Pen Academic Publishing
Journals • Publish with us • Publishing partnership • About Us • Türkçe
Research article | Open Access
International Journal of Innovative Approaches in Education 2026, Vol 10(1) 1-34

Transforming Technology and Design Curricula: A Comparative Study of 2006–2018

Handan Kocabatmaz
Cite this article
Article Type
Research article
Publication Date
June 08, 2026
Pages
1-34
DOI
10.29329/ijiape.2026.1443.3

Abstract

This study aims to reveal the transformation of the Technology and Design curriculum in Türkiye by comparatively examining the curricula implemented in 2006, 2017, and 2018. The research is grounded in quantitative and qualitative data obtained from teachers’ and inspectors’ views on the 2006 curriculum and investigates the extent to which these views were reflected in subsequent revisions through document analysis. The curricula were compared in terms of aims, learning outcomes, vertical continuity, pedagogical orientations, and assessment approaches. The findings indicate that some criticisms were addressed in the 2017 and 2018 curricula through a reduction in learning outcomes, simplification of language, and increased flexibility. However, weak continuity across grade levels, limited instructional guidance, and persistent problems related to assessment practices and infrastructure were identified. In addition, the conception of technology has shifted from a production-oriented structure toward a framework-based approach, while digital competencies continue to be addressed at an instrumental level. Overall, the study concludes that curriculum effectiveness should be evaluated not only through textual revisions but also by considering.

Keywords: Comparative Curriculum Review Curriculum Evaluation Curricular Transformation Technology and Design Curriculum
Cite this article
Kocabatmaz, H. (2026). Transforming Technology and Design Curricula: A Comparative Study of 2006–2018. International Journal of Innovative Approaches in Education, 10(1), 1-34. https://doi.org/10.29329/ijiape.2026.1443.3

  • Akbaş, O. (2003). Teknoloji eğitiminde yeni yönelimler. Pegem A Yayıncılık. [Google Scholar]
  • Ananiadou, K., & Claro, M. (2009). 21st century skills and competences for new millennium learners in OECD countries. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/218525261154 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  • Black, P. (1998). Testing: Friend or foe? Theory and practice of assessment and testing. Falmer Press. [Google Scholar]
  • Black, P. (2019). Assessment and learning: Research-based insights. Routledge. [Google Scholar]
  • Bowen, G. A. (2009). Document analysis as a qualitative research method. Qualitative Research Journal, 9(2), 27–40. https://doi.org/10.3316/QRJ0902027 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  • Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2020). Sosyal bilimler için veri analizi el kitabı (25. baskı). Pegem Akademi. [Google Scholar]
  • Cesur, M. (1995). İş eğitiminin ilköğretimdeki yeri ve sorunları. MEB Yayınları. [Google Scholar]
  • Cronbach, L. J. (1982). Designing evaluations of educational and social programs. Jossey-Bass. [Google Scholar]
  • Cross, N. (2018). Design thinking: Understanding how designers think and work. Bloomsbury. [Google Scholar]
  • Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (4th ed.). Sage. [Google Scholar]
  • Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2018). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (3rd ed.). Sage. [Google Scholar]
  • Çevik, H. (1994). Tasarım süreci ve karar verme. Yıldız Teknik Üniversitesi Yayınları. [Google Scholar]
  • Çıngı, H. (1994). Örnekleme kuramı. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Yayınları. [Google Scholar]
  • De Vries, M. J. (1994). Teaching about technology: An introduction. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 4(1), 5–18. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00571020 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  • De Vries, M. J. (2018). Technology education: An international history. Springer. [Google Scholar]
  • Demirel, Ö. (2009). Eğitimde program geliştirme (12. baskı). Pegem Akademi. [Google Scholar]
  • Doğan, İ. (1983). İş eğitimi ve öğretimi. Ankara Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Fakültesi Yayınları. [Google Scholar]
  • Ekiz, D. (2004). Eğitimde araştırma yöntem ve metotlarına giriş. Anı Yayıncılık. [Google Scholar]
  • Erden, M. (1995). Eğitimde program değerlendirme. Pegem Yayıncılık. [Google Scholar]
  • Erkuş, A. (2009). Davranış bilimleri için bilimsel araştırma süreci (3. baskı). Seçkin Yayıncılık. [Google Scholar]
  • Ertaç, H. (2003). Tasarım düşüncesi ve yaratıcılık. Literatür Yayınları. [Google Scholar]
  • European Commission. (2019). Key competences for lifelong learning. Publications Office of the European Union. [Google Scholar]
  • Gu, P. (2008). Design education: Past, present and future. International Journal of Engineering Education, 24(3), 527–535. [Google Scholar]
  • Johnston, S. (2005). Technology education in the curriculum. Routledge. [Google Scholar]
  • Karasar, N. (2020). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemi (35. baskı). Nobel Akademik Yayıncılık. [Google Scholar]
  • Karaağaçlı, M., & Mahiroğlu, A. (2005). Teknoloji eğitiminde tasarım temelli öğrenme. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 29, 156–165. [Google Scholar]
  • Likert, R. (1932). A technique for the measurement of attitudes. Archives of Psychology, 140, 1–55. [Google Scholar]
  • MBE [Millî Eğitim Bakanlığı]. (2006). İlköğretim teknoloji ve tasarım dersi öğretim programı (6–8. sınıflar). Talim ve Terbiye Kurulu Başkanlığı. [Google Scholar]
  • Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldaña, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook (3rd ed.). Sage. [Google Scholar]
  • Mutlu, M. (2001). İlköğretimde iş eğitiminin değerlendirilmesi. Gazi Üniversitesi Yayınları. [Google Scholar]
  • Novakova, L. (1999). Technology education and thinking skills. Journal of Technology Education, 11(1), 23–35. [Google Scholar]
  • OECD. (2020). Education at a glance 2020: OECD indicators. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/69096873-en [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  • OECD. (2023). OECD digital education outlook 2023. OECD Publishing. [Google Scholar]
  • Özdemir, S. (2010). Tasarım eğitimi ve yaratıcılık. Nobel Yayın Dağıtım. [Google Scholar]
  • Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative research & evaluation methods (4th ed.). Sage. [Google Scholar]
  • Plomp, T. (2020). Educational design research: An introduction. In T. Plomp & N. Nieveen (Eds.), Educational design research (pp. 9–35). SLO. [Google Scholar]
  • Rasinen, A. (2003). Technology education in the curriculum. Journal of Technology Education, 15(1), 31–43. [Google Scholar]
  • Razzouk, R., & Shute, V. (2012). What is design thinking and why is it important? Review of Educational Research, 82(3), 330–348. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654312457429 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  • Senemoğlu, N. (2005). Gelişim, öğrenme ve öğretim. Gazi Kitabevi. [Google Scholar]
  • Sönmez, V. (2007). Program geliştirmede öğretmen el kitabı. Anı Yayıncılık. [Google Scholar]
  • Stufflebeam, D. L., & Zhang, G. (2017). The CIPP evaluation model: How to evaluate for improvement and accountability. Guilford Press. [Google Scholar]
  • Şenel, A., & Gençoğlu, S. (2003). Teknoloji eğitimi ve öğretim programları. Eğitim ve Bilim, 28(128), 3–12. [Google Scholar]
  • Tezbaşaran, A. (2008). Likert tipi ölçek hazırlama kılavuzu. Türk Psikologlar Derneği. [Google Scholar]
  • Tyler, R. W. (1993). Basic principles of curriculum and instruction. University of Chicago Press. [Google Scholar]
  • Uluğ, F. (2000). İş eğitimi ve teknoloji eğitimi. Pegem A Yayıncılık. [Google Scholar]
  • UNESCO. (2022). Reimagining our futures together: A new social contract for education. UNESCO Publishing. [Google Scholar]
  • Varış, F. (1996). Eğitimde program geliştirme. Alkım Yayınları. [Google Scholar]
  • Voogt, J., Fisser, P., Pareja Roblin, N., Tondeur, J., & van Braak, J. (2015). Technological pedagogical content knowledge. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 29(2), 109–121. [Google Scholar]
  • Yıldırım, A., & Şimşek, H. (2021). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri (12. baskı). Seçkin Yayıncılık. [Google Scholar]