the curriculum programs in Turkey

CURRICULUM REFORM AND TEACHER AUTONOMY IN

TURKEY: THE CASE OF THE HISTORY TEACHİNG

İbrahim Hakkı Öztürk

In recent years, the curriculum programs have been changed dramatically in

Turkey, as part of a comprehensive reform initiative. The history curriculum for

secondary schools was subjected to this transformation as well. This study

examines the curriculum reform in terms of teacher autonomy, a key-concept for

the comprehension and improvement of the teachers’ role in education. The study

aims to analyze whether the change in the curriculum has brought any significant

innovation regarding the teacher autonomy. According to study’s findings, the

new history curriculum fails to construct a new framework that is able to provide

to teachers a broad sphere of power and autonomy which could allow and

encourage them to assume a greater role in the curriculum planning and

implementation. This situation is evidently in contradiction with the main

reform’s goals such as the development of student-centered teaching methods

focusing on the needs, interests and demands of the students and considering their

diversities.

Key Words: teacher autonomy, curriculum reform, history teaching, Turkey

INTRODUCTION

The elementary and secondary school curriculum has undergone a dramatic

change in Turkey in 2000s. The curriculum reform was first introduced in the

elementary school level in 2004; during the years that followed, the curriculum

programs of most courses were renewed both in elementary and general

secondary education.

One major factor that provoked the policy makers to execute such a

comprehensive reform initiative is the fairly pessimistic sketch on the overall

quality of Turkish education system outlined in international assessment

programs including PISA and PIRLS (Akşit, 2007; MoNE, n.d.). The said

assessment programs rank Turkey at the bottom on the lists focusing on the

114 Curriculum Reform and Teacher Autonomy in Turkey…

International Journal of Instruction, July 2011 ● Vol.4, No.2

OECD and EU countries. Another factor behind the momentum to introduce

bold and ambitious reforms in the field of education in Turkey is the overall

reformist tendency observed in the government policies to facilitate accession to

the EU. In early 2000s, the government introduced reforms to harmonize the

national legislations with the EU body law. This has been the case with the field

of education as well (Akşit, 2007).

Even though there are significant differences in the new curriculum programs

according to their teaching subject, the programs also display some common

features and characteristics. Overall, the major approaches and goals of the new

programs are as follows (ERG, 2005; MoNE, n.d.) :

• Greater focus on student-centered teaching activities instead of subjectcentered

and teacher-centered approaches;

• Encouraging the learning by research and self-experience;

• Improving the diversity in the teaching methods and materials;

• Ensuring the enhancement of the students’ skills rather than mere

transmission of information;

• Improving the interaction and cooperation between the students in the

process of teaching and learning;

• Use of more effective assessment methods and tools;

• Improving the use of information and communication technologies in

teaching and learning activities.

The curriculum reform was mostly welcomed by the teachers, education

scholars and the general public. However, the reform was not free of critics.

The criticisms mostly focus on the implementation of the reform. The

researches done so far show that lack of material support and training

opportunities for the teachers, scarce sources and materials, poor technological

infrastructure and physical facilities are the major obstacles before the

attainment of the goals spelled out in the reform (Bulut, 2007; Kırkgöz, 2008;

Korkmaz, 2008; Öztürk, 2009a). Critics also argue that the participation and

involvement of civil society actors and the universities in the preparation of the

curriculum programs and the pilot cases has been fairly limited (Akşit, 2007).

Teacher Autonomy and Teaching Development

The importance of the professional autonomy in the enhancement of the

teachers’ role in education has been underlined in a number of scholarly works

(e.g. Castle, 2004; Friedman, 1999; Ingersoll, 2007; Pearson and Moomaw,

2006; Webb, 2002; White, 1992). It is argued that organizational efficiency

Öztürk 115

International Journal of Instruction, July 2011 ● Vol.4, No.2

may be further improved via enhancement and enlargement of the professional

autonomy of the employees and recognition of further authorities for the staff in

the decision-making process that allows them to act and think more freely.

