultivating competence, self-efficacy, and intrinsic interest through proximal self-motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41(3), 586-598. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.41.3.586

Baypınar, K., & Tarım, K. (2019). The development of mathematical literacy self-efficacy scale for middle school: a reliability and validity study. Cukurova University Faculty of Education Journal, 48(1), 878-909. https://doi.org/10.14812/cufej.415291

Behl, A., Jayawardena, N., Pereira, V., Islam, N., Del Giudice, M., & Choudrie, J. (2022). Gamification and e-learning for young learners: A systematic literature review, bibliometric analysis, and future research agenda. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 176, 121445. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2021.121445

Bergmann, J., & Sams, A. (2023). Flip your classroom, revised edition: Reach every student in every class every day. ASCD.

Bishop, J., & Verleger, M. A. (2013). The flipped classroom: A survey of the research. In 2013 ASEE annual conference & exposition (pp. 23-1200).

Bolstad, O. H. (2023). Lower secondary students’ encounters with mathematical literacy. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 35(1), 237-253. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13394-021-00386-7

Boyd D. G., & Bee H. L. (2014) The developing child. Pearson Education.

Buchner, A. (2022). Moodle 4 Administration: An administrator’s guide to configuring, securing, customizing, and extending Moodle. Packt.

Büyüköztürk, Ş. (1998). Kovaryans analizi (Varyans analizi ile karşılaştırmalı bir inceleme) [Analysis of covariance (A comparative analysis with analysis of variance).]. Ankara University Journal of Faculty of Educational Sciences (JFES), 31(1), 91-105. https://doi.org/10.1501/Egifak_0000000247

Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2018). Sosyal bilimler için veri analizi el kitabı [Data analysis handbook for the social sciences] (24^th ed.). Ankara: Pegem Academy Publishing

Candel, E. C., de la Pena, C., & Yuste, B. C. (2024). Pre-service teachers’ perception of active learning methodologies in history: Flipped classroom and gamification in an e-learning environment. Education and Information Technologies, 29(3), 3365-3387. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-023-11924-0

Cevikbas, M., & Kaiser, G. (2022). Student engagement in a flipped secondary mathematics classroom. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 20(7), 1455-1480. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-021-10213-x

Christenson, S. L., Reschly, A. L., & Wylie, C. (2012). Handbook of research on student engagement. Springer.

Clark, R. E. (1983). Reconsidering research on learning from media. Review of Educational Research, 53(4), 445-459. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543053004445

Cole, J., & Foster, H. (2007). Using Moodle: Teaching with the popular open source course management system. O’Reilly.

Conde, M. A., Aguilar, D. A. G., Pozo de Dios, A. D., & Penalvo, F. J. G. (2010). Moodle 2.0 web services layer and its new application contexts. In International Conference on Technology Enhanced Learning (pp. 110-116). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-13166-0_16

Costello, E. (2013). Opening up to open source: Looking at how Moodle was adopted in higher education. Open Learning: The Journal of Open, Distance and e-Learning, 28(3), 187–200. https://doi.org/10.1080/02680513.2013.856289

Daliranfirouz, E., Amiryousefi, M., Geld, R., & Ansari, D. N. (2024). Gamified-flipped English classes and L2 learners’ achievement and perceptions. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1080/17501229.2024.2374356

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. Springer.

Deterding, S., Dixon, D., Khaled, R., & Nacke, L. (2011). From game design elements to gamefulness: Defining “gamification”. In Proceedings of the 15th International Academic MindTrek Conference: Envisioning future media environments (pp. 9–15). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/2181037.2181040

Do, M., Sanford, K., Roseff, S., Hovaguimian, A., Besche, H., & Fischer, K. (2023). Gamified versus non-gamified online educational modules for teaching clinical laboratory medicine to first-year medical students at a large allopathic medical school in the United States. BMC Medical Education, 23(1), 959. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-023-04951-5

Dodero, G., Gennari, R., Melonio, A., & Torello, S. (2014). Towards tangible gamified co-design at school: two studies in primary schools. In Proceedings of the first ACM SIGCHI annual symposium on Computer-human interaction in play (pp. 77-86). https://doi.org/10.1145/2658537.2658688

Dominguez, A., Saenz de Navarrete, J., de Marcos, L., Fernandez-Sanz, L., Pages, C., & Martinez-Herraiz, J. (2013). Gamifying learning experiences: Practical implications and outcomes. Computers & Education, 63, 380-392. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.12.020

Dweck, C. S. (2006). Mindset: The new psychology of success. Random House.

