top of page
Asian Institute of Research, Journal Publication, Journal Academics, Education Journal, Asian Institute
Asian Institute of Research, Journal Publication, Journal Academics, Education Journal, Asian Institute

Education Quarterly Reviews

ISSN 2621-5799

asia institute of research, journal of education, education journal, education quarterly reviews, education publication, education call for papers
asia institute of research, journal of education, education journal, education quarterly reviews, education publication, education call for papers
asia institute of research, journal of education, education journal, education quarterly reviews, education publication, education call for papers
asia institute of research, journal of education, education journal, education quarterly reviews, education publication, education call for papers
open access

Published: 30 April 2022

Primary School Teachers and Students’ Opinions of the First-Grade Mathematics Curriculum in a Turkish Context

Ayten Pinar Bal, Ibrahim Gezgin

Cukurova University (Turkey), Ministry of National Education (Turkey)

asia institute of research, journal of education, education journal, education quarterly reviews, education publication, education call for papers
pdf download

Download Full-Text Pdf



Pages: 164-179

Keywords: Mathematics Curriculum, Curriculum Evaluation, Primary School, First Grade Mathematics Course


This research was carried out to determine the opinions of teachers and students in-depth regarding the primary-school first-grade mathematics curriculum in a Turkish context. This study was designed in accordance with a mixed research method to achieve this goal and to examine the situation that emerged during the implementation of a curriculum. The data collection tools were the “Mathematics Curriculum Evaluation Scale,” semi-structured teacher and student interviews, and an observation form. The thoughts of teachers and students regarding the primary school mathematics curriculum were determined in-depth, and the situations that emerged during the implementation of the program were examined. The research population comprised first-grade teachers working in primary schools in central districts of Turkey. Descriptive statistics and content analyses were used for the data analysis. Based on the results, it was concluded that the general structure and objective of the mathematics curriculum were sufficient.


  1. Al-Shanawani, H. M. (2019). Evaluation of self-learning curriculum for kindergarten using Stufflebeam’s CIPP Model. SAGE Open, 1-13.

  2. Altintas, S., & Gorgen, I. (2014). Comparative analysis of the mathematic curriculums of Turkey and South Korea, Education Sciences, 9(2), 191-216.

  3. Aslan, D. (2016). An evaluation of the private high school curriculum. Journal of Education and Practice, 7(9), 205-215.

  4. Atweh, B., & Goos, M. (2011). The Australian mathematics curriculum: A move forward or back to the future?. Australian Journal of Education, 55(3), 214–228.

  5. Bhatt, R., & Koedel, C. (2012). Large-scale evaluations of curricular effectiveness: The case of elementary mathematics in Indiana. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 34(4), 391-412.

  6. Bidabadi, N. S., Esfahani, A. R. N., Jafari, E. M., & Abedi, A. (2019). Developing a mathematics curriculum to improve learning behaviors and mathematics competency of children. The Journal of Educational Research, 112(3), 421-428, DOI:10.1080/00220671.2018.1547960

  7. Boughey C. (2018). Using the curriculum to enhance teaching and learning. South African Journal of Science, 114(9/10), 1-3.

  8. Cavanagh, M. (2006). Mathematics teachers and working mathematically: Responses to curriculum change.

  9. Cetin, D. (2010). Teachers’ opinions on first grade mathematics program in elementary education [Unpublished master‘s thesis]. University of Adnan Menderes.

  10. Cetinbag, A. (2019). Comparing the elements of the program in the context of primary school mathematics curriculum in Turkey and Canada[Unpublished master‘s thesis]. University of Marmara.

  11. Chambers, P. (2008). Teaching mathematics: Developing as a reflective secondary teacher. London: Sage.

  12. Christou, C., Eliophotou-Menon, M., & Philippou, G. (2004). Teachers’ concerns regarding the adaptation of a new curriculum: An application of CBAM. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 57(2), 157-177.

  13. Clements, D. H. (2002). Linking research and curriculum development. In D. English (Ed.), Handbook of ınternational research in mathematics education (pp. 599-630). London: Lawrence Erlbaum Assocıates Publishers.

  14. Clements, D. H., & Sarama, J. (2008). Experimental evaluation of the effects of a research based preschool mathematics curriculum. American Educational Research Journal, 45(2), 443–494.