Organizations where the sphere of decision making is open to senior managers

only are less effective than are organizations in which decision making is

decentralized (Friedman, 1999). Enhancement of the teachers’ professional

autonomy is something that needs to be considered in the implementation of the

education reforms. Granting autonomy and empowering teachers can be an

appropriate starting point to deal with the current school problems (Pearson and

Moomaw, 2006).

In the scientific literature, the concept of the teacher autonomy is defined by

many scholars and these definitions contain important differences. Therefore

it’s very difficult to find a common definition. However, these different

definitions point to one common aspect which stresses that the autonomy

requires recognition of greater power and freedom to the teachers in their

professional activities. Scholars describe this as “control their work

environment” (Pearson and Hall, 1993:173), “encouraging and strengthening

the power of teachers” (Friedman, 1999:60), or “freedom to make certain

decisions” (Short, 1994:490-491).

As observed with other professions that require specialization, improvement of

teacher autonomy envisage the enhancement of the teacher powers in processes

of planning, decision making and materialization of the educational activities

(Pearson and Moomaw, 2006). However, it should be recalled that teacher

autonomy does not mean absolute freedom. Studies done so far on this subject

show that excessive authority recognized to the teachers lead to other problems

and undesired outcomes (Anderson, 1987). Recognition of further powers for

the teachers in their professional activities is done by not only the upper

authorities who regulate the framework of these powers but also enhancement

of the professional capacities and skills of the teachers (Bustingorry, 2008; Steh

and Pozarnik, 2005).

Enhancement of teacher autonomy bears significance in many respects. Above

all, recognition of greater powers for the teachers is essential to ensure that they

fulfill their tasks at the schools properly. The limited power of the teachers in

the drafting and planning of the teaching methods and contents contradicts with

the larger sphere of their responsibilities. Ingersoll (2007) states that teachers

are entrusted with the training of the next generation, but they are often not

116 Curriculum Reform and Teacher Autonomy in Turkey…

International Journal of Instruction, July 2011 ● Vol.4, No.2

entrusted with much control over many of the key decisions concerned with this

crucial work.

The literature focuses on the impact of professional autonomy over the

professional quality of the teachers’ work. Goodlad et al. (as cited in Webb,

2002) argue that there are three characteristics for someone to qualify as a

professional: Professionals must possess a large degree of talent and skill in

their profession; they must use a body of knowledge that supports their work;

and they must have the autonomy to make decisions in their work. Freidson (as

cited in Ingersoll, 2007) argues that the degree of power and control that

employees hold over workplace decisions is one of the most important factor

determining the degree of professionalization and the status of an occupation.

Professional autonomy should be secured for the teachers to make sure that they

are recognized as professionals:

[..] recognizing teaching as a profession and developing professional

teachers is a possible solution to teachers’ lack of motivation and

satisfaction, professionalism, and empowerment, as well as teacher

stress. If teachers are to be empowered and regarded as professionals,

then, like other professionals, they must have the freedom to prescribe

the best treatment for their students (as doctors and lawyers do for their

patients and clients). Experts have defined that freedom as teacher

autonomy (Pearson and Moomaw, 2006:44).

Teacher autonomy is a must in teaching because of some unique aspects and

requirements of this profession. The abilities of the students to grasp any given

subject, their needs, interests and tendencies as well as their skills and talents

are all different. The environment and outlook of any given class is different

from those of another. Therefore, it is the teacher who knows the classroom

reality best and is able to make the best and most sound decisions with respect

to the pupils (ETUCE, 2008).

Piagetian constructivist approach refers to pupils’ autonomy as an important

purpose of education. In classrooms where teachers encourage autonomy,

children turn into problem solvers, capable not only of properly dealing with the

problems, but also of posing their own problems to solve or questions to explore

(Castle, 2004). However, in order that the teacher encourages learning

autonomy of the pupils and plans the teaching activities based on the needs,

natures and features of those students, they should possess some degree of

autonomy. Castle (2004:7) states that “teacher autonomy will equip teachers to

Öztürk 117

International Journal of Instruction, July 2011 ● Vol.4, No.2

be curriculum creators not just curriculum enactors. Autonomous teachers cocreate

curriculum with children. They help children become more autonomous

through pursuing topics and questions of interest to children themselves.”

