Teachers’ instructional planning as a cognitive and deliberative practice: A systematic review of research (2005–2025).

Özlem Tokgöz

doi:10.31704/ijocis.1918818

Teachers’ instructional planning as a cognitive and deliberative practice: A systematic review of research (2005–2025).

Abstract

Instructional planning is a central but theoretically dispersed domain of teacher education research. This systematic review synthesizes empirical evidence on instructional planning published between 2005 and 2025, examining the field through the dual lens of teacher cognition and curriculum deliberation. Guided by the PRISMA 2020 statement and a theory-driven design, the review addresses three research questions concerning theoretical traditions, methodological approaches, and knowledge claims characterizing the field. 43 empirical studies were identified across five electronic databases following a staged screening process applied to 987 initially retrieved records. Each included study was coded against the seven constructs of the Teacher Thinking–Instructional Planning (TTIP) Framework. The findings point to three key patterns. First, the field is organized around a strong but relatively narrow cognition-and-decision core, with instructional decision-making (67.4%) and pedagogical reasoning (58.1%) dominating empirical attention. Second, motivational and deliberative dimensions receive limited attention, with motivational orientations (23.3%) and teacher beliefs as a primary focus (4.7%) appearing in relatively few studies. Third, the literature is largely descriptive, with 74.5% of studies producing descriptive or explanatory claims and fewer offering developmental or evaluative evidence. The evidence reviewed here positions instructional planning as a cognitively demanding, deliberative, and contextually shaped professional practice. It cannot be reduced to procedural skill. The TTIP Framework is proposed as an integrated conceptual platform for building more cumulative and explanatory research.

Keywords

Supporting Institution

N/A

Ethical Statement

N/A

Thanks

Since this study is a systematic review based on published studies, it does not involve human participants and therefore does not require ethics committee approval. As the submission system requires a document to be uploaded in the ethics section, the title page has been provided for technical purposes only.

References

Aguas, P. P. (2020). Key stakeholders’ lived experiences while implementing an aligned curriculum: A phenomenological study. The Qualitative Report, 25(10), 3459–3485. https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2020.4237
Arksey, H., & O’Malley, L. (2005). Scoping studies: Towards a methodological framework. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 8(1), 19–32. https://doