International Journal of Innovative Approaches in Education
Abbreviation: IJIAPE | ISSN (Print): 2602-4780 | ISSN (Online): 2602-4489 | DOI: 10.29329/ijiape

Original article    |    Open Access
International Journal of Innovative Approaches in Education 2024, Vol. 8(4) 170-194

How do Faculty Members Experience and Perceive Curricula Changes in Teacher Education?

Özge Aydın & Ahmet Ok

pp. 170 - 194   |  DOI: https://doi.org/10.29329/ijiape.2024.1098.2

Published online: December 31, 2024  |   Number of Views: 13  |  Number of Download: 20

Download PDF

Abstract

The current study aimed to reveal faculty members’ perceptions on curriculum change in pre-service teacher education and the factors influencing their perceptions. From 13 different departments and 13 different Faculties of Education representing the seven geographical regions of Türkiye, 41 faculty members participated in the study. A semi-structured interview protocol was developed subsequent to expert opinion and piloting procedures, and utilized as the data collection tool. The interviews were transcribed verbatim and subjected to content analysis via MAXQDA 2022. The findings indicated the faculty members tended to demonstrate double-edged professional stance by either resisting or embracing curricula changes. The factors behind these differentiating perceptions emerged in the data as the characteristics including need, quality, clarity and complexity of curricula changes; contextual factors as physical infrastructure, human resources, and leadership at faculties; and external factors pointing out the Higher Education Council [HEC]’s approach to curricula changes and delegation of authority, which has been a recent decision assigning all the curricular work of pre-service teacher education programs to Faculties of Education in Türkiye. Therefore, these findings are believed to shed light on smoother curriculum change processes in teacher education along with the faculty members’ insights and critical reflections on their lived experiences.

Keywords: Curriculum Change, Pre-Service Teacher Education, Faculty Members, Delegation of Authority

How to Cite this Article

APA 6th edition
Aydin, O. & Ok, A. (2024). How do Faculty Members Experience and Perceive Curricula Changes in Teacher Education? . International Journal of Innovative Approaches in Education, 8(4), 170-194. doi: 10.29329/ijiape.2024.1098.2

Harvard
Aydin, O. and Ok, A. (2024). How do Faculty Members Experience and Perceive Curricula Changes in Teacher Education? . International Journal of Innovative Approaches in Education, 8(4), pp. 170-194.