Teacher autonomy is a broad concept; it refers not only to the teacher’s power

in the planning and implementing of the teaching activities but also to his or her

involvement and participation in the decision making process at the level of

school management. Friedman (1999) states that there are two main aspects of

teacher autonomy: the pedagogical aspect that focuses on such issues as

curriculum development and student teaching and assessment, and

organizational aspect that focuses on such issues as staff development or

budget planning.

The term teacher autonomy, however, is analyzed in this study in a narrower

sense because it mainly focuses on the curriculum. The organizational aspect

falls outside of the scope of this research. Therefore, the term teacher autonomy

-as used in this article- points to the power and freedom of the teachers in the

selection of the subjects to be taught, methods and materials to be used in the

teaching activities as well as the implementation of the decisions taken.

Teacher Autonomy in Turkish Educational System

Turkish educational system has been under the influence of centralist tendencies

throughout the process of its historical development in modern era; this is still

the case in the present time (Uygun, 2008). According to Fretwell and Wheeler

(as cited in Akşit, 2007), Turkey has the most centralized education system

among the OECD member states. This centralized structure is visibly observed

in many fields of the education system including curriculum development,

approval and choice of textbooks and other instructional materials, employment

of teachers, governance and inspection of schools, appointment and in-service

training of teachers (Yıldırım, 2003). This limits the powers and autonomy of

the schools in the decision making and management processes. “Compared with

Europe and most of the world, Turkey’s public schools have the least autonomy

over resources, staff deployment (at the school), textbook selection, allocation

of instructional time, and selection of programs offered” (Vorkink, 2006:17).

The curriculum programs drafted by the Ministry of National Education

(MoNE) envisage a standard system for the entire country. The number of

optional and elective courses is fairly limited in this system. In addition, the

electives must be picked from a list prepared by the Ministry (ERG, 2008).

118 Curriculum Reform and Teacher Autonomy in Turkey…

International Journal of Instruction, July 2011 ● Vol.4, No.2

Yıldırım (2003) analyzes the attitudes and practices of Turkish teachers with

regard to instructional planning and further concludes that external factors have

played vital roles in the decisions with respect to the teaching activities.

Curriculum programs and textbooks appear to be the most influential tools in

the process of instructional planning. In other words, the teachers excessively

rely on the curriculum and the textbooks in their teaching activities. The school

administration and the inspectors ask full implementation of the curriculum

programs by the teachers. In short, the teachers have little autonomy in the

determination of the content of the teaching activities. In cases where the

curriculum falls short to meet the demands, interests and needs of the students,

the teachers have difficulties to run their teaching activities in accordance with

the class reality:

[…] the most common problem mentioned by the teachers was the

difficulty they experienced in bridging the gap between the

requirements of the national curriculum and the realities of the

classroom. They stated that certain units in the national curriculum may

not be in line with students’ background, needs and interests; as a result,

what they planned in units may not be achieved fully during instruction.

Teachers mentioned that principals and inspectors often would like to

see that unit plans reflected the national curriculum as much as possible,

resulting a dilemma for teachers in preparing unit plans. (Yıldırım,

2003:533)

Current researches confirm that the teachers are mostly complainant about the

intense content of the curriculum programs (Can, 2009). This situation points to

two different outcomes: that the contents of the programs are very detailed and

intense; for this reason, the teachers do not have flexibility to regulate the

contents of the programs in accordance with the special needs and

circumstances of the class. Secondly, the teachers feel that they are obligated to

follow the programs through the end of the year and leave any uncovered

subject included in the program.

This structure of the educational system effect naturally the teachers’ attitudes

and practices in regards to curriculum development and planning. Can (2009)

shows that, in Turkey most teachers hold that they have not the curriculum

development task, as the programs are developed by the National Ministry of

Education.

Öztürk 119

International Journal of Instruction, July 2011 ● Vol.4, No.2

METHOD

The recent curriculum reform emerged as an ambitious initiative to resolve the

issue of poor quality in educational system in Turkey. The best way to address

this challenge is proper diagnosis of the fundamental problems and introduction

of adequate resolutions to cope with these problems. To this end, the lack of

teacher autonomy is an issue that needs to be carefully considered.

The curriculum reform’s goals require undoubtedly a greater involvement of the

teachers in the process of teaching development. To this end, the teachers need

more autonomy and freedom for adapting their lessons to the needs, interests

and demands of their students. But the low degree of autonomy allowed to

teachers in their professional activities is one of the longstanding features of the

Turkish educational system. It’s clear that this incompatibility between the

goals of the curriculum reform and the structure of the educational system

where the Ministry exercises a strict control over the school curriculum is one

of the biggest challenges for the Turkish policy makers.

This study aims to analyze, through the new secondary history curriculum,

whether and how the program makers deal with this crucial problem. Therefore,

we intend to observe how the structure that gives the priority to curriculum

control evolves in the new curriculum programs. In others words, this article

aims to explore whether the new history curriculum will be able to adequately

address the lack of teacher autonomy that plays a crucial role in teaching

development.

The primary resources of this study are the former and new curriculum

programs of history courses (MoNE, 1981; 1993; 2007; 2008a; 2008b; 2009).

The content of the curriculum programs are analyzed based on qualitative

research designs in line with the goals of the research. The content analysis

focus basically on three different aspects in curriculum programs :

• Place of the teacher autonomy in overall goals and principles of the

programs;

• Sphere of freedom allowed to teachers in the teaching content (subjects)

planning;

Sphere of freedom allowed to teachers in the teaching methods and activities

planning.

120 Curriculum Reform and Teacher Autonomy in Turkey…

International Journal of Instruction, July 2011 ● Vol.4, No.2

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Change and Challenges in History Curriculum

History is not a separate course in elementary school curriculum in Turkey. In

this level, subjects of the history, geography and civic education are taught

together in the course of the Social Studies. Conversely, history is taught

separately in secondary school level. This study analyzes the syllabi of

compulsory history courses in secondary education.

The secondary history curriculum change was started in 2007. Four new history

programs (History for 9th grade, History for 10th grade, History for 11th grade

and Contemporary Turkish and world history) were prepared between 2007 and

2010. The new curriculum programs offer significant changes and innovations

in the teaching of history courses. The program notes that the leading goal of

the change is enhancement of “student-centered learning”. To this end, the

official texts further recall that teaching activities should be carried out with the

understanding that every student is a different and independent individual, and

that different students with diverse background and learning abilities have

different needs and require varying attentions. Under this approach, the history

program urges the teacher to consider diversity in the learning and teaching

methods and employ the proper method that suits to the students (MoNE, 2007;

2008a).

Yet another innovation in the new history curriculum program with respect to

student-centered approach is its emphasis upon active participation and

involvement of the pupils in the teaching activities. In so doing, the drafters of

the program seek to make sure that the students assume active roles in the

learning process (MoNE, 2007). The prevalent method in history classes in

Turkey is traditional narrative method which pays central attention to the

teacher. The new curriculum aims to introduce teaching methods focusing on

student-centered learning activities instead of traditional narrative method.

In parallel to the goal to enhance student-centered learning activities, the

program also offers changes in the methods of student assessment. To this end,

the program makers seek to develop performance-based assessment focusing on

the measurement of the student’s performance in the learning activities and

projects, without complete abandonment of traditional in-class exams. The

program provides detailed explanation on these methods for consideration by

the teachers (MoNE, 2007; 2008a; 2008b; 2009).

Öztürk 121

International Journal of Instruction, July 2011 ● Vol.4, No.2

The new program further put special emphasis upon skills. Traditionally, in

Turkey the history teaching has been based largely on transmission of

information and description of historical events. The new program seeks to

develop a new approach that sets a balance between knowledge and skills.

