Curriculum in the Claws of Autonomy Against Centralism in Turkey: Issues and Suggestions

Nilay T. Bümen

Abstract


Although the curriculum is often renewed in Turkey, research shows that teachers cannot adhere to curriculum, but why we still design a program with a highly centralized understanding is worth discussing. The aim of this study is to identify the relationship between curriculum control, teacher autonomy and curriculum adaptation and to develop suggestions for the adoption of the curriculum in Turkey by the teachers and the effective implementation-adaptation of these. When the relevant international and national studies is evaluated together, success-oriented curriculum have focused on national exams, in which teachers are expected to fully implement the programs, their autonomy is highly limited, and as a result, how and why the curriculum are adapted fade into background. In the study, some suggestions are made to prevent the frequent renewed curriculum left on paper or implicit adaptations by taking into account the historical, political and socio-cultural considerations of the evidence of these relations in Turkey. 


Keywords


Curriculum adaptation; curriculum control; teacher autonomy; teacher de-professionalism.

Full Text:

PDF (Türkçe)

References


Brown, M. W. (2009). The teacher-tool relationship: Theorizing the design and use of curriculum materials. In J. T. Remillard, B. A. Herbel-Eisenmann and G. M. Lloyd (Eds.), Mathematics teachers at work: Connecting curriculum mate-rials and classroom instruction (pp. 17–36). New York, NY: Routledge.

Bümen, N.T., Çakar, E. & Yıldız, D.G. (2014). Türkiye’de öğretim programına bağlılık ve bağlılığı etkileyen etkenler. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Bilimle-ri,14(1), 203-228.

Burkhauser, M. A. & Lesaux, N. K. (2015). Exercising a bounded autonomy: novice and experienced teachers’ adaptations to curriculum materials in an age of accountability, Journal of Curriculum Studies, 49(3), 291-312.

Can, N. (2009). The leadership behaviours of teachers in primary schools in Turkey. Education, 129(3), 436-447.

Çelik, Z. Gümüş, S. & Gür, B. S. (2017). Moving beyond a monotype education in turkey: major reforms in the last decade and challenges ahead. In Cha, Y.K. Gundara, J., Ham, S.H. and Lee, M. (eds.), Multicultural education in glocal perspectives, (pp. 103-119). Singapore: Springer.

Dikbayır, A. & Bümen, N. T. (2016). Dokuzuncu sınıf matematik dersi öğretim programına bağlılığın incelenmesi. Uluslararası Eğitim Programları ve Öğre-tim Çalışmaları Dergisi. 6(11), 17-38.

Drake, C. & Sherin, M. G. (2006). Practicing change: Curriculum adaptation and teacher narrative in the context of mathematics reform education. Curriculum Inquiry, 36(2), 153-187.

Errs, M,. Kalmus, V. & Autio, T. H. (2016). ‘Walking a fine line’: Teachers’ perception of curricular autonomy in Estonia, Finland and Germany, Journal of Curriculum Studies, 48(5), 589-609.

Ertürk, S. (1986). Türkiye’deki bazı eğitim sorunları ve üzerine düşünceler. Ankara, Hacettepe Üniversitesi.

Eryaman, M.Y. & Riedler, M. (2010). Teacher-proof curriculum. In C. Kriedel. (2010). Encyclopedia of Curriculum Studies. (pp. 864-865). NY: Sage.

Garrett, R. M. (1990). The introduction of school-based curriculum develop-ment in a centralized education system: A possible tactic. International Jour-nal of Educational Development, 10, 303–309.

Giroux, H. (2012). Education and the crisis of public values: Challenging the assault on teachers, students, and public education. New York, NY: Peter Lang.

Gomendio, M. (2017). Empowering and enabling teachers to improve equity and outcomes for all, international summit on the teaching profession, Paris, OECD Publishing. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264273238-en

Gundem, B. B., & Hopmann, S.T. (Eds.). (1998). Didaktik and/or curriculum: An international dialogue. New York, NY: P. Lang.

Hong, W.P. & Youngs, P. (2016). Why are teachers afraid of curricular autono-my? Contradictory effects of the new national curriculum in South Korea, Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 36(1), 20-33.

Hopmann, S. T. (2003). On the evaluation of curriculum reforms, Journal of Curriculum Studies, 35(4), 459-478.

Ingersoll, R.M. & Collins, G.J (2017). Accountability and control in American schools. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 49(1), 75-95.

Kaya, E., Çetin, P.S., & Yıldırım, A. (2012). Transformation of centralized cur-riculum into classroom practice: An analysis of teachers’ experiences. Inter-national Journal of Curriculum and Instructional Studies, 2(3), 103-113.

Kennedy, K. (1992). School-based curriculum development as a policy option for the 1990s. Journal of Curriculum and Supervision, 7, 180–195.

Leite, C. Fernandes, P. & Figueiredo, C. (2013). National curriculum vs curricu-lar adaptation – teachers’ perspectives. In J. Molgado, M.Alves, I.Viana, C.Ferreia, F.Seabra, J.Pacheco (Eds.). Proceedings from European Conference on Curriculum Studies, (pp. 556-561). Braga-Portugal, University of Minho.

Mausethagen, S. & Mølstad, C.E. (2015). Shifts in curriculum control: Contest-ing ideas of teacher autonomy, Nordic Journal of Studies in Educational Poli-cy, 2, 28520, Doi: 10.3402/nstep.v1.28520.

MEB, (2013a). İlköğretim kurumları fen bilimleri dersi (3-4-5-6-7-8. sınıflar) öğretim programı. Ankara, Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı.

MEB, (2013b). Ortaöğretim matematik dersi (9-10-11-12. sınıflar) öğretim programı. Ankara, Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı.

MEB, (2017a). Hayat bilgisi dersi (1-2-3. sınıflar) öğretim programı. Ankara, Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı.

MEB, (2017b). Ortaöğretim matematik dersi öğretim programı. Ankara, Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı.

Nelson, C., & Miron, G. (2005). Exploring the correlates of academic success in Pennsylvania charter schools. New York, NY: National Centre for the Study of Privatization in Education.

Odabaş, H., Tekdere, M. & Aktepe, E. (2016). Eğitim hizmetlerinin yerelleşme-sinin muhtemel etkileri: Türkiye’de uygulanabilirliği. Proceedings from Inter-national Conference in Economics, (pp. 1-30). Barcelona, Spain.

Osgood, J. (2006). Deconstructing professionalism in early childhood educa-tion: Resisting the regulatory. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 7(1), 5–14.

Özaslan, G. (2015). Teachers’ perceptions of the level of their professional autonomy. Journal of Qualitative Research in Education, 3(2), 25-39.

Özoğlu, M., Gür, B. S. & Altınoğlu, A. (2013). Türkiye’de ve dünyada öğretmen-lik: Retorik ve pratik. Ankara, Eğitim Bir-Sen yayınları, no: 54.

Öztan, G. G. (2011). Türkiye’de çocukluğun politik inşası. İstanbul, Bilgi Üniversitesi Yayınları, no: 373.

Öztürk, İ. H. (2011). Curriculum reform and teacher autonomy in Turkey: The case of the history teaching. International Journal of Instruction. 4(2), 113-128.

Öztürk, İ. H. (2012). Öğretimin planlanmasında öğretmenin rolü ve özerkliği: Ortaöğretim tarih öğretmenlerinin yıllık plan hazırlama ve uygulama örneği. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Bilimleri, 12(1), 271-299.

Papadopoulou, V., & Yirci, R. (2013). Rethinking decentralization in education in terms of administrative problems. Educational Process: International Journal, 2(1-2), 7-18.

Pearson, L. C., & Moomaw, W. (2005). The relationship between teacher auton-omy and stress, work satisfaction, empowerment, and professionalism. Educa-tional Research Quarterly, 29, 38–54.

Pekkaya, M., & Çolak, N. (2013). Üniversite öğrencilerinin meslek seçimini etkileyen faktörlerin önem derecelerinin AHP ile belirlenmesi. The Journal of Academic Social Science Studies, 6(2), 797-818.

