Türkiye’s sweeping education reform meets classroom reality in first empirical study

When a country decides to rebuild its entire education system from the ground up, the moment of truth arrives not in ministry boardrooms but in ordinary classrooms. That is precisely where researchers İbrahim Yaşar Kazu and Murat Kuvvetli of Fırat University have turned their attention, conducting one of the first empirical studies on how the Century of Türkiye Education Model (CTEM) actually plays out when teachers teach and students learn. Published in SN Social Sciences, their descriptive qualitative study captures the perceptions of both teachers and students during the model’s classroom enactment, revealing a reform that succeeds in promoting active learning and collaborative environments while simultaneously exposing deep structural challenges around resources, assessment, and professional development.

The CTEM represents a comprehensive overhaul of Türkiye’s centralized education system, designed to shift instruction away from rote memorization and toward skill-based, student-centered learning. But as any education researcher knows, the gap between curriculum design and classroom implementation can be enormous. Curriculum reforms in centralized systems worldwide—from Korea to Singapore to Chile—have repeatedly demonstrated that the success of a reform depends less on its philosophical elegance than on the practical realities of its enactment. Kazu and Kuvvetli designed their study to capture precisely those realities, gathering data through four anonymised questionnaires targeting different stakeholder groups and dimensions of the implementation experience.

The methodological architecture of the study is notable for its breadth. The researchers administered a student implementation experience questionnaire to 93 students (57 female, 35 male), a teacher implementation experience questionnaire to 30 teachers (13 female, 17 male), a teacher opinions questionnaire to 75 teachers (21 female, 54 male), and a student opinions questionnaire to 92 students (56 female, 36 male). This four-instrument design allowed the team to triangulate perceptions across multiple groups, comparing how teachers experience the model with how students perceive it, and contrasting implementation experiences with broader opinions about the reform. The descriptive qualitative approach is well suited to capturing the texture of stakeholder experience during early implementation, when the model is still being negotiated in practice rather than established as routine.

The findings on what works are genuinely encouraging for reform advocates. The study demonstrates that CTEM effectively promotes active learning methodologies and skill-based instruction, with particular success in fostering collaborative learning environments. This is no small achievement. Collaborative learning requires students to work together in structured ways that build understanding through social interaction, and it demands that teachers relinquish some control over the flow of instruction. The fact that both teachers and students identified this as a strength suggests the model’s design principles are translating into observable classroom practices. The emphasis on skill-based instruction also aligns with international research on 21st-century competencies, which consistently identifies collaboration, critical thinking, and self-directed learning as essential outcomes for contemporary education systems.

Yet the study’s identification of implementation challenges is where its real value lies. The researchers found disparities in resource distribution across schools, meaning that the model’s success varies significantly depending on institutional context. This is a familiar pattern in education reform: when a new model demands more from teachers and students—more materials, more technology, more flexible use of space—schools with fewer resources struggle disproportionately. The finding has direct implications for policymakers, who must decide whether to standardize resource provision or allow local variation to persist. The study also identified difficulties in adapting assessment methods to the new model, a challenge that resonates with decades of research on the tension between progressive pedagogy and traditional examination culture. When teachers are asked to teach differently but assess the same way, the assessment system tends to pull instruction back toward familiar patterns.

Teacher responses in the study highlighted the need for additional professional development, particularly in differentiated instruction strategies. Differentiated instruction requires teachers to adapt content, process, and products to the varying needs of individual learners, and it is among the most demanding pedagogical skills to develop. The finding suggests that the CTEM’s emphasis on meeting diverse student needs has outpaced the capacity of current professional development provision. This is consistent with Turkish research on curriculum adaptation, which has shown that teachers’ ability to implement new models depends heavily on the quality and continuity of support they receive. The study’s implication is clear: without sustained investment in teacher learning, the model’s ambitions will be constrained by the pedagogical repertoire of the workforce.

Student feedback revealed a more nuanced picture of adaptation. The study found varying levels of student adaptation to the model’s increased emphasis on self-directed learning. Self-directed learning asks students to take responsibility for setting goals, monitoring progress, and evaluating outcomes—cognitive demands that many students have never been explicitly taught to meet. The variation in adaptation levels suggests that some students arrive in CTEM classrooms with well-developed metacognitive skills while others lack them, potentially widening achievement gaps if teachers do not provide scaffolding. This finding connects to international research on learner autonomy, which has repeatedly shown that self-directed learning is not a natural consequence of being told to learn independently but a capability that must be systematically developed.

The study’s subject-area disparities deserve particular attention. The researchers note that the implementation experience varies across subject areas, suggesting that the model’s design principles are not uniformly applicable across the curriculum. This is a recurring theme in curriculum reform research: models that work well in subjects with established traditions of inquiry-based learning may require significant adaptation in subjects where content coverage has historically dominated. The finding has implications for how the Ministry of National Education sequences and supports implementation, potentially requiring subject-specific guidance rather than generic directives. It also suggests that professional development should be differentiated not only by pedagogical skill but by disciplinary context.

As one of the first empirical studies on CTEM’s classroom enactment, the research provides evidence to inform ongoing refinement of the model. The timing matters enormously. Curriculum reforms in centralized systems are often evaluated only after full implementation, when course corrections are politically and logistically difficult. By capturing perceptions during early enactment, Kazu and Kuvvetli have created a feedback loop that can inform adjustments before patterns become entrenched. The study also offers insights for other centralized education systems implementing comprehensive reforms, a population that includes most countries in the world. The lesson from Türkiye’s experience is that reform success depends on three interlocking factors: equitable resource provision, aligned assessment systems, and sustained professional development that builds the pedagogical capacity the model demands.

The research ultimately tells a story that will be familiar to anyone who has followed education reform globally: the vision is sound, the early classroom evidence is promising, and the structural challenges are formidable. The CTEM’s success in promoting collaborative learning environments demonstrates that its design principles can translate into practice. Its exposure of resource disparities, assessment misalignment, and professional development gaps reveals the work that remains. For Türkiye, the study arrives at a critical juncture, offering the kind of granular, stakeholder-grounded evidence that can distinguish between a reform that transforms learning and one that merely reorganizes it. For the international education research community, it adds a valuable case study to the growing literature on how centralized systems negotiate the tension between ambitious reform visions and the stubborn realities of classroom life.

Subject of Research: Teachers’ and students’ perceptions of the Century of Türkiye Education Model: a qualitative study on classroom implementation challenges and opportunities

Article Title: Teachers’ and students’ perceptions of the Century of Türkiye Education Model: a qualitative study on classroom implementation challenges and opportunities

Article References: Kazu, İ. Y., & Kuvvetli, M. (2026). Teachers’ and students’ perceptions of the Century of Türkiye Education Model: a qualitative study on classroom implementation challenges and opportunities. SN Social Sciences, 6(8), Article 344. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43545-026-01626-y

Image Credits: AI Generated

DOI: 10.1007/s43545-026-01626-y

Keywords: education reform, Türkiye Education Model, qualitative research, teacher perceptions, student perceptions, classroom implementation, Teachers, students, perceptions, Century, rkiye, Education