  15. Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. (2014). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

  16. Demir, M., Tananis, C. A., & Basbogaoglu, U. (2018). Comparative investigation of alternative assessment methods used in Turkey and United States elementary 4th grade mathematics curriculum. International Journal of Educational Administration and Policy Studies, 10(7), 72-82. DOI: 10.5897/IJEAPS2018.0561

  17. Dent, W., & Mcchesney, A. (2016). The changing landscape of one primary school’s mathematics curriculum. Teachers and Curriculum, 16(2), 19-25.

  18. Dole, S., Carmichael, P., Thiele, C., Simpson, J., & O’Toole, C. (2018). Fluency with number facts – responding to the Australian curriculum. In J: Hunter, P. Perger, & L. Darragh, (Eds.). Making waves, opening spaces (Proceedings of the 41st annual conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia) (pp. 266- 273). Auckland: MERGA. Mathematics.

  19. Earnest, D., Amador, M. J. (2019). Lesson plan imation: Prospective elementary teachers’ interactions with mathematics curricula, Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education (22)1, 37–68.

  20. Ferreras, A., Kessel, C., & Kim, M. (2015). Mathematics curriculum, teacher professionalism, and supporting policies in Korea and the United States.Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press.

  21. Fidel L. Oteiza, F. L. (2018). Processes and agents of curriculum design, development and reforms in three decades of school mathematics in Chile.

  22. Finn, J. D., & Achilles, C. M. (1999). Tennessee’s class size study: Findings, implications, misconceptions. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 21(2), 97-109.

  23. Fonger, N., L., Stephens, A., Blanton, M., Isler, I., Knuth, E., & Gardiner, A. M. (2018). Developing a learning progression for curriculum, instruction, and student learning: An example from mathematics education, Cognition and Instruction, 36(1), 30-55. DOI: 10.1080/07370008.2017.1392965

  24. Fuentes, S. Q., & Ma, J. (2018). Promoting teacher learning: A framework for evaluating the educative features of mathematics curriculum materials. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 21, 351–385.

  25. Glencross, M. J., Oliver, J. (1994). An analysis of teachers' opinions of a senior primary mathematics syllabus. Psychological Reports, 75, 1347-1353.

  26. Hidiroglu, C., N. (2016). Evaluation of fractions unit of middle school 5th grade mathematics curriculum [Unpublished master’s thesis]. University of Pamukkale.

  27. Kalem, S., & Fer, S. (2003). The effect of learning environment created with active learning model on learning, teaching and communication process, Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 3(2), 433-461.

  28. Kaur, B., Tay, E., Toh, T., Leong, Y. & Lee, N. (2018). A study of school mathematics curriculum enacted by competent teachers in Singapore secondary schools. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 30(1), 103-116.

  29. Kelley, B., Hosp, J. L., Howell, K. W., (2008). Curriculum-based evaluation and math an overview. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 33(4), 250- 256.

  30. Kilinc, M. B., Anilan, H. (2019). Examining the opinions of the first grade teachers about the first grade mathematics curriculum. Eskisehir Osmangazi University Journal of Social Sciences, 20, 1033- 1061.

  31. Kilpatrick, J. (2014). Mathematics education in the United States and Canada. In A. Karp & G. Schubring (Eds.), Handbook on the history of mathematics education (pp. 323–333). New York, NY: Springer.

  32. Koedel, C., Li, D., Polikoff, M. S., Hardaway, T., Wrabel, S. L. (2017). Mathematics Curriculum Effects on Student Achievement in California. AERA Open, January-March 2017, 3(1), 1–22.

  33. Land, T.C., Bartell, T. G., Drake, C., Foote, M. Q., McDuffie, A. R., Turner, E. E., & Aguirre J. M. (2019). Curriculum spaces for connecting to children’s multiple mathematical knowledge bases. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 51(4), 471-493.

  34. Letina, A. (2015). Application of traditional and alternative assessment in science and social studies teaching. Croatian Journal of Education, 17(1), 137- 152.

  35. Lew, H. (2019). Current mathematics curriculum of South Korea and its embodiment into textbooks. In: C. Vistro-Yu, T. Toh (Eds.), School mathematics curricula mathematics education an Asian perspective (pp. 127-150). Singapore: Springer.