Chicago 16th edition
Aydin, Ozge and Ahmet Ok (2024). "How do Faculty Members Experience and Perceive Curricula Changes in Teacher Education? ". International Journal of Innovative Approaches in Education 8 (4):170-194. doi:10.29329/ijiape.2024.1098.2.
References
  1. Aeria, L. A., Siraj, S., Sakika, K., Hussin, Z., & Norman, M. H. (2018). Burnout among Malaysian teachers in implementing curricular changes, The New Educational Review, 209-220. https://doi.org/10.15804/tner.2018.51.1.17 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  2. Ahtiainen, R., Fonsen, E., & Kiuru, L. (2021). Finnish early childhood education and care leaders’ perceptions of pedagogical leadership and assessment of the implementation of the National Core Curriculum in times of change, Australasian Journal of Early Childhood, 46(2), 126–138, https://doi.org/10.1177/18369391211010971 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  3. Altinyelken, H. (2011). Teachers as curriculum mediators: A study on the implementation of social studies curriculum in Türkiye. In Nata R. V. (Eds.), Progress in Education. Nova Publishers. [Google Scholar]
  4. Anakin, M., Spronken-Smith, R., Healey, M., & Vajoczki, S. (2018). The contextual nature of university-wide curriculum change, International Journal for Academic Development, 23(3), 206-218, https://doi.org/10.1080/1360144X.2017.1385464 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  5. Annala, J., Lindén, J., Mäkinen M., & Henriksson, J. (2021). Understanding academic agency in curriculum change in higher education, Teaching in Higher Education, 1-18, https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2021.1881772 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  6. Banegas, D. L. (2016). Exploring perceptions of curriculum change in initial English language teacher education: A case in Argentina, Estudıos Sobre Educacıón, 31, 75-95, https://doi.org/10.15581/004.31.75-95 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  7. Barman, L., Josephsson, S., Silén, C., & Bolander-Laksov, K. (2016). How education policy is made meaningful – a narrative exploration of how teachers show autonomy in the development of teaching and learning, Higher Education Research and Development, 35(6), 1111-1124, https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2016.1144571 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  8. Basaran, S. T., Altan, B. A., & Gundogdu, K. (2022). Reformative shift on initial teacher education in Türkiye: From authority to autonomy. International Journal of Progressive Education, 18(1), 411-434. https://doi.org/10.29329/ijpe.2022.426.23 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  9. Bogdan, R., & Biklen, S. K. (2007). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theory and methods. (5th ed). Pearson Allyn & Bacon. [Google Scholar]
  10. Brøgger, K. (2014). The ghosts of higher education reform: on the organisational processes surrounding policy borrowing, Globalisation, Societies and Education, 12(4), 520-541, https://doi.org/10.1080/14767724.2014.901905 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  11. Carless, D. (1998). A case study of curriculum implementation in Hong Kong, System, 26(3), 353-368. [Google Scholar]
  12. Carpenter, J. (2008). Metaphors in qualitative research: Shedding light or casting shadows? Research in Nursing and Health, 31, 274–282, https://doi.org/10.1002/nur.20253 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  13. Cheng, Y. C. (1994). Effectiveness of curriculum change in school: An organizational perspective, International Journal of Educational Management, 8(3), 26-34, https://doi.org/10.1108/09513549410062416 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  14. Chimbi, G. T., & Jita, L. C. (2019). Willing but unable? Teachers’ sense-making of curriculum-reform policy in the early implementation stage, Pedagogy, 135(3), 52-70, https://doi.org/10.15823/p.2019.135.3 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  15. Chimbunde, P., & Kgari-Masondo, M. C. (2020). Representation of the Zimbabwean 2015–2022 Social Studies curriculum: Teachers’ perspectives on challenges and “Ubuntulising” curriculum change and implementation, Perspectives in Education, 38(1), 269-282, https://doi.org/10.18820/2519593X/pie.v38i1.19. [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  16. Clasquin-Johnson, M. G. (2016). Now and then: Revisiting early childhood teachers’ reactions to curriculum change, South African Journal of Childhood Education, 6(1), 1-9, http://dx.doi.org/10.4102/sajce.v6i1.408 [Google Scholar]
  17. Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2011). Research methods in education (7th ed.). Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group. [Google Scholar]
