Original article | Open Access
International Journal of Progressive Education 2019, Vol. 15(3) 44-58
pp. 44 - 58 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.29329/ijpe.2019.193.4
Publish Date: June 03, 2019 | Single/Total View: 325/1.050 | Single/Total Download: 431/1.960
Abstract
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.
APA 7th 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. https://doi.org/10.29329/ijpe.2019.193.4
Harvard
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. https://doi.org/10.29329/ijpe.2019.193.4