Ekici, M. (2021). A systematic review of the use of gamification in flipped learning. Education and Information Technologies, 26(3), 3327-3346. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-020-10394-y

Fraenkel, J. R., Wallen, N. E., & Hyun, H. H. (2011). How to design and evaluate research in education (8th ed.). McGraw-Hill.

Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, A. H. (2004). School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74(1), 59-109. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543074001059

Gennari, R., Melonio, A., & Torello, S. (2017). Gamified probes for cooperative learning: A case study. Multimedia Tools and Applications, 76, 4925-4949. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11042-016-3543-7

Ghafouri, R., Zamanzadeh, V., & Nasiri, M. (2024). Comparison of education using the flipped class, gamification and gamification in the flipped learning environment on the performance of nursing students in a client health assessment: A randomized clinical trial. BMC Medical Education, 24(1), 949. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-024-05966-2

Graven, M., Venkat, H., & Bowie, L. (2023). Analysing the citizenship agenda in Mathematical literacy school exit assessments. ZDM Mathematics Education, 55(5), 1021-1036. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-022-01448-1

Gutierrez-Gonzalez, R., Zamarron, A., Royuela, A., & Rodriguez-Boto, G. (2023). Flipped classroom applied to Neurosurgery in undergraduate medical education. BMC Medical Education, 23(1), 170. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-023-04158-8

Hamari, J., Koivisto, J., & Sarsa, H. (2014). Does gamification work? A literature review of empirical studies on gamification. In 2014 47^th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (pp. 3025-3034). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/HICSS.2014.377

Hanus, M., & Fox, J. (2015). Assessing the effects of gamification in the classroom: A longitudinal study on intrinsic motivation, social comparison, satisfaction, effort, and academic performance. Computers & Education, 80, 152-161. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.08.019

Hao, X., & Fang, F. (2024). Learners’ speaking self-efficacy, self-efficacy sources and their relations in the traditional and flipped instructional modes. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 1-16. https://doi.org/10.1080/02188791.2024.2414051

Hopkins, K. D., & Weeks, D. L. (1990). Tests for normality and measures of skewness and kurtosis: Their place in research reporting. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 50(4), 717-729. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164490504001

Höfer, T., & Beckmann, A. (2009). Supporting mathematical literacy: examples from a cross-curricular project. ZDM Mathematics Education, 41(1), 223-230. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-008-0117-9

Huang, B., Hew, K. F., & Lo, C. K. (2019). Investigating the effects of gamification-enhanced flipped learning on undergraduate students’ behavioral and cognitive engagement. Interactive learning environments, 27(8), 1106-1126. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2018.1495653

Huang, Y. H., Hsia, L. H., & Hwang, G. J. (2026). A gamified AI movement assessment and feedback approach for university students in physical education: Effects on movement skills, learning engagement, and behavioral patterns. Education and Information Technologies, 1-21. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-026-13911-7

Hwang, G. J., Lai, C. L., & Wang, S. Y. (2015). Seamless flipped learning: a mobile technology-enhanced flipped classroom with effective learning strategies. Journal of computers in education, 2(4), 449-473. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40692-015-0043-0

Jablonka, E. (2015). The evolvement of numeracy and mathematical literacy curricula and the construction of hierarchies of numerate or mathematically literate subjects. ZDM Mathematics Education, 47, 599-609. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-015-0691-6

Jansen, A., Curtis, K., Mohammad-Mirzaei, A., Cullicott, C. E., Smith, E. P., & Middleton, J. A. (2023). Secondary mathematics teachers’ descriptions of student engagement. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 113(3), 425-442. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-023-10228-x

Kapp, K. M. (2012). The gamification of learning and instruction: Game-based methods and strategies for training and education. John Wiley & Sons.

