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

Original article | International Journal of Progressive Education 2019, Vol. 15(3) 44-58

The Philosophy of Turkish and Ghanaian Curriculum Design Orientations of Teacher Candidates

Murat Tuncer, Ahmet Egemen Akmençe & Jafaru Basing Adams

pp. 44 - 58   |  DOI:   |  Manu. Number: MANU-1902-18-0001

Published online: June 03, 2019  |   Number of Views: 277  |  Number of Download: 891


This study aims to investigate the curriculum orientations of schools in Turkey and Ghana and to examine the relationship between curriculum orientations. The quantitative method (descriptive study) was adopted in this questionnaire survey-based study. This study was conducted in the Fırat University, Elazığ-Turkey and University of Education - Winneba, Kumasi-Ghana. Mean and standard deviation for the overall of the curriculum orientations and for each orientation were obtained. The results showed that the mean of Turkish students was higher than Ghanaian students in term subject-centred curriculum orientation. Meanwhile the for student-centred and problem-centred curriculum design orientations the means of Ghanaian students were higher than those of Turkish students. The country variable was found to be highly effective in classifying teachers in terms of curriculum design. Gender and department independent variables significantly differentiate teachers' views about curriculum design in some dimensions.

Keywords: Philosophy, Curriculum, Curriculum Design Orientation, Educational system.

How to Cite this Article?

APA 6th edition
Tuncer, M., Akmence, A.E. & Adams, J.B. (2019). The Philosophy of Turkish and Ghanaian Curriculum Design Orientations of Teacher Candidates . International Journal of Progressive Education, 15(3), 44-58. doi: 10.29329/ijpe.2019.193.4

Tuncer, M., Akmence, A. and Adams, J. (2019). The Philosophy of Turkish and Ghanaian Curriculum Design Orientations of Teacher Candidates . International Journal of Progressive Education, 15(3), pp. 44-58.

Chicago 16th edition
Tuncer, Murat, Ahmet Egemen Akmence and Jafaru Basing Adams (2019). "The Philosophy of Turkish and Ghanaian Curriculum Design Orientations of Teacher Candidates ". International Journal of Progressive Education 15 (3):44-58. doi:10.29329/ijpe.2019.193.4.