Skills are divided into two groups in the program as “primary skills” and

“historical thinking skills”. Primary skills include the issues as “critical

thinking”, “research and investigation”, “problem-solving” and “proper usage

of Turkish language”. Historical thinking skills, on the other hand, include the

skills as “thinking chronologically”, “historical interpretation and analysis” and

“research based on historical inquiry” (MoNE, 2007; 2008a).

Teacher Autonomy in New History Curriculum

As noted above, in terms of teacher autonomy, curriculum programs are

analyzed in three different aspects: Overall goals and principles; teaching

content planning; teaching methods and activities planning.

Overall Goals and Principles

Like previous history programs, the introduction part of the new program

provides detailed explanations on overall goals, principles and teaching

approaches; the following parts further classify in units the subjects and

activities that constitute the teaching content. It is observed that introduction

part of the new program is quite larger than that of the previous programs. The

primary reason is its ambition and assertion to offer a radical transformation in

history education. To make sure that this new approach is best elaborated, the

program relies on detailed explanations on the overall goals, approaches,

implementation principles and methods as well as assessment tools and

materials to be used in the measurement of the students’ performance in the

class.

A review focusing on the part where the general principles and approaches over

the history program are explained confirms that the issue of teacher autonomy

has been largely neglected by the program makers. Even though the overall

approaches and principles are broadly explained, the new curriculum program

does not make any clear and obvious reference to the teacher autonomy or to

another concept or approach relating to it (MoNE, 2007; 2008a; 2008b; 2009).

The program puts emphasis on the use of different and efficient methods in the

classroom, asking for teachers’ pursuit of innovative tools to make sure that the

students actively participate in the in-class discussions and debates. It fails,

122 Curriculum Reform and Teacher Autonomy in Turkey…

International Journal of Instruction, July 2011 ● Vol.4, No.2

however, to offer a visible and concrete structure where broad authority and

autonomy will be given to the teachers for planning and implementing of the

teaching contents and activities.

Otherwise, this is not limited to the case of history program. The official texts

detailing the general outlines of the curriculum reforms introduced for the

elementary and secondary education make no specific reference to the

enhancement of teacher autonomy (MoNE, n.d.).

Teaching Content Planning

In regards to the definition of teaching subjects, the program keeps largely the

approach of the previous programs. In Turkey, teaching subjects have been

traditionally drafted in details in the history curriculum. The content description

of the history syllabi was fairly similar to a book’s Table of Contents which

provides all details and sub-themes. Detailed description of the subjects leaves

no room for the teachers to take initiative and responsibility with respect to the

content. This affects not only the teachers but also the authors of the textbooks.

The authors have to observe normally the rules and standards set out by the

MoNE and prepare the textbooks in accordance with the curriculum content.

Because of detailed and comprehensive description of the content in the

program, the contents of different textbooks of a history course become almost

very similar (Kabapınar, 2003; Öztürk, 2009b).

The new program brings some changes to the fore in respect to the definition of

the teaching content. Unlike previous history syllabi (MoNE, 1981; 1993), the

news syllabi (MoNE, 2007; 2008a; 2008b; 2009) do not list the main subjects in

detailed titles. Instead, the units are divided into sub-units and for each sub-unit,

‘acquisitions’, ‘activity examples’ and ‘explanations’ are provided. However,

even though absence of the detailed subjects list represents a positive and

progressive change, the new program still describes teaching content in a

manner widely detailed as ‘acquisitions’, ‘activity examples’ and

‘explanations’. Therefore, this change does not bring a significant effect

regarding the degree of the teacher’s role in planning of the teaching content.

The curriculum program does not make clear the emphasis that teachers have to

follow strictly the recommended teaching subjects. It should be noted that

former programs followed the same path and did not make any obvious

reference to this issue. In practice, however, teachers follow strictly the content

drafted in the curriculum program. In conclusion, regarding the choice and

planning of the teaching subjects, the new history program brings some

Öztürk 123

International Journal of Instruction, July 2011 ● Vol.4, No.2

changes, but it fails to create a greater space of autonomy for the teachers to

take an important role in the curriculum development process.

