Advertisement

Journal of Educational Change

, Volume 17, Issue 3, pp 303–318 | Cite as

Curricular change in Turkey: Time, sequentiality, and differential power of actors in establishing a new knowledge path

  • Arnd-Michael Nohl
  • R. Nazlı Somel
Article

Abstract

This paper introduces the knowledge path concept to research on curriculum change. Vis-à-vis existing inquiries into curriculum making, the paper explores the usefulness of the knowledge path concept in an empirical analysis of curriculum change that primary education in Turkey underwent at the turn of the century. Based on the documentary interpretation of expert interviews and other material, the paper enquires into the processes that instigated and enabled the curriculum change and rendered it durable. This concept may contribute to four previously identified research approaches to curriculum change: empirical case studies, ideology-critical and New Institutionalist inquiries, and a focus on organizational politics. It emphasizes the significance of time and sequentiality during change processes and underpins the differentiated power of actors.

Keywords

Curriculum change Path theory New institutionalism Ideology critique Organizational politics Turkey Primary education Documentary method Expert interview 

References

  1. Altan, M. Z. (1999). Çoklu Zeka Kuramı. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Yönetimi, 1, 105–117.Google Scholar
  2. Altinyelken, H. K. (2011). Student-centred pedagogy in Turkey: Conceptualisations, interpretations and practices. Journal of Education Policy, 26(2), 137–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Altinyelken, H. K. (2012). A converging pedagogy in the developing world? Insights from Uganda and Turkey. In A. Verger, M. Novelli, & H. K. Altinyelken (Eds.), Global education policy and international development: New Agendas, issues and policies (pp. 201–221). London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
  4. Altinyelken, H. K. (2013). Teachers’ principled resistance to curriculum change: A compelling case from Turkey. In A. Verger, H. K. Altinyelken, & M. D. Konik (Eds.), Global education reforms and teachers (pp. 109–127). Brussels: Education International.Google Scholar
  5. Altrichter, H. (2000). Introduction. In H. Altrichter & J. Elliott (Eds.), Images of change (pp. 1–10). Buckingham: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Aminzade, R. (1992). Historical sociology and time. Sociological Methods & Research, 40(4), 456–480.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Apple, M. (2004). Ideology and curriculum. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  8. Arthur, W. B. (1989). Competing technologies, increasing returns, and lock-in by historical events. Economic Journal, 99(394), 116–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Aşkar, P., Paykoç, F., Korkut, F., Olkun, S., Yangın, B., & Çakıroğlu, J. (2005). Yeni Eğitim Programları İnceleme ve Değerlendirme Raporu. Istanbul: Eğitim Reformu Girişimi.Google Scholar
  10. Benavot, A., Cha, Y. K., Kamens, D., et al. (1991). Knowledge for the masses: World models and national curricula, 1920–1986. American Sociological Review, 56(1), 85–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Beyer, J. (2005). Pfadabhängigkeit ist nicht gleich Pfadabhängigkeit! Wider den impliziten Konservatismus eines gängigen Konzepts. Zeitschrift für Soziologie, 34(1), 5–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bohnsack, R. (2014). Documentary method. In U. Flick (Ed.), SAGE Handbook of analyzing qualitative data (pp. 217–223). Thousand Oakes/London/New Delhi: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Bohnsack, R., Pfaff, N., & Weller, W. (Eds.). (2010). Qualitative analysis and documentary method in international educational research. Barbara Budrich: Opladen & Farmington Hills.Google Scholar
  14. Bormann, I. (2011). Zwischenräume der Veränderung. Wiesbaden: VS.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Bourdieu, P., & Passeron, J. C. (1990). Reproduction in education, society and culture. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  16. Broadhead, P. (2002). The making of a curriculum: How history, politics, and personal perspectives shape emerging policy and practice. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 46(1), 47–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Bulut, M. (2007). Curriculum reform in Turkey: A case of primary school mathematics curriculum. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 3, 203–212.Google Scholar
  18. Carlgren, I. (1995). National curriculum as social compromise or discursive politics? Some reflections on a curriculum-making process. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 27(4), 411–430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Collier, R. B., & Collier, D. (1991). Shaping the political arena. Critical junctures. The labor movement and regime dynamics in Latin America. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Crawford, K. (2000). The political construction of the ‘whole curriculum’. British Educational Research Journal, 26(5), 615–630.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Cuban, L. (1990). Reforming again, again, and again. Educational Researcher, 19(1), 3–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. David, P. A. (1985). Clio and the economics of QWERTY. American Economic Review, 75(2), 332–337.Google Scholar
  23. Erdoğan, İ. (2005). Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı’nın Yeni Müfredat Çalışmaları. Özel Okullar Birliği Bülteni. Retrieved January 1, 2013 from http://www.irfanerdogan.com.tr/index.php?ıoption=com_content&view=article&id=102:milli-egitim-bakanliginin-yeni-mufredat-calismalari&catid=34:ana-sayfa&Itemid=148.
  24. Erdoğan, İ. (2011). Milli Eğitime Dair. Ankara: Nobel.Google Scholar
  25. Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. New York: Harper Collins.Google Scholar
  26. Goodson, I. (1995). The making of curriculum. London: Falmer.Google Scholar