Karamert, Ö., & Kuyumcu-Vardar, A. (2021). The effect of gamification on young mathematics learners’ achievements and attitudes. Journal of Educational Technology and Online Learning, 4(2), 96-114. https://doi.org/10.31681/jetol.904704

Kline, R.B. (2023). Principles and practices of structural equation modeling (5^th ed.). The Guilford.

Li, Z., & Li, J. (2022). Using the flipped classroom to promote learner engagement for the sustainable development of language skills: A mixed-methods study. Sustainability, 14(10), 5983. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14105983

Lo, C. K., & Hew, K. F. (2020). A comparison of flipped learning with gamification, traditional learning, and online independent study: the effects on students’ mathematics achievement and cognitive engagement. Interactive Learning Environments, 28(4), 464-481. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2018.1541910

Lo, C. K., & Hew, K. F. (2021). Student engagement in mathematics flipped classrooms: Implications of journal publications from 2011 to 2020. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 672610. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.672610

Lo, C. K., Hew, K. F., & Chen, G. (2017). Toward a set of design principles for mathematics flipped classrooms: A synthesis of research in mathematics education. Educational Research Review, 22, 50-73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2017.08.002

Lodico, M. G., Spaulding, D. T., & Voegtle, K. H. (2010). Methods in educational research: From theory to practice (Vol. 28). John Wiley & Sons.

Majuri, J., Koivisto, J., & Hamari, J. (2018). Gamification of education and learning: A review of empirical literature. In Proceedings of the 2nd international GamiFIN conference, GamiFIN 2018. CEUR-WS (pp. 11-19).

Manzano-Leon, A., Camacho-Lazarraga, P., Guerrero, M. A., Guerrero-Puerta, L., Aguilar-Parra, J. M., Trigueros, R., & Alias, A. (2021). Between level up and game over: A systematic literature review of gamification in education. Sustainability, 13(2247). https://doi.org/10.3390/su13042247

Marell-Olsson, E. (2021). Using gamification as an online teaching strategy to develop students’ 21st century skills. IxD&A: Interaction Design and Architecture (s), (47), 69-93.

Mayer, R. E. (2009). Multimedia learning (2nd ed.). Cambridge University.

Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı [Ministry of National Education] [MoNE]. (2018). Matematik dersi öğretim programı (1-8. Sınıflar) [Mathematics course curriculum - 1st-8th Grades]. MoNE. http://mufredat.meb.gov.tr/ProgramDetay.aspx?PID=329

Ng, L. K., & Lo, C. K. (2023). Enhancing online instructional approaches for sustainable business education in the current and post-pandemic era: An action research study of student engagement. Education Sciences, 13(1), 42. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci13010042

OECD - Organisation for economic co-operation and development. (2022). The PISA 2022 mathematics framework. OECD.

Özgen, K. (2013). An analysis of high school students’ mathematical literacy self-efficacy beliefs in relation to their learning styles. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 22, 91-100. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-012-0030-4

Özgen, K., & Bindak, R. (2011). Determination of self-efficacy beliefs of high school students towards math literacy. Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice, 11(2), 1085-1089.

Pajares, F., & Miller, M. D. (1994). Role of self-efficacy and self-concept beliefs in mathematical problem solving: A path analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86(2), 193–203. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.86.2.193

Pan, Z., Wang, K., Zhu, J., & Smith, M. (2026). Levels, stickers, and strategies: how gamified math tasks foster elementary student engagement. Education and Information Technologies, 1-23. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-025-13866-1

Pratiwi, D. I., Fitriati, S. W., Yuliasri, I., & Waluyo, B. (2024). Flipped classroom with gamified technology and paper-based method for teaching vocabulary. Asian-Pacific Journal of Second and Foreign Language Education, 9(1), 1. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40862-023-00222-4

Prince, M. (2004). Does active learning work? A review of the research. Journal of Engineering Education, 93(3), 223-231. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2004.tb00809.x

Reeve, J. (2013). How students create motivationally supportive learning environments for themselves: The concept of agentic engagement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105(3), 579–595. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0032690