  18. Cooper, T. (2017). Curriculum renewal: Barriers to successful curriculum change and suggestions for improvement, Journal of Education and Training Studies, 5(11), 115-128, http://dx.doi.org/10.11114/jets.v5i11.2737 [Google Scholar]
  19. Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (2nd ed.). Sage Publications, Inc. [Google Scholar]
  20. Dilkes, J., Cunningham, C., & Gray, J. (2014). The new Australian curriculum, teachers and change fatigue, Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 39(11), 45-64, http://dx.doi.org/10.14221/ajte.2014v39n11.4 [Google Scholar]
  21. Erdem, A. R. (2015). The [A], [U], and [C] of teacher training in Turkey, Journal of Teacher Education and Educators, 4(1), 16-38. [Google Scholar]
  22. Flores, M. A. (2016) Teacher education curriculum, in. J. Loughran & M. L. Hamilton (Eds.) International Handbook of Teacher Education, (pp. 187-230). Springer Press. [Google Scholar]
  23. Fraenkel, J. R., & Wallen, N. E. (2006). How to design and evaluate research in education. McGraw-Hill. [Google Scholar]
  24. Fraser, S. P. & Bosanquet, A. M. (2006). The curriculum? That’s just a unit outline, isn’t it?, Studies in Higher Education, 31(03), 269-284, https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070600680521 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  25. Fullan, M. (2007). The new meaning of educational change. (4th ed.). Cassell. [Google Scholar]
  26. Fullan, M., Cuttress, C., & Kilcher, A. (2005). Eight forces for leaders of change, National Staff Development Council, 26(4), 54-64. [Google Scholar]
  27. Gaff, J. G., & Simpson, R. D. (1994). Faculty development in the United States. Innovative Higher Education, 18(3), 167-176. [Google Scholar]
  28. Gokmenoglu, T., & Eret, E. (2011). Curriculum development in Türkiye from the viewpoints of research assistants of curriculum and instruction department, Elementary Education Online, 10(2), 667-681. [Google Scholar]
  29. Gozutok, D. (2014). Curriculum studies in Türkiye since 2000. In W. F. Pinar (Ed). International handbook of curriculum research, (2nd ed., pp. 511-514). Routledge. [Google Scholar]
  30. Guhn, M. (2009). Insights from successful and unsuccessful implementations of school reform programs, Journal of Educational Change, 10, 337-363, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-008-9063-0 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  31. Güven, I. (2008). Teacher education reform and inter­national globalization hegemony: Issues and challenges in Turkish teacher education, International Journal of Social Sci­ences, 3(1), 8-17. [Google Scholar]
  32. Güven, I. (2015). Türkiye’de öğretmen eğitiminin tarihsel dönüşümüne eleştirel bir bakış, Eleştirel Pedagoji, 40, 2-13. [Google Scholar]
  33. Hargreaves, A. (1989). Curriculum and assessment reform. OISE Press. [Google Scholar]
  34. Hargreaves, A. (2001). Changing teachers, changing times: teachers’ work and culture in the postmodern age. Continuum. [Google Scholar]
  35. Hargreaves, A., Lieberman, A., Fullan, M., & Hopkins, D. (2005). Fundamental change: International handbook of educational change. Springer. [Google Scholar]
  36. Henard, F., & Rosevare, D. (2012). Fostering quality teaching in higher education: Policies and practices. Institutional Management in Higher Education, OECD. [Google Scholar]
  37. Higher Education Council [HEC]. (2007). Öğretmen Yetiştirme ve Eğitim Fakülteleri (1982-2007): Öğretmenin Üniversitede Yetiştirilmesinin Değerlendirilmesi. Ankara. [Google Scholar]
  38. Higher Education Council [HEC]. (2018). Eğitim Fakültesi Öğretmen Yetiştirme Lisans Programları, Ankara. [Google Scholar]
  39. Hopkins, K., Kroning, M., & Kobes, P. (2021). Leadership role in curriculum revision, Teaching and Learning in Nursing, 16, 166-168, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.teln.2020.11.002 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  40. Huberman, A. M. (1973). Understanding change in education: An introduction, Experiments and Innovations in Education, 4, 3-103. [Google Scholar]
  41. Isiksal, M., Koc, Y., Bulut, S., & Atay-Turhan, T. (2007).  An analysis of the new elementary mathematics teacher education curriculum in Turkey, The Mathematics Educator, 17(2), 41–51. [Google Scholar]
  42. Jenkins, E. W. (2000). The impact of the national curriculum on secondary school science teaching in England and Wales, International Journal of Science Education, 22(3), 325-336, https://doi.org/10.1080/095006900289903 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  43. Jenkins, G. (2020). Teacher agency: the effects of active and passive responses to curriculum change, The Australian Educational Researcher, 47, 167–181, https://doi.org/10.1007/s13384-019-00334-2 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  44. Kala, D., & Chaubey, D. S. (2015). Attitude of faculty members towards faculty development programs and their perceived outcomes, Pacific Business Review International, 8(2), 21-30. [Google Scholar]