  1. Abdelmalak, M. & Trespalacios, J. (2013). Using a learner-centered approach to develop an educational technology course. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 25(3), 324-332. [Google Scholar]
  2. Abudu, A.M. & Mensah, M.A. (2017). Basic school teachers’ perceptions about curriculum design in Ghana. Journal of Education and Practice, 7(19), 21-29. [Google Scholar]
  3. Acat, M. B. & Uzunkol, E. D. (2010). İlköğretim curriculumlarındaki alternatif değerlendirme yöntemlerinin uygulanmasında karşılaşılan sorunlara ilişkin sınıf öğretmenlerinin görüşleri. Selçuk University Journal of Ahmet Keleşoğlu Education Faculty, 29, 337-356. [Google Scholar]
  4. Adu-Gyamfi, S., Donkoh, W.J. & Addo, A.A. (2017). Educational reforms in Ghana: Past and present. Journal of Education and Human Development, 5(3), 158-172. [Google Scholar]
  5. Anıl, D. & Acar, M. (2008). Elementary school theachers’ views on issues they experience through measurement and evaluation processes. Yüzüncü Yıl University Journal of Education Faculty, 5(2), 44-61. [Google Scholar]
  6. Akpınar, B. (2010). Education programs and teaching. Elazığ: Data Publishing. [Google Scholar]
  7. Alcı, B. (2014). Curriculum design and models, Hasan Şeker (Ed.), Curriculum development in education (71-88), Ankara: Anı Publishing. [Google Scholar]
  8. Arceo, F.D.B. (2016). Learner-centred curriculum revisited. European Journal of Curriculum Studies, 3(2), 505-519. [Google Scholar]
  9. Aydın, H. (2007). Constructivism in the light of philosophical foundations. Ankara: Nobel Publishing. [Google Scholar]
  10. Bal, A.P. (2008). The evaluation of new mathematic curriculum in term of teachers’ perspectives. Ç.U. Journal of Social Sciences Institute, 17(1), 53-68. [Google Scholar]
  11. Baş, G. (2103). Curriculum design orientations preference scale of teachers: Validity and reliability study. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 13(2), 981-991. [Google Scholar]
  12. Burul, C. (2018). Investigation of the relationships between curriculum design approach preferences of teachers and their curriculum fidelity. Unpublished Master Thesis. Balıkesir University Institute of Social Sciences, Balıkesir. [Google Scholar]
  13. Büyüköztürk, Ş., Çokluk, Ö. & Köklü, N. (2012). Statistic for social sciences. Ankara: Pegem Publishing. [Google Scholar]
  14. Demirel, Ö. (2002). Curriculum development from theory to practice. Ankara: Pegem Publishing.  [Google Scholar]
  15. Ellis, A.K. (2015). Examplers of curriculum theory (Trns. Ed. Asım Arı). Konya Eğitim Akademi Publishing.  [Google Scholar]
  16. Emes, C. & Cleveland-Innes, M. (2003). A journey toward learner-centered curriculum. The Canadian Journal of Higher Education, 33(3), 47-70. [Google Scholar]
  17. Epçaçan, C. & Erzen, M. (2008). The evaluation of elementary Turkish lesson’s curriculum. International Journal of Social Sciences, 1(4), 182-202. [Google Scholar]
  18. Erden, M. (1998). Curriculum evaluation in education. Ankara: Anı Publishing. [Google Scholar]
  19. Eryaman, M. Y. & Riedler, M. (2009). From interpretive progressivism to radical progressivism in teacher education: Teaching as praxis. In M. Y. Eryaman (Ed.). Peter McLaren, education, and the struggle for liberation. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press. [Google Scholar]
  20. Eryaman, M. Y. (2010). Frameworks in curriculum development. In C. Kridel (Ed.). Encyclopedia of Curriculum Studies. Sage Publications. [Google Scholar]
  21. Fer, S. & Cırık, İ. (2007). Constructivist learning. İstanbul: Morpa Publishing. [Google Scholar]
  22. Fosnot, C.T. (2007). Constructivism: Theory, perspectives and practice (Trns. Ed. Soner Durmuş). Ankara: Nobel Akademi Publishing. [Google Scholar]
  23. Gutek, G.L. (2001). Philosophical and ideological perspectives on education (Trns. Nesrin kale). Ankara: Ütopya Publishing. [Google Scholar]
  24. Gültekin, M. (2017). Basic concepts related to curriculum development, Behçet Oral & Taha Yazar (Eds.), curriculum development and evaluation (2-37), Ankara: Pegem Akademi Publishing.  [Google Scholar]
  25. Güven, A.Z. (2011). Teachers’ opinions about the Turkish language education curriculum at second stage of primary school. Buca Journal of Education Faculty, 29, 121-133.  [Google Scholar]
  26. Karacaoğlu, Ö.C. & Acar, E. (2010). The issues that teachers encounter during application of new curricula. Yüzüncü Yıl University Journal of Education Faculty, 7(1), 45-58. [Google Scholar]
  27. Karadağ, E., Deniz, S., Korkmaz, T. & Deniz, G. (2008). Constructivist learning approach: a research on the scope of views of class teachers. Uludağ University Journal of Education Faculty, 11(2), 383-402. [Google Scholar]
  28. Karaman, P. & Karaman, A. (2016). Opinions of science teachers about the revised science education curriculum. Erzincan University Journal of Education Faculty, 18(1), 225-242. [Google Scholar]
  29. Kozikoğlu, İ. & Uygun, N. (2018). Investigation of the relationship between teachers' philosophies of education beliefs and curriculum design approaches. Çukurova University Journal of Education Faculty, 47(2), 411-438. [Google Scholar]
  30. Kumi, A.M. & Seidu, A.A. (2017). Comparative review of selected educational policies of 1st and 2nd cycle institutions in Ghana and Burkina Faso, and that of United Kingdom and United States. Educational Research and Reviews, 12(7), 415-424.Mialaret, G. (2001). Les sciences de I’Education (Trns. Hüseyin Izgar & Musa Gürel). Ankara: Nobel Publishing. [Google Scholar]
  31. Kwao, A. (2017). Challenges of Curriculum Design and its Implications on Policy: The Case of the Junior High School (JHS) Teaching Subjects in Ghana. Journal of Educational and Social Research, 7(2), 93-101. [Google Scholar]
  32. Ornestein, A.C. & Hunkins, F.P. (2014). Curriculum: Foundations, principles and issues (Trns. Ed. Asım Arı). Konya: Eğitim Publishing. [Google Scholar]
  33. Ornstein, A. C. & Hunkins, F. P. (1993). Curriculum: Foundations, principles and issues (2nd ed.). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon. [Google Scholar]
  34. Ornstein, A. C. (1982). Curriculum contrasts: A historical overview. Phi Delta Kappan (February 1982), 404-408. [Google Scholar]
  35. Özsoy, S. & Özsoy, G. (2013). Effect size reporting in educational research. Elementary Education online, 12(2), 334-346. [Google Scholar]
  36. Schunk, D.H. (2011). Learning Theories:  An educational perspective (Trns. Ed. Muzaffer Şahin). Ankara: Nobel Publishing.   [Google Scholar]
  37. Taşpınar, M. (2014). Teaching principles and methods from theory to practice. Ankara Edge Akademi Publishing. [Google Scholar]
  38. Tucker, T. (2011). What they want and how they want it: Students expectations of ESL curriculum at the classroom level. Journal of College Teaching & Learning, 8(11), 11-19. [Google Scholar]
  39. Tuncer, M. & Berkant, H.G. (2012). An investigation of primary and secondary education curricula in terms of teachers’ views. Electronic Journal of Social Sciences, 11(42), 22-39. [Google Scholar]
  40. Tuncer, M. (2010). Determining the problems experienced by teachers in primary schools and their evaluations on performance evaluation in terms of some variables (Kahramanmaraş Province Sample). International Symposium of Teacher Training Politician and Problems, 16–18 May, Hacettepe University, Turkey. [Google Scholar]
  41. Ünsal, S. & Korkmaz, F. (2017). Teachers’ Views On Their Preferences Regarding Curriculum Design Orientation. Mersin University Journal of the Faculty of Education, 13(1), 275-289. [Google Scholar]
  42. Yalar, T. (2010). Determining the problems that are faced during teaching Turkish course curriculum at third classes of primary school by teacher’s point of view. Dicle University Journal of Ziya Gökalp Education Faculty, 15,30- 41. [Google Scholar]
  43. Yıldız, S. (2018). The Relationship between the Curriculum Design Orientations Preference and Curriculum Fidelity of Preservice Teachers. International Online Journal of Educational Sciences, 10(2), 1-12. [Google Scholar]
  44. Yıldız, S. (2011). Branch teachers' thoughts about the evaluation and measurement approaches in the primary education curriculum. Un Published Master Thesis, Marmara University, İstanbul. [Google Scholar]