Reinke, W. M., Herman, K. C., & Copeland, C. B. (2022). Student engagement: The importance of the classroom context. In A. L. Reschly, & S. L. Christenson (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Student Engagement (pp. 529–544). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-07853-8_25

Reschly, A. L., & Christenson, S. L. (2022). Jingle-jangle revisited: History and further evolution of the student engagement construct. In A. L. Reschly, & S. L. Christenson (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Student Engagement (pp. 3–24). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-07853-8_1

Sailer, M., & Sailer, M. (2021). Gamification of in‐class activities in flipped classroom lectures. British Journal of Educational Technology, 52(1), 75-90. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12948

Sanz-Angulo, P., Galindo-Melero, J., De-Diego-Poncela, S., & Martin, O. (2025). Promoting soft skills in higher engineering education: Assessment of the impact of a teaching methodology based on flipped learning, cooperative work and gamification. Education and Information Technologies, 1-44. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-025-13322-0

Sargent, J., & Casey, A. (2020). Flipped learning, pedagogy and digital technology: Establishing consistent practice to optimise lesson time. European Physical Education Review, 26(1), 70–84. https://doi.org/10.1177/1356336X19826603

Schunk, D. H. (1991). Self-efficacy and academic motivation. Educational Psychologist, 26, 207-231. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.1991.9653133

Schunk, D. H., Pintrich, P. R., & Meece, J. L. (2008). Motivation in education: Theory, research, and applications. Pearson.

Sever, M. (2014). Adapting classroom engagement inventory into Turkish culture. Education and Science, 39(176), 171-182. https://doi.org/10.15390/EB.2014.3627

Skinner, E. A., Kindermann, T. A., & Furrer, C. J. (2009). A motivational perspective on engagement. Educational Psychologist, 44(4), 225–236. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164408323233

Stipek, D., & Gralinski, H. (1996). Children’s beliefs about intelligence and school performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88(3), 397-407.

Talbert, R. (2017). Flipped learning: A guide for higher education faculty. Stylus.

Taşpınar, M. (2017). Sosyal Bilimlerde SPSS uygulamalı nicel veri analizi [Applied quantitative data analysis using SPSS in social sciences]. Pegem.

Thongmak, M. (2019). The student experience of student-centered learning methods: Comparing gamification and flipped classroom. Education for Information, 35(2), 99-127. https://doi.org/10.3233/EFI-18018

Throndsen, J. E., Shumway, J. F., & Moyer-Packenham, P. S. (2020). The relationship between mathematical literacy at kindergarten entry and public preschool attendance, type, and quality. Early Childhood Education Journal, 48, 473-483. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-019-01014-7

Wang, Z., Bergin, C., & Bergin, D. A. (2014). Measuring engagement in fourth to twelfth grade classrooms: The classroom engagement inventory. School Psychology Quarterly, 29(4), 517-535. https://doi.org/10.1037/spq0000050

Werbach, K., & Hunter, D. (2012). For the win: How game thinking can revolutionize your business. Wharton Digital.

Xiao, R., Wu, Z., & Hamari, J. (2021). Internet-of-gamification: A review of literature on ıot-enabled gamification for user engagement. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 1-25. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2021.1990517

Xiao, Y., & Hew, K. F. T. (2024). Intangible rewards versus tangible rewards in gamified online learning: Which promotes student intrinsic motivation, behavioural engagement, cognitive engagement and learning performance?. British Journal of Educational Technology, 55(1), 297-317. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13361

Yllana-Prieto, F., Jeong, J. S., & Gonzalez-Gomez, D. (2021). An online-based edu-escape room: A comparison study of a multidimensional domain of PSTs with flipped sustainability-stem contents. Sustainability, 13(3), 1032. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13031032

Yu, Q., & Yu, K. (2024). The effects of gamified flipped classroom on student learning: evidence from a meta-analysis. Interactive Learning Environments, 32(9), 5126-5141. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2023.2209791

Zainuddin, Z., Chu, S. K. W., Shujahat, M., & Perera, C. J. (2020). The impact of gamification on learning and instruction: A systematic review of empirical evidence. Educational Research Review, 30, 100326. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2020.100326