Teaching Methods and Activities Planning

In regards to the selection and planning of teaching methods and activities, the

situation is not very different. As already noted, the new program offers a new

teaching approach based mainly on student-centered activities. The program

outlines a number of assignments and duties for the teachers in the

implementation of the envisaged works. It puts emphasis on the use of different

and efficient methods in the classroom, asking for teachers’ pursuit of

innovative tools to make sure that the students actively participate in the inclass

activities. But it only briefly touches upon the autonomy that the teachers

need in fulfillment of their duties and assignments. The program makes an

indirect reference to this issue; the relevant part notes that the “sample

activities” given in the program are exemplary and the teachers could

implement them as they are or they could change these activities for greater

efficiency (MoNE, 2007).

A review of the “sample activities” content in program, however, shows that

these “examples” are not serving as guides for teachers to develop teaching

activities; instead, they are determining the core content of the activities. The

program gives the “sample activities” for each teaching subject and the number

of such examples is so large that they constitute the whole content of the history

courses. The syllabi of history courses of the 9th, 10th, 11th and 12th grades

include 74, 165, 138 and 134 “sample activities” respectively (MoNE, 2007;

2008a; 2008b; 2009).

In conclusion, the program is vague and contradictory with respect to the

selection of teaching methods. It could be argued that, compared to teaching

content planning, the new history program provide some autonomy to teachers

in teaching methods and activities planning. It stresses the diversity of teaching

methods as a general principle and, urges the teachers to assume greater roles in

the enhancement of the teaching activities. However, the program does not

explain clearly and explicitly the sphere of authority which teachers have in

selecting and planning of the teaching methods and activities. In others words,

in the new program there are general principles, but there is not a concrete

structure that can empower and encourage teachers to take a further role and

initiative in decision making regarding teaching methods and activities.

124 Curriculum Reform and Teacher Autonomy in Turkey…

International Journal of Instruction, July 2011 ● Vol.4, No.2

Moreover, it leaves little room for the teachers by detailing vastly the “sample

activities” to be employed in the classroom.

Textbooks selection

Selection of course materials is another major point with respect to teacher

autonomy. Textbooks are the basic materials for history teaching in Turkey.

While it is not, in essence, an issue related to curriculum programs, a change

also occurred regarding textbook selection in the same period of the curriculum

change.

Until the 2000s, in Turkey textbooks have been published by private publishing

houses subject to approval by the MoNE; the schools were free to determine the

textbooks they would use in their classes. In addition to private publishers, a

public publishing house affiliated with the MoNE undertook publication of

some textbooks. The textbooks are provided to the students for free by the

government since 2003 in elementary schools and since 2006 in secondary

schools. Nowadays the textbook diversity model remains in effect; however, the

distribution of the textbooks for free has created serious problems regarding

textbook diversity. Because of this practice, the number of the textbooks

published by the private publishers has considerably decreased (ERG, 2008).

This problem is more visible in secondary education. In recent years, the

textbooks for most of the school disciplines in this level are published only by

the MoNE’s publishing house. This was also the case with the history courses.

Even though there was formerly diversity, after the curriculum reform (2007)

the new history textbooks for the 9th, 10th and 12th grades were prepared only by

MoNE’s publishing house. Use of a single textbook for history courses presents

serious problems from the many aspects. With respect to teacher autonomy,

lack of the possibility for the teachers to choose the main course material poses

a great problem.

CONCLUSION

The new curriculum program seeks to introduce a number of innovative

approaches and methods in an attempt to improve the history education. The

program, however, pays little attention to teacher autonomy, a key component

that is essential to make sure that the goals of the curriculum reform are

fulfilled. It reserves little room for the teachers in the selection and planning of

the teaching content, methods and materials. Actually, it could be argued that,

compared to the former history programs, the new one introduces some limited

progress with regard to teacher’s roles in curriculum planning. Considering the

Öztürk 125

International Journal of Instruction, July 2011 ● Vol.4, No.2

ambitious goals of the curriculum reform, however, this is insufficient progress.