  45. Karabacak, N. (2022). Investigation of the 2018 class teaching undergraduate curricula revision from the perspective of implementors, Anadolu Journal of Educational Sciences International, 12(2), 574-607, https://doi.org/10.18039/ajesi.936035 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  46. Karakas, A. (2012). Evaluation of the English language teacher education program in Türkiye, ELT Weekly, 4(15), 1-16. [Google Scholar]
  47. Kasapoglu, K. (2010). Relations between classroom teachers’ attitudes toward change, perceptions of constructivist curriculum change and implementation of constructivist teaching and learning activities in class at primary school level. Unpublished M. Sc. Thesis, Middle East Technical University, Ankara, Türkiye. [Google Scholar]
  48. Kitchen, J. (2009). Relational teacher development: Growing collaboratively in a hoping relationship. Teacher Education Quarterly, 36(2), 45-62. [Google Scholar]
  49. Leite, L., Dourado, L., & Morgado, S. (2016). Initial science teacher education in Portugal: The thoughts of teacher educators about the effects of the Bologna process, Journal of Science Teacher Education, 27(8), 873-893, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-016-9492-1 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  50. Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Sage Publications. [Google Scholar]
  51. Ling, L. M. (2002). A tale of two teachers: teachers' responses to an imposed curriculum reform, Teacher Development, 6(1), 33-46, https://doi.org/10.1080/13664530200200155 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  52. Lodico, M., Spaulding, D., & Voegtle, K. (2010). Methods in educational research: From theory to practice. John Wiley & Sons. [Google Scholar]
  53. Louvel, S. (2013). Understanding change in higher education as bricolage: How academics engage in curriculum change, Higher Education, 66, 669–691, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-013-9628-6 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  54. Lunenberg, M., Dengerink, J., & Korthagen, F. (2014). The professional teacher educator: Roles, behaviour, and professional development of teacher educators. Sense Publishers. [Google Scholar]
  55. Maimela, H. S. (2015). Impact of curriculum changes on primary school teachers in Seshego Circuit, Limpopo Province. Unpublished Master’s thesis, University of South Africa, Pretoria, South Africa. [Google Scholar]
  56. Mathura, P. (2019). Teachers’ perspectives on a curriculum change: A Trinidad and Tobago case study, International Journal of Innovative Business Strategies (IJIBS), 5(1), 252-263, 10.20533/ijibs.2046.3626.2019.0035 [Google Scholar]
  57. Maxwell, J. A. (2012). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach. (3rd ed). Sage Publications Inc. [Google Scholar]
  58. Meij, L. W., & Merx, S. (2018). Improving curriculum alignment and achieving learning goals by making the curriculum visible, International Journal for Academic Development, 23(3), 219-231, https://doi.org/10.1080/1360144X.2018.1462187 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  59. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded source book (2nd ed.). SAGE Publications Inc. [Google Scholar]
  60. Mutch, C. (2012). Curriculum change and teacher resistance, Curriculum Matters, 8, 1-8, https://doi.org/10.18296/cm.0145 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  61. Nation, I. S. P., & Macalister, J. (2010). Language curriculum design. Routledge. [Google Scholar]
  62. Ornstein, A. C., & Hunkins, F. P. (2018). Curriculum: foundations, principles and issues (7th ed.). Pearson. [Google Scholar]
  63. Ozudogru, F. (2021). Teachers’ perception of 2018 Turkish national curriculum change, Erzincan Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 23(2), 459-476, http://dx.doi.org/10.17556/erziefd.801060. [Google Scholar]
  64. Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (4th ed.). Sage. [Google Scholar]
  65. Peskova, K., Spurna, M., & Knecht, P. (2019). Teachers’ acceptance of curriculum reform in the Czech Republic: One decade later. CEPS Journal, 9(2), 73-97, http://dx.doi.org/10.26529/cepsj.560 [Google Scholar]
  66. Putwain, D. W., & von der Embse, N. P. (2019). Teacher self-efficacy moderates the relations between imposed pressure from imposed curriculum changes and teacher stress, Educational Psychology, 39(1), 51-64, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2018.1500681 [Google Scholar]
  67. Reimers, F. M. (2020). Thinking multidimensionally about ambitious educational change. In F. M. Reimers. Audacious education purposes: How governments transform the goals of education systems (pp.1-46). Springer Open. [Google Scholar]