Zainuddin, Z., Farida, R., Keumala, C. M., Kurniawan, R., & Iskandar, H. (2022). Synchronous online flip learning with formative gamification quiz: instruction during COVID-19. Interactive Technology and Smart Education, 19(2), 236-259. https://doi.org/10.1108/ITSE-01-2021-0002

Zakariya, Y. F. (2022). Improving students’ mathematics self-efficacy: A systematic review of intervention studies. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 986622. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.986622

Zeng, C. (2025). The effects of students’ backgrounds, attitudes, and ICT familiarity on mathematical literacy: Latent profile analysis and lasso regression. Education and Information Technologies, 30(5), 5451-5475. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-024-13028-9

Zichermann, G., & Cunningham, C. (2011). Gamification by design: Implementing game mechanics in web and mobile apps. O’Reilly.

Zimmerman, B. J. (1995). Self-Efficacy and Educational Development. In A. Bandura (Ed.), Self-efficacy in changing societies, (pp. 202-231). Cambridge University.

Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Self-efficacy: An essential motive to learn. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(1), 82-91. https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1999.1016

Zou, D. (2020). Gamified flipped EFL classroom for primary education: Student and teacher perceptions. Journal of Computers in Education, 7(2), 213-228. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40692-020-00153-w

HAREZMI EDUCATION MODEL IN PRIMARY MATHEMATICS EFFECTS ON PROBLEM-SOLVING AND CRITICAL THINKING

2024-11-22T06:03:46+00:00

Interdisciplinary approaches in education play a crucial role in developing students’ real-world mathematical problem-solving (MPS) skills and critical thinking (CT) skills. One such approach, the Harezmi Education Model (HEM), integrates mathematics, science, computer technologies, social sciences, the arts, and sports through data-driven, technology-supported learning environments. This research sought to explore how the HEM can be incorporated into primary mathematics teaching and to determine its effect on learners’ MPS and CT skills. The study was designed according to an explanatory sequential mixed-methods approach. During the quantitative stage, a quasi-experimental pretest–posttest model was implemented with fourth-grade students, who were separated into an experimental group (n = 26) and a control group (n = 26). In the subsequent qualitative stage, semi-structured interviews were carried out with 15 primary school teachers. The quantitative data were examined through multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA), whereas the qualitative data were interpreted using content analysis. The results demonstrated that instruction grounded in HEM produced statistically significant improvements in students’ MPS and CT skills. Teacher perspectives further indicated that HEM supports interdisciplinary learning and real-world connections, although challenges related to resources, time management, and teacher preparedness were noted. Overall, the results suggest that HEM offers a promising interdisciplinary framework for enhancing mathematics instruction and 21st-century skills in primary education.

Keywords: Harezmi education model, mathematical problem-solving, critical thinking, interdisciplinary learning, primary education.

Ethics and Conflict of Interest

The study was carried out in accordance with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki and the ethical standards set by the Turkish Council of Higher Education. Ethical approval was granted by the Ethics Committee of Bayburt University on May 07, 2025 (Decision No: 195; Session No: 5), covering both the implementation and data collection phases. Participants’ rights and confidentiality were protected throughout the study. Data were collected solely for scientific purposes, analyzed anonymously, and handled in line with institutional regulations. The authors declare that they have adhered to ethical standards at all stages and declare no conflict of interest.

REFERENCES

Arfé, B., Vardanega, T., & Ronconi, L. (2020). The effects of coding on children’s planning and inhibition skills. Computers & Education, 148, 103807. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.103807

Aydın, G., & Balım, A. G. (2005). An interdisciplinary application based on constructivist approach: Teaching of energy topics. Ankara University Journal of Faculty of Educational Sciences (JFES), 38(2), 145–166. https://doi.org/10.1501/Egifak_0000000113

Aydoğdu, M., & Kesercioğlu, T. (2005). Fen ve teknoloji öğretimi [Science and technology education]. Ankara: Anı Publishing.

Ayra, M., Deliaslan, A., Berber, F., Kahvecioğlu, M., & Doğangün, S. (2025). Harezmi Eğitim Modeline yönelik öğretmen görüşleri [Teacher views on the Hârezmî Education Model]. International Journal of Education and Science Research, 2(1), 50-69. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.15089201

Babayiğit-Durakcan, Ö. (2024). Harezmi eğitim modelinin fen bilimleri dersindeki etkilerinin çeşitli değişkenler açısından incelenmesi [An investigation of the effects of the Harezmi education model on science education in terms of various variables] (Unpublished master thesis). Marmara University.

Bingölbali, E., & Özmantar, M. F. (2015). İlköğretimde karşılaşılan matematiksel zorluklar ve çözüm önerileri [Mathematical difficulties encountered in primary education and suggested solutions] (5^th Edition). Ankara: Pegem Academy.

Budak Coşkun, S. (2009). An investigation of the effect of interdisciplinary approach used at 8th grade math lessons on students' marh achievement levels and critical thinking disposition inventory (Unpublished master thesis). Yıldız Technical University, İstanbul.

Büyükalan-Filiz, S., & Ergan, S. (2020). Evaluation of the primary school mathematics curriculum according to the five process standards. Ordu University Institute of Social Sciences Journal of Social Sciences Research, 10(2), 464‑477.

Ceylan, Ö., Öğten, M., Tüfekçi, V., & Yurttaş, M. Ö. (2020). Öğrencilerin Harezmi Eğitim Modeline yönelik metaforik algılarının belirlenmesi [Determination of students' metaphoric perceptions for Harezmi Education Model]. Milli Egitim Journal, 49(225), 227-251.

Charlton, P., & Avramides, K. (2016). Knowledge construction in computer science and engineering when learning through making. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies, 9(4), 379-390.

Chen, S. K., Yang, Y.-T. C., Lin, C., & Lin, S. S. J. (2023). Dispositions of 21st-century skills in STEM programs and their changes over time. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 21(4), 1363-1380. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-022-10288-0

Cohen, J. (2013). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Routledge.

Creswell, J. W. & Clark, V. L. P. (2017). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Los Angeles: SAGE.

Çeliköz, M., & Hastürk, D. G. (2024). Evaluation of Harezmi Education Model applications according to student opinions: An exploratory sequential mixed design research. International Journal of Educational Research Review, 9(3), 214–237.

Çimşir, S. (2024). Hârezmî eğitim modelinin ilkokul 3. sınıf öğrencilerinin problem çözme becerisi ve başarı algısına etkisi [The effect of Hârezmî Education Model on primary school third-grade students' problem solving skills and perception of success]. Ahi Evran University Journal of Kırşehir Education Faculty, 25(2), 1017-1052. https://doi.org/10.29299/kefad.1272478

Çimşir, S., & Baysal, Z. N. (2019). “Marmara Üç Aşamalı Bilişsel Karar Verme Becerilerini Geliştirme Modeli” nin akademik başarısı düşük ilkokul dördüncü sınıf öğrencilerinin problem çözme becerisine etkisi [The effect of the "Marmara Three-Stage Development Model of Cognitive Decision-Making" on the problem-solving skills of fourth grade students with low academic achievement]. Journal of Education, Theory and Practical Research, 5(3), 337-351.

Çimşir, S., Polat, R. D., Çaça, Ş., & Kocaman, H. (2022). İlkokul 3. sınıf öğrencilerinin ve velilerinin Hârezmî eğitim modeline ilişkin görüşlerinin incelenmesi [Investigation of primary school 3rd grade students and parents’ views on the Harezmi Education Model]. BABUR Research, 1(1), 131-144.

Değirmenci, T., & Deringöl, Y. (2024). İlkokullar için problem çözme ölçeği’nin geçerlik ve güvenilirlik çalışması [Validity and reliability study of the problem solving scale for primary schools]. Milli Egitim Journal, 53(244), 1849-1872. https://doi.org/10.37669/milliegitim.1262404

Demirel, Ö., Tuncel, İ., Demirhan, C., & Demir, K. (2008). Çoklu zekâ kuramı ile disiplinlerarası yaklaşımı temel alan uygulamalara ilişkin öğretmen-öğrenci görüşleri [Teacher and pupil views about activities based on multiple intelligences and the interdisciplinary approach]. Education and Science , 33(147), 14–24.