It could be concluded that the improvement of teacher autonomy is not one of

the explicit and prior objectives of the curriculum reform. Consequently the

new history program fails to construct a new framework that can allow and

encourage teachers to assume a greater role in the development of teaching. It is

obvious that the lack of teacher autonomy still remains as a grave problem in

the new history curriculum.

Actually, the implementation of general goals presented by the new school

curriculum require enhancement of teacher autonomy. The reformist discourse

states that one of the primary goals of the curriculum reform is to introduce a

new method of teaching focusing on the needs, interests and demands of the

students and considering their diversities. This can be done by encouraging and

allowing teachers to take initiative in curriculum development. The number one

condition of this is to make sure that they have a broad sphere of power and

autonomy where they are allowed picking and planning the course content,

methods and materials. This incompatibility between the goals of the

curriculum reform and the reality of the new programs reveal the difficulty to

change the long-established conception and structure of the Turkish educational

system where the Ministry exercises a strict control over the school curriculum.

It appears not easy to transform this structure which has existed over decades.

Teacher autonomy is one core issue that needs to be addressed in order to

adequately deal with the current educational problems in Turkey. In a reform

initiative failing to consider this issue, the principles such as the studentcentered

teaching will remain inevitably unfulfilled. In order to overcome this

problem, the teachers as well as the school institutions should be empowered

with regard to decision making over the school curriculum and its

implementation.

126 Curriculum Reform and Teacher Autonomy in Turkey…

International Journal of Instruction, July 2011 ● Vol.4, No.2

REFERENCES

Anderson, L. W. (1987). The Decline of Teacher Autonomy: Tears or Cheers?

International Review of Education, 33(3), 357-373.

Akşit, N. (2007). Educational reform in Turkey. International Journal of

Educational Development, 27, 129–137.

Bulut, M. (2007). Curriculum reform in Turkey: A case of primary school

mathematics curriculum. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science &

Technology Education, 3(3), 203-212.

Bustingorry, S. O. (2008). Towards teachers’ professional autonomy through

action research. Educational Action Research, 16(3), 407-420.

Can, N. (2009). The leadership behaviors of teachers in primary schools in

Turkey. Education, 129(3), 436-447.

Castle, K. (2004). The meaning of autonomy in early childhood teacher

education. Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education, 25(1), 3 -10.

Eğitim Reformu Girişimi - ERG (2005). Öğretim Programları İnceleme ve

Değerlendirme -1 [Education programs review and evaluation - 1]. Retrieved

April 24, 2009, from http://ipc.sabanciuniv.edu/tr/Yayinlar/OgretimOzet.pdf

Eğitim Reformu Girişimi - ERG, (2008). Eğitim İzleme Raporu 2007

[Education watch report 2007]. Retrieved April 24, 2009, from

http://ipc.sabanciuniv.edu/tr/Yayinlar/EgitimIzlemeRaporu2007.pdf

European Trade Union Committee For Education - ETUCE (2008). Teacher

education in Europe. An ETUCE policy paper. Retrieved September 24, 2009,

from http://etuce.homestead.com/Publications2008/ETUCE_PolicyPaper_en_web.pdf

Friedman, I. A. (1999). Teacher-Perceived work autonomy: The concept and its

measurement. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 59(1), 58-76.

Ingersoll, R. M. (2007). Short on power long on responsibility. Educational

Leadership, 65(1), 20-25.

Kabapınar, Y. (2003). Türkiye’de Sosyal Bilgiler ve Tarih Ders Kitabı Yazarı

Olmak. [Being an author of social sciences and history textbook in Turkey]

Toplumsal Tarih, 109, 10-19.

Öztürk 127

International Journal of Instruction, July 2011 ● Vol.4, No.2

Kırkgöz, Y. (2008). Curriculum innovation in Turkish primary education. Asia-

Pacific Journal of Teacher Education. 36(4), 309–322.