  27. Haft, H., & Hopmann, S. (1990). Curriculum administration as symbolic action. In H. Haft & S. Hopmann (Eds.), Case studies in curriculum administration history (pp. 159–173). London: Falmer.Google Scholar
  28. İnal, K., & Akkaymak, G. (Eds.). (2012). Neoliberal transformation of education in Turkey. New York: Palgrave.Google Scholar
  29. İnal, K., Akkaymak, G., & Yıldırım, D. (2014). The constructivist curriculum reform in Turkey in 2004—In fact what is constructed? Journal for Critical Education Policy Studies, 12, 350–373.Google Scholar
  30. JDP = Justice and Development Party. (2002). Herşey Türkiye İçin. AKP Seçim Beyannamesi. Ankara.Google Scholar
  31. Koşar-Altınyelken, H., & Akkaymak, G. (2012). Curriculum change in Turkey: some critical reflections. In K. Inal & G. Akkaymak (Eds.), Neoliberal transformation of education in Turkey (pp. 59–70). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Levin, B. (2008). Curriculum policy and the politics of what should be learned in schools. In F. M. Connelly, M. Fang He, & J. Phillion (Eds.), The Sage handbook of curriculum and instruction (pp. 45–65). London: Sage.Google Scholar
  33. Mahoney, J. (2000). Path dependence in historical sociology. Theory and Society, 29(4), 507–548.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Mannheim, K. (1952). On the interpretation of Weltanschauung. In K. Mannheim (Ed.), Essays on the sociology of knowledge (pp. 33–83). New York: Oxford UP.Google Scholar
  35. Mannheim, K. (1993). The ideological and the sociological interpretation of intellectual phenomena. In K. H. Wolff (Ed.), From Karl Mannheim (pp. 244–259). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.Google Scholar
  36. McEneaney, E. H., & Meyer, J. (2000). The content of the curriculum. In M. T. Hallinan (Ed.), Handbook of the sociology of education (pp. 189–211). New York: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  37. Meuser, M., & Nagel, U. (2009). The expert interview and changes in knowledge production. In A. Bogner, B. Littig, & W. Menz (Eds.), Interviewing experts (pp. 17–42). London: Palgrave.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Meyer, H. D. (2011). Path dependence in German and American public education: The persistence of institutional difference in a globalizing world. In D. E. Mitchell, R. L. Crowson, & D. Shipps (Eds.), Shaping education policy: Power and process (pp. 189–212). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  39. Nohl, A. M. (2010). The documentary interpretation of narrative interviews. In R. Bohnsack, N. Pfaff, & W. Weller (Eds.), Qualitative analysis and documentary method in international education research (pp. 195–218). Opladen & Farmington Hills: Barbara Budrich Publishers.Google Scholar
  40. Nohl, A. M. (2014). Wissenspfade in der Biographie von Hakan Salman. In H.-C. Koller & G. Wulftange (Eds.), Lebensgeschichte als Bildungsprozess? Perspektiven bildungstheoretisch orientierter Biographieforschung (pp. 173–191). Bielefeld: transcript.Google Scholar
  41. Nohl, A. M., & Somel, R. N. (2016). Education and social dynamics: A multi-level analysis of curriculum change in Turkey. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  42. North, D. C. (1991). Institutions. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 5(1), 97–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Pierson, P. (2000). Not just what, but when: Timing and sequence in political processes. Studies in American Political Development, 14, 72–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Polanyi, M. (1966). The tacit dimension. New York: Doubleday & Company.Google Scholar
  45. Reid, W. A. (1990). Strange curricula: Origins and development of the institutional categories of schooling. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 22(3), 203–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Rosenmund, M. (2002). Approaches to international comparative research on curricula and curriculum-making processes. In M. Rosenmund, A. V. Fries, & W. Heller (Eds.), Comparing curriculum-making processes (pp. 289–300). Bern: Lang.Google Scholar
  47. RPP = Republican People’s Party. (1997). CHP Parti Programı. Ankara.Google Scholar
  48. Saban, A. (2001). Çoklu Zekâ Kuramı ve Türk Eğitim Sistemine Yansıması. Ankara: Nobel Yayın Dağıtım.Google Scholar
  49. Selçuk, Z., Kayılı, H., & Okut, L. (Eds.). (2002). Çoklu Zeka Uygulamaları. Ankara: Nobel.Google Scholar
  50. Talu, N. (1999). Çoklu Zeka Kuramı ve Eğitime Yansımaları. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 5, 64–72.Google Scholar
  51. T.C. 2003 = T.C. 58. Hükümet (2003). Acil Eylem Planı. Ankara.Google Scholar
  52. T.C. 2007 = T.C. Ministry of National Education Projects Coordination Center. (2007). Support to basic education programme. Ankara: Project Outcomes.Google Scholar
  53. Thelen, K. (1999). Historical institutionalism and comparative politics. Annual Review of Political Science, 2, 369–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Verger, A., Novelli, M., & Altinyelken, H. K. (2012). Global Education Policy and International Development: An Introductory Framework. In A. Verger, M. Novelli, & H. K. Altinyelken (Eds.), Global education policy and international development: New Agendas, issues and policies (pp. 3–31). London/New York: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
  55. Westbury, I. (2008). Making curricula: Why do states make curricula, and how? In F. M. Connelly, M. FangHe, & J. Phillion (Eds.), The Sage handbook of curriculum and instruction (pp. 45–65). London: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Yaşar, Ş. (1998). Yapısalcı Kuram ve Öğrenme—Öğretme Süreci. Anadolu Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 8(1–2), 68–75.Google Scholar
  57. Young, M. (2000). The curriculum of the future. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Fakultät für Geistes- und SozialwissenschaftenHelmut Schmidt-Universität/Universität der BundeswehrHamburgGermany

Personalised recommendations