Derdiyok, İ., Topal, M., & Süleyman, D. (2025). Harezmî Eğitim Modeli’nin ortaokul öğrencilerinin sınıf içi etkinliklere katılım düzeylerine etkisinin incelenmesi [The effect of the Khwarizmi Education Model on middle school students' participation levels in classroom activities]. International Journal of Education and Science Research, 2(1), 1-19. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.15088336

English, L. D. (2023). Ways of thinking in STEM-based problem solving. ZDM – Mathematics Education, 55(7), 1219‑1230. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-023-01474-7

Erdem, Ş., & Küçüktepe, S. E. (2024). Harezmi eğitim modeli uygulanan okullardaki öğretmenlerin modele yönelik görüşleri [The opinions of teachers at schools which applied the Harezmi Education Model on the model]. Marmara University Atatürk Education Faculty Journal of Educational Sciences, 60(60), 1-26. https://doi.org/10.15285/maruaebd.1498995

Filiz, T., & Güneş, G. (2023). Teaching multiplication based on Realistic Mathematics Education to students at risk of mathematics learning difficulties. Journal of Family Counseling and Education, 8(2), 193-211. https://doi.org/10.32568/jfce.1372345

Fraenkel, J., Wallen, N. & Hyun, H. H. (2012). How to design and evaluate research in education. San Francisco: McGraw Hill.

Güder, Y., & Gürbüz, R. (2018). Interdisciplinary mathematical modeling activities as a transitional tool for STEM education: Teacher and student opinions. Adıyaman University Journal of Educational Sciences, 8, 170–198.

Gürkan, B. (2019). Examination of secondary school teachers' opinions regarding interdisciplinary teaching. Pegem Journal of Education and Instruction, 9(1), 91-124. https://doi.org/10.14527/pegegog.2019.004

Hu, C., Yeh, H., & Chen, N. (2020). Enhancing STEM competence by making electronic musical pencil for non-engineering students. Computers & Education, 150, 103840. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.103840

Karakuş, M., Türkkan, B. T., & Karakuş, F. (2017). Fen bilgisi ve ilköğretim matematik öğretmenlerinin disiplinlerarası yaklaşıma yönelik görüşlerinin belirlenmesi [Determining science and elementary mathematics teachers’ views on interdisciplinary approach]. Elementary Education Online, 16(2), 509–524. https://doi.org/10.17051/ilkonline.2017.304714

Keskin, S. C., Karaloğlu, İ., & Erdoğan, H. (2024). Harezmi eğitim modelinin uygulayıcıları olan öğretmenlerin görüşleri doğrultusunda incelenmesi [Investigation of the Harezmi Education Model in line with the views of teachers, implementers of the model]. Ondokuz Mayıs University Journal of Education Faculty, 43(1), 121-140. https://doi.org/10.7822/omuefd.1285712

Koçoğlu, E. (2018). Türkiye'de pilot uygulama sürecinde olan Harezmi eğitim modelinin alan uzmanlarının görüşleri doğrultusunda analizi [Analysis of domain expert opinion are in line with the Harezmi Education Model pilot process in Turkey]. Electronic Turkish Studies, 13(19), 1187–1200. https://doi.org/10.7827/TurkishStudies.14050

Kök, F. (2024). Harezmi eğitim modelinin hayat boyu öğrenme anahtar yetkinliklerinden; matematik, fen ve dijital okuryazarlık yetkinliklerine etkisi: Karma bir çalışma [The effect of Harezmi Education Model on the lifelong learning key competencies; Mathematics, science and digital literacy competencies: A mixed study] (Unpublished master thesis). Marmara University.

Küçük, H., Perkan Zeki, C., İskifoğlu, G., & Caner, H. (2023). The impact of a sustainable progressive STEAM program on primary school students’ critical thinking dispositions and mathematics achievements. Sustainability, 15(21), 15356. https://doi.org/10.3390/su152115356

Martinello, M. L., & Cook, G. E. (2000). Indagación interdisciplinaria en la enseñanza y el aprendizaje. Gedisa.

Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. London: SAGE.

National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM). (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.

Niglas, K. (2010). The multidimensional model of research methodology: An integrated set of continua. A. Tashakkori and C. Teddlie (Ed.), Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research In (pp. 215-236). London: SAGE.

Orhan, S. (2025). Eğitimde disiplinlerarası yaklaşım: Harezmi modeli üzerine bir döküman analizi [Interdisciplinary approach in education: A document analysis on the Harezmi model]. International Journal of New Horizons in The Social Sciences, 2(2), 44–51.

Pallant, J. (2020). SPSS survival manual: A step by step guide to data analysis using IBM SPSS. Routledge.

Patton, M. (2002). Qualitative evaluation and research methods. Beverly Hills, CA: SAGE.

Polya, G. (2014). How to solve ıt: A new aspect of mathematical method. Princeton University Press. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781400828678

Saldana, J. (2021). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. London: SAGE Publications.

Schoenfeld, A. H. (1985). Making sense of “out loud” problem-solving protocols. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 4(2), 171–191. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1986-28488-001

Seçer, T. (2021). Harezmi eğitim modelini uygulayan öğretmenlerin model hakkındaki görüşlerinin belirlenmesi [The determination of the opinions of teachers applying Harezmi Education Model] (Unpublished master thesis). Marmara University.

Smith, K. N., Lamb, K. N., & Henson, R. K. (2020). Making meaning out of MANOVA: The need for multivariate post hoc testing in gifted education research. Gifted Child Quarterly, 64(1), 41-55. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986219890352

Tang, M., Wijaya, T. T., Li, X., Cao, Y., & Yu, Q. (2025). Exploring the determinants of mathematics teachers’ willingness to implement STEAM education using structural equation modeling. Scientific Reports, 15(1), 6304. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-90772-z

Tokmak, A. (2023). Harezmi eğitim modelinin problem çözme becerisinin geliştirilmesine etkisi [The effect of Harezmi Education Model on the development of problem solving skills]. Milli Egitim Journal, 52(1), 437-456. https://doi.org/10.37669/milliegitim.1309222

Tokmak, A., Yılmaz, A., & Şeker, M. (2023). Using an alternative model in social studies course: Harezmi Education Model. Sakarya University Journal of Education, 13(2), 286–325. https://doi.org/10.19126/suje.1268001

Uğraş, M. (2017). Okul öncesi öğretmenlerinin STEM uygulamalarına yönelik görüşleri [Preschool teachers’ views on STEM practices]. Journal of New Approaches in Education, 1(1), 39–54.

Ulu, M., Tertemiz, N., & Peker, M. (2016). Okuduğunu anlama ve problem çözme stratejileri eğitiminin ilköğretim 5. sınıf öğrencilerinin rutin olmayan problem çözme başarısına etkisi [The effect of comprehension and problem solving strategy training on 5th graders’ non-routine problem solving success]. Afyon Kocatepe University Journal of Social Sciences, 18(2), 303-340. https://doi.org/10.5578/JSS.37331

Uluçinar, U., & Akar, C. (2021). The critical thinking dispositions scale for elementary school students: A study of scale development 1. Third Sector Social Economic Review, 56(3), 2031-2047. https://doi.org/10.15659/3.sektor-sosyal-ekonomi.21.09.1673

Weng, X., Cui, Z., Ng, O.-L., Jong, M. S. Y., & Chiu, T. K. F. (2022). Characterizing students’ 4C Skills development during problem-based digital making. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 31(3), 372-385. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-022-09961-4

Yıldırım, A., & Şimşek, H. (2016). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri [Qualitative research methods in the social sciences]. Ankara: Seçkin Publishing.

Yin, R. K. (2016). Qualitative research from start to finish. NY: Guilford Publications.

Zeybek, A., Orhan, S. İ., & Aydın, A. (2024). The effect of the Harezmi education model on secondary school students’ science academic achievement. Education Quarterly Reviews, 7(2), 105-120. https://doi.org/10.31014/aior.1993.07.02.580