Ramatlapana, K. & Makonye, J. P. (2012). From too much freedom to too much restriction: The case of teacher autonomy from National Curriculum State-ment (NCS) to Curriculum and Assessment Statement (CAPS), Africa Educa-tion Review, 9(1), 7-25.

Şahin, A. & Kumral, O. (2013). Öğretmen adaylarının öğretim programına ve program rollerine ilişkin imgeleri. Akdeniz Eğitim Araştırmaları Dergisi, 14, 19-32.

Sherin, M. G., & Drake, C. (2009). Curriculum strategy framework: Investigating patterns in teachers’ use of a reform based elementary mathematics curricu-lum. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 41(4), 467-500.

Shulman, L. (2004). The wisdom of practice. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Şirin, S. (2017). Bir Türkiye hayali. İstanbul, Doğan ve Egmont Yayıncılık.

Taşkın, P. & Nayır, K.F. (2015). Okulların tüzel kişiliği var mıdır? Olmalı mıdır? CBÜ Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 13(4), 1-17.

TEDMEM (2015). Öğretmen özerkliği ve okul özerkliği üzerine. https://tedmem.org/mem-notlari/ogretmen-ozerkligi-ve-okul-ozerkligi-uzerine adresinden elde edildi.

Tokgöz, Ö. (2013). Transformation of centralized curriculum into teaching and learning processes: Teachers’ journey of thought curriculum into enacted one. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation), Ankara, METU.

Tuul, M., Mikser, R., Neudorf, E. & Ugaste, A. (2015) Estonian preschool teac-hers' aspirations for curricular autonomy – the gap between an ideal and pro-fessional practice, Early Child Development and Care, 185(11-12), 1845-1861.

Ünal, F. & Kavuncuoğlu, S. (2015). Prens Sabahattin ve âdem-i merkeziyetçilik anlayışı. Dumlupınar Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 45, 118-130.

UNESCO-GEM, (2017). Global education monitoring report 2017-2018: Ac-countability in education. France, United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization Publishing. Retrieved from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0025/002595/259593e.pdf

Wermke, W. & Höstfält, G. (2014). Contextualizing teacher autonomy in time and space: A model for comparing various forms of governing the teaching profession, Journal of Curriculum Studies, 46(1), 58-80.

Westbury, I. (2000). Teaching as a reflective practice: What might Didaktik teach curriculum. In I. Westbury, S. Hopmann, & K. Riquarts, Teaching as a reflective practice: The German didaktik tradition, (Eds.) (pp. 15–39). Mah-wah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Westwood Taylor, M. (2013). Replacing the ‘teacher-proof’ curriculum with the ‘curriculum-proof’ teacher: Toward more effective interactions with mathe-matics textbooks. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 45(3), 295–321.

Yavuz, M. (2016). Eğitimde özerklik üzerine. TEDMEM. https://tedmem.org/dosya-konusu/doc-dr-mustafa-yavuz-ile-egitimde-ozerklik-uzerine adresinden alındı.

Yazıcılar, Ü. (2016). Öğretmenlerin matematik dersi öğretim programını uyarlama sürecinin incelenmesi. (Yayımlanmamış yüksek lisans tezi). İzmir, Ege Üniversitesi.

Yazıcılar, Ü. & Bümen, N. T. (2017). Crossing over the brick wall: Adapting the curriculum as a way out. Manuscript submitted for publication.

Yıldız, A. (2014). İdealist öğretmenden sınava hazırlayıcı teknisyene: Öğret-menliğin dönüşümü. İstanbul, Kalkedon yayınları.

Yolcu, H. (2010). Neo-liberal dönüşümün yaşandığı ülkelerde yerelleşme ve okul özerkliği uygulamaları. ZKÜ Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 6(12), 253-273.

Yurdakul, S., Gür, B. S., Çelik, Z. & Kurt, T. (2016). Öğretmenlik mesleği ve mesleğin statüsü. Ankara, Eğitim Bir-Sen Yayınları, no: 70.




DOI: https://doi.org/10.24106/kefderi.2450

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.



Creative Commons License  
 Kastamonu Eğitim'de yayınlanan tüm içerik ve makaleler "Creative Commons Alıntı 4.0 Uluslararası Lisansı" ile lisanslanmıştır.