International Association of Educators   |  ISSN: 2834-7919   |  e-ISSN: 1554-5210

Original article | International Journal of Progressive Education 2021, Vol. 17(4) 222-238

Teachers' Commitment to the Curriculum and Relevant Parent Opinions: A Case Study on Turkey

Şule Fırat Durdukoca

pp. 222 - 238   |  DOI:   |  Manu. Number: MANU-2102-03-0003.R1

Published online: August 08, 2021  |   Number of Views: 298  |  Number of Download: 500


The study examines teachers’ commitment to the curriculum applied in the classroom and relevant parent opinions. The qualitative case study design was used in the research. The research sample comprises four preschool teachers selected by the contingency sampling and eightparents selected by the criterion sampling. The data were collected through interview and document analysis techniques and analyzed with content analysis. Itwas found that the devotion of teachers working in private schools to the curriculum is higher than public school teachers.The teachers applied program adaptations within the scope of rearrangement, expansion and omitting patterns.As the adaptation factors are classified under 5 categories as "the influence of school administration, professional experience, the student readiness factors, parent expectation, and teacher interest in the subject. It has been determined that the public school students’ parents have more positive opinions about the program followed in the classroom compared to the private school students’ parents.

Keywords: Commitment to Curriculum, Curriculum Adaptation, Adaptation Patterns

How to Cite this Article?

APA 6th edition
Durdukoca, S.F. (2021). Teachers' Commitment to the Curriculum and Relevant Parent Opinions: A Case Study on Turkey . International Journal of Progressive Education, 17(4), 222-238. doi: 10.29329/ijpe.2021.366.14

Durdukoca, S. (2021). Teachers' Commitment to the Curriculum and Relevant Parent Opinions: A Case Study on Turkey . International Journal of Progressive Education, 17(4), pp. 222-238.

Chicago 16th edition
Durdukoca, Sule Firat (2021). "Teachers' Commitment to the Curriculum and Relevant Parent Opinions: A Case Study on Turkey ". International Journal of Progressive Education 17 (4):222-238. doi:10.29329/ijpe.2021.366.14.

  1. Aktaş, M.,&Erdoğan, M. (2012). Teachers’ views on metal technology area modular curriculum. Western Anatolia Journal of Education Science, 3(6), 91-118. Retrieved on 21 February, 2019 from: [Google Scholar]
  2. Alabaş, R.,&Kamer S. T. (2007). Sosyal bilgiler öğretim programının değerlendirilmesi: uygulayıcı görüşlerinin nitel analizi.1.Ulusal İlköğretim Kongresi (15- 17 November), Hacettepe Univercity, Ankara, Turkey.  [Google Scholar]
  3. Anderson, R. C.,&Pichert, J. W. (1978). Recall of previously unrecallable information following a shift in perspective. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 17, 1-12. DOI: [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  4. Atila, M. E. (2012). Science and technology teachers’ perceptions and implementation of constructivist principles in science and technology curriculum. (Unpublished doctoral thesis), Atatürk University, Institute of Educational Sciences, Erzurum, Turkey.  [Google Scholar]
  5. Başdemir, Y. H. (2012). Türk eğitim sisteminin yapısal sorunları ve bir öneri. Liberal Düşünce, 17(67), 35-53. Retrieved on 11 January, 2020 from:  [Google Scholar]
  6. Beyer, C.,& Davis, A. E. (2017). Supporting preservice elementary teachers’ critique and adaptation of science lesson plans using educative curriculum materials. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 20,517–536. DOI: 10.1007/s10972-009-9148-5 [Google Scholar]
  7. Brown, M. (2009). The teacher-tool relationship: theorizing the design and use of curriculum materials. In J. T. Remillard, B. Herbel-Eisenman,&G. Lloyd (Eds.), Mathematics teachers at work: Connecting curriculum materials and classroom instruction (pp. 17-36). New York: Routledge. [Google Scholar]
  8. Brown, A. L.&Campione, J. C. (1996) Psychological theory and the design of innovative learning environments: on procedures, principles, and systems. In L. Schauble& R. Glaser (Eds), Innovations in learning: New environments for education (pp 289-325). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.  [Google Scholar]
  9. Brown, M. & Edelson, D. C. (2003).Teaching as design: Can we beter understand the ways in which teachers use materials so we can beter design materials to support their changes in practice?LeTUS Report Series, Retrieved on 09 March, 2020 from: [Google Scholar]
  10. Bümen, N. T. &Yazıcılar, Ü. (2020). A Case study on the teachers' curriculum adaptations: Differences in state and private high school. Gazi University Journal of Gazi Education Faculty, 40(1), 183-224. DOI: [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  11. Bütün, M.&Gültepe T. (2016). Teachers’ views about implementation of the middle school mathematics curriculum.Journal of Research in Education and Teaching, 5, 80-89. Retrieved on 14 April, 2020 from: [Google Scholar]
  12. Collopy, R.(2003). Curriculum materials as a professional development tool: How a mathematics textbook affected two teachers’ learning. The Elementary School Journal, 103(3), 227-311. DOI: 10.1086/499727 [Google Scholar]
  13. Çiftçi, B. Z., Akgün, L.,&Deniz, D. (2013). Teachers’ opinions and solution suggestions regarding encountered ıssues on the ninth grade mathematics curriculum. Anadolu Journal of Educational Sciences International, 3(1), 1-22. Retrieved on 23 April 2020 from: [Google Scholar]
  14. Davis, E.A., Beyer, C., Forbes, C.T., & Stevens, S. (2011). Understanding pedagogical design capacity through teachers’narratives. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27(4), 797-810. DOI: [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  15. Deveci, Ö.,&Aykaç, N. (2019). Evaluation of studies examining the problems experienced ın basic: A meta-synthesis study. Journal of Qualitative Research Education, 7(1), 277-301. DOI: 10.14689/issn.2148-2624.1.7c1s.13m. [Google Scholar]
  16. Erata, F. (2018). Investigation of teacher opinions on the application of field trips in pre-school education. (Unpublished Master Thesis), Selcuk University, Social Sciences Institute, Konya, Turkey. [Google Scholar]
  17. Eryaman, M. Y., & Riedler, M. (2010). Teacher-Proof Curriculum. In C. Kridel (Ed.). Encyclopedia of Curriculum Studies. Sage Publications. [Google Scholar]
  18. Forbes, T. C.,&DAvis, A. E. (2010). Curriculum design for inquiry: Preservice elementary teachers’ mobilization and adaptation of science curriculum materials. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(7), 820–839. DOI: 10.1002/tea.20379 [Google Scholar]
  19. Furtak, E. M., Ruiz-Primo, M. A., Shemwell, J. T., Ayala, C. C., Brandon, P. R., Shavelson, R. J., & Yin, Y. (2008). On the fidelity of implementing embedded formative assessments and its relation to student learning. Applied Measurement in Education, 21(4), 360- 389. DOI: [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  20. González, E. (2004). Necessidades educacionais especiais. Porto Alegre: Artmed. [Google Scholar]
  21. Grossman, P., & Thompson, C. (2008). Learning from curriculum materials: Scaffolds for new teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24(8), 2014- 2026. DOI: [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  22. Gündüz, Y., & Can, E. (2014). Türkiye’de eğitim denetimi uygulamalarında karşılaşılan temel sorunlar. V. Uluslararası Katılımlı Eğitim Denetimi Kongresi Bildiri Kitabı, Ankara: Ayrıntı Basım.  [Google Scholar]
  23. Güven, Z. A. (2011). Teachers' opinions about the Turkish language education programme at second stage of primary school. The Journal of Buca Faculty of Education, 29(2011), 121-133. Retrieved on 19 February, 2019 from [Google Scholar]
  24. Janney, R. E., & Snell, M. E. (2004). Modifying schoolwork: Teachers’ guides to inclusive practices, (2nd ed.). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brooks. [Google Scholar]