Korkmaz, I. (2008). Evaluation of teachers for restructured elementary

curriculum (Grades 1 to 5). Education, 129(2), 250-258.

Ministry of National Education - MoNE (1981). Türkiye Cumhuriyeti İnkılap

Tarihi dersi müfredat programı. [Curriculum program of history of Turkish

revolution]. Tebliğler Dergisi, n° 2087.

Ministry of National Education - MoNE (1993). Tarih 1-2 Programları.

[Programs of history courses 1-2]. Tebliğler Dergisi, n° 2375.

Ministry of National Education - MoNE (2007). Ortaöğretim 9. Sınıf Tarih

Dersi Programı. [History program for secondary education 9th grade]. Retrieved

April 24, 2009, from http://ttkb.meb.gov.tr/ogretmen/index.php

Ministry of National Education - MoNE (2008a). Ortaöğretim 10. Sınıf Tarih

Dersi Programı. [History program for secondary education 10th grade].

Retrieved April 24, 2009, from http://ttkb.meb.gov.tr/ogretmen/index.php

Ministry of National Education - MoNE (2008b). Ortaöğretim Çağdaş Türk ve

Dünya Tarihi Dersi Öğretim Programı [Program of contemporary Turkish and

world history for secondary education]. Retrieved April 24, 2009, from

http://ttkb.meb.gov.tr/ogretmen/index.php

Ministry of National Education - MoNE (2009). Ortaöğretim 11. Sınıf Tarih

Dersi Programı. [History program for secondary education 11th grade].

Retrieved April 24, 2009, from http://ttkb.meb.gov.tr/ogretmen/index.php

Ministry of National Education - MoNE (n.d.-no date). Talim Terbiye Kurulu

Program Geliştirme Çalışmaları [Curriculum development works of Instruction

and Education Commission]. Retrieved April 24, 2009, from

http://ttkb.meb.gov.tr/programlar/prog_giris/prg_giris.pdf

Öztürk, İ. H. (2009a). Ortaöğretim Tarih Ders Kitaplarında Öğretim Yöntemi

Sorunları ve Yeni Tarih Programları [Problems with regard to educational

methods in secondary school history textbooks and the new history curricula]

Çağdaş Eğitim Dergisi, 34(363), 8-17.

Öztürk, İ. H. (2009b). Ortaöğretim Tarih Ders Kitaplarında Özgünlük Sorunu

[Problem of lack of originality in secondary school history textbooks]. Paper

128 Curriculum Reform and Teacher Autonomy in Turkey…

International Journal of Instruction, July 2011 ● Vol.4, No.2

presented at 4th Social Sciences Education Congress, 7-9 October 2009,

Istanbul.

Pearson L. C. & Hall B. W. (1993), Initial construct validation of the teaching

autonomy scale, Journal of Educational Research, 86(3), 172-177.

Pearson L. C. & Moomaw W. (2006), Continuing validation of the teaching

autonomy scale. The Journal of Educational Research, 100(1), 44-51.

Short, P. M. (1994). Defining teacher empowerment. Education, 114(4), 488-

492.

Steh, B. & Pozarnik B. M. (2005), Teachers’ perception of their professional

autonomy in the environment of systemic change. In D. Beijaard et al. (Eds.)

Teacher professional development in changing conditions (349-363),

Dordrecht: Springer.

Uygun, S. (2008). The impact of John Dewey on the teacher education system

in Turkey. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 36(4), 291-307.

Vorkink, A. (2006). Education reform and employment: Remarks delivered at

Istanbul Chamber of Commerce. Retrieved September 08, 2009, from

http://go.worldbank.org/TPKEOECXI0

Webb, P. T. (2002) Teacher power: The exercise of professional autonomy in

an era of strict accountability. Teacher Development, 6(1), 47-62.

White P. A. (1992). Teacher empowerment under "ideal" school-site autonomy.

Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 14(1), 69-82.

Yıldırım, A. (2003). Instructional planning in a centralized school system:

Lessons of a study among primary school teachers in Turkey. International

Review of Education, 49(5), 525-543.