  36. Lyakhova, S., Joubert, M., Capraro, M. M., & Capraro, R. M. (2019). Designing a curriculum based on four purposes: let mathematics speak for itself. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 51(4), 513– 529.

  37. Ma, Y. P, Lam, C. C., & Wong, N. Y. (2006). Chinese primary school mathematics teachers working in a centralized curriculum system: A case study of two primary schools in North-East China. Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education, 36(2), 197-212.

  38. McHugh, J.M. (2011). Program evaluation of developmental math instruction at the community college level. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Gardner-Webb University.

  39. Mills, G. E., & Gay, L. R. (2019). Educational research competencies for analysis and applications. New York: Pearson Education.

  40. MoNE. (2018). Mathematics curriculum. Ankara: State Books Directorate Printing House.

  41. Mullis, I. V. S., Martin, M. O., Loveless, T. (2016). 20 years of TIMSS: international trends in mathematics and science achievement, curriculum, and instruction.Boston: TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Centre.

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

  43. Norton, J., Ballinger, S., & Ash, J. (2016). Massachusetts English language arts/literacy and mathematics curriculum frameworks review. Final report. Cambridge, MA: Abt Associates.

  44. Ornstein, A. C. & Hunkins, F. P. (2009). Curriculum: foundations, principles, and issues. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

  45. Padilla, A., & Tan, P. (2019). Toward inclusive mathematics education: A meta theoretical reflection about countering ableism in mathematics standards and curriculum. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 32(3), 299–322.

  46. Remillard, J., Reinke, L. (2017). Mathematics curriculum in the United States: New Challenges and Opportunities. In Thompson, D. R., Huntley, M. A., Suurtamm, C. (Eds.), International perspectives on mathematics curriculum (pp. 131–162). Charlotte, NC: Information Age.

  47. Reys, B. J. (2014). Mathematics curriculum policies and practices in the U.S.: The common core state standards initiative. In Y, Li, & G. Lappan (Eds.), Mathematics Curriculum in School Education (pp. 35-48). Dordrecht, Springer.

  48. Schoenfeld, A. H. (2006). What doesn’t work: The challenge and failure of the what works clearing house to conduct meaningful reviews of studies of mathematics curricula. Educational Researcher, 35(2), 13-21.

  49. Senger, E. S. (1998). Reflective reform in mathematics: The recursive nature of teacher change. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 37, 199-221.

  50. Shuilleabbin, A. N., & Seery, A. (2017). Enacting curriculum reform through lesson study: a case study of mathematics teacher learning. Journal Professional Development in Education, 44(2), 222- 236.

  51. Slavin, R. E., & Lake, C. (2008). Effective programs in elementary mathematics: A bestevidence synthesis, Review of Educational Research, 78(3), 427–515.

  52. Spillane, J. P., & Zeuli, J. S. (1999). Reform and mathematics teaching: Exploring patterns of practice in the context of national and state mathematics reforms. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 21(1), 1-27.

  53. Steenbrugge, H. V., & Ryve, A. (2018). Developing a reform mathematics curriculum program in Sweden: Relating international research and the local context. ZDM, 50, 801-812.

  54. Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2013). Using multivariate statistics (6th ed.). Boston: Pearson.

  55. Valenzuela, H. (2018). A multiple case study of college-contextualized mathematics curriculum. Math AMATYC Educator, 9(2), 49-55.

  56. Van De Walle, J. A., Karp, K. S., & Bay Williams, J. M. (2010). Elementary and middle school mathematics teaching developmentally (7th ed.). New York, NY: Pearson Education.

  57. Wheeler, S. W., & Bray, N. (2017). Effective evaluation of developmental education: A mathematics example. Journal of Developmental Education, 41(1), 10-18.

  58. Willis, G. (1988). The human problems and possibilities of curriculum evaluation. In L. E. Beyer, & M. W. Apple (Eds.), The curriculum: problems, politics, and possibilities (pp. 315-333). New York: Sunny Press.

  59. Wood, D. (1998). How children think and learn. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.

  60. Yang, X., Kaiser, G., König, J., & Blömeke, S. (2019). Professional noticing of mathematics teachers: A comparative study between Germany and China, International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education 17(5–6):1-21.

bottom of page