  25. Kısakürek, M. A. (1983). Eğitim programlarının hazırlanması ve geliştirilmesi. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Dergisi, 16(1), 217– 220. DOI: [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  26. Kuduban, Ö.,&Aktekin, S. (2013). Teacher opinions on the 2005 Turkish literature curriculum: The Case of Trabzon. Journal of the Black Sea Studies, 39, 167-186. Retrieved on 19 February, 2019 form   [Google Scholar]
  27. Lappan, G. T. (1997) Lessons from the Sputnik era in mathematics education. Oral presentation presented at a National Academy of Sciences Symposium, (6-8 November), Washington, DC. Retrieved on 03 May, 2020 from: [Google Scholar]
  28. Li, Z.,&Harfitt, G. J. (2017) An examination of language teachers’ enactment of curriculum materials in the context of a centralised curriculum. Pedagogy, Culture & Society, 25(3), 403-416. DOI: [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  29. McDonough, J., Shaw, C., & Masuhara, H. (2012). Materials and methods in ELT: A Teacher’s guide. Oxford: Blackwell. [Google Scholar]
  30. McWayne, C., Hampton, V., Fantuzzo, J., Cohen, H. L., &Sekino, Y. (2004). A Multivariate examination of parent ınvolvement and the social and academic competencies of urban kindergarten children. Psychology in the Schools, 41(3), 363–377. DOI: [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  31. Meidl, T. D.,&Meidl, C. (2011). Curriculum integration and adaptation: Individualizing pedagogy for linguistically and culturally diverse students. Current Issues in Education, 14(1), 1-30. Retrieved on 08 May, 2020 from [Google Scholar]
  32. Menteşe, H. (2013). The Investigation of secondary school Turkish curriculum according to teachers’ views. (Unpublished master thesis), Adnan Menderes University,Social Sciences Institute, Aydın, Turkey. [Google Scholar]
  33. Mihalic, S. (2004). The Importance of implementation fidelity. Emotional & Behavioral Disorders in Youth, 4(4), 83-105. Retrieved on 19 December, 2020 from [Google Scholar]
  34. Miles, M. B.,&Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. [Google Scholar]
  35. Ministry of National Education (2018). Öğretim programları. Retrieved on 07 January, 2021 from: [Google Scholar]
  36. Ministry of National Education (2013). Okulöncesi öğretim programı. Retrieved on 07 January, 2021from: [Google Scholar]
  37. Obiete, I. E. (2014). Parental involvement in curriculum implementation as perceived by Nigeria secondary school principals. Journal of Education and Learning,3(1),40-51. DOI: 10.5539/jel.v3n1p40 [Google Scholar]
  38. Official Journal of Turkey. (2014). 6528 sayılı millî eğitim temel kanunu ile bazı kanun ve kanun hükmünde kararnamelerde değişiklik yapılmasına dair kanun. Retrieved on 07 January, 2021form: [Google Scholar]
  39. Özdemir, S. M. (2012). Metaphoric perceptions of prospective teachers regarding the concept of curriculum. Journal of Theoretical Educational Science, 5(3), 369-393. Retrieved on 14 December, 2020 from  [Google Scholar]
  40. Öztürk, İ. H. (2012). Teacher’s role and autonomy in ınstructional planning: The Case of secondary school history teachers with regard to the preparation and ımplementation of annual ınstructional plans. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 12, 271-299. Retrieved on 27 July, 2019 from: [Google Scholar]
  41. Remillard, J. T. (1999). Curriculum materials in mathematics education reform: a framework for examining teachers’ curriculum development. Curriculum Inquiry, 19(3), 315-342. DOI: [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  42. Remillard, J. T. (2005). Examining key concepts in research on teachers’ use of mathematics curricula. Review of Educational Research, 75 (2),211–246. DOI: 10.3102/00346543075002211 [Google Scholar]
  43. Rimm-Kaufman, S. E., Pianta, R. C., Cox, M. J.,& Bradley, R. H. (2003). Teacher-rated family involvement and children’s social and academic outcomes in kindergarten. Early Education and Development, 14, 179-198. DOI: [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  44. Saraç, E.,&Yıldırım, S. M. (2019). Teachers’ views on science course curriculum of the year 2018. Academy Journal of Educational Sciences, 3(2), 138-151. DOI: [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  45. Seçkin, H. (2011). Teachers’ views on primary school English language teaching curriculum for the 4th grade. Journal of Human Science, 8(2), 551-577. Retrieved on 27 July, 2019 from [Google Scholar]
  46. Sherin, M.G., & Drake, C. (2009). Curriculum strategy framework: Investigating patterns in teachers’ use of a reform based elementary mathematics curriculum. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 41(4), 467-500. DOI: 10.1080/00220270802696115 [Google Scholar]
  47. Şahin, A., &Kumral, O. (2013). Pre-Service teachers’ ımages of school curriculum and their curricular roles. Mediterranean Journal of Educational Research, 14, 19-32. Retrieved on 19 March, 2020 from:  [Google Scholar]
  48. Tokgöz, Ö. (2013). Transformation of centralized curriculum into teaching and learning processes: Teachers’ journey of thought curriculum into enacted one. (Unpublished doctoral thesis), Middle East Technical (ODTÜ) University, Institute of Social Sciences, Ankara, Turkey.  [Google Scholar]
  49. Troyer, M. (2017). Teachers’ adaptations to and orientations towards an adolescent literacy curriculum. Journal of Curriculum Studies. 51(2), 1-27.DOI: 10.1080/00220272.2017.1407458 [Google Scholar]
  50. Yazıcılar, Ü. (2016). Investigation of the teachers adaptation process of the mathematics curricula. (Unpublished master thesis), Ege University, Social Sciences Institute, İzmir,Turkey. [Google Scholar]
  51. Yıldırım, A., &Şimşek, H. (2013). Sosyalbilimlerdenitelaraştırmayöntemleri. Ankara: Seçkin Yayıncılık. [Google Scholar]