  68. Sahin, İ. (2014). Öğretmen adaylarının nasıl yetiştirildiklerine ilişkin görüşleri. Kasta-monu Eğitim Dergisi, 22(1), 241-258. [Google Scholar]
  69. Saka, Ö. (2020). Considerations on the new curriculum of English Language Teaching programmes, Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 16(3), 1189-1202, http://dx.doi.org/10.17263/jlls.803633. [Google Scholar]
  70. Saylan, N. (2014). Constantly modified teacher training system, International Journal of Curriculum and Instructional Studies, 3(6), 9-19. [Google Scholar]
  71. Sendag, S., & Gedik, N. (2015). Yükseköğretim dönüşümünün eşiğinde Türkiye’de öğretmen yetiştirme sorunları: Bir model önerisi, Educational Technology Theory and Practice, 5(1), 72-91, https://doi.org/10.17943/etku.35232 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  72. Sert, M., Gundogdu, K., & Akar-Vural, R. (2018). Türkiye’de eğitim programları ve öğretim alanının bugünü, yarını. Paper presented at The 27th International Congress on Educational Sciences, Antalya, Türkiye. [Google Scholar]
  73. Sever, D., Kurum-Yapicioglu, D., & Atik-Kara, D. (2019). Problems of program in curriculum development and instruction according to the field experts and suggestions for the problems. Çukurova Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 48(1), 419-451. [Google Scholar]
  74. Sloan, A., & Bowe, B. (2015). Experiences of computer science curriculum design: A phenomenological study, Interchange, 46, 121-142, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10780-015-9231-0 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  75. Steinbach, M. (2012). Obstacles to change in teacher education in Trinidad and Tobago, The International Education Journal: Comparative Perspectives, 11(1), 69–81. [Google Scholar]
  76. Taylor, M. W. (2013). Replacing the ‘teacher-proof’ curriculum with the ‘curriculum-proof’ teacher: Toward more effective interactions with mathematics textbooks, Curriculum Studies, 45(3), 295–321, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00220272.2012.710253 [Google Scholar]
  77. Towndrow, P. A., Silver, R. E., & Albright, J. (2009). Setting expectations for educational innovations, Journal of Educational Change, 11, 425-455, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-009-9119-9 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  78. Ulubey, O., & Basaran, S. (2019). Evaluation of 2018 initial teacher training programs, Uluslararası Eğitim Programları ve Öğretim Çalışmaları Dergisi, 9(2), 263-300, https://doi.org/10.31704/ijocis.2019.012 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  79. Uztosun, M. S., & Troudi, S. (2015). Lecturers’ views of curriculum change at English language teaching departments in Türkiye, Novitas-ROYAL (Research on Youth and Language), 9(1), 15-29. [Google Scholar]
  80. VERBI Software. (2021). MAXQDA 2022 [computer software]. Berlin, Germany: VERBI Software. Available from maxqda.com. [Google Scholar]
  81. Walker-Bethea, T. E., Villagomez, C., Allen, B. A., & Berry, C. (2021). Framing clear academic pathways: The curricular coherency and efficiency project at Winston-Salem State University, International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 33(1), 73-78. [Google Scholar]
  82. Wang, J., Odell, S. J., Klecka, C. L., Spalding, E., & Lin, E. (2010). Understanding teacher education reform, Journal of Teacher Education, 61(5), 395-402, https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487110384219. [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  83. Wedell, M., & Grassick, L. (2018). International perspectives on teachers living with curriculum change. Palgrave Macmillan. [Google Scholar]
  84. Yildirim, A., & Simsek, H. (2016). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri. (10th ed.). Seçkin Yayıncılık. [Google Scholar]
  85. Zayim, M. (2015). Modeling public school teachers’ change implementation behaviors: Interrelations among change antecedents, change-related affect, commitment to change, and job satisfaction. Unpulished PhD Thesis, Middle East Technical University, Ankara, Türkiye. [Google Scholar]
  86. Zimmerman, J. (2006). Why some teachers resist change and what principals can do about it, NASSP Bulletin, 90(3), 238-249, https://doi.org/10.1177/0192636506291521 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
Meta
Vol. 8 (4)
Download
Metric
History
Related

Volume 8 Issue 4

December 2024

All Articles
Copyright © 2012 - 2025 International Journal of Innovative Approaches in Education.
Pen Academic Publishing is a trademark of THDSoft.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. CC BY-NC-ND
Electronic Journal Management System. This software was developed in Türkiye. ejournal.gen.tr
Pen Academic Publishing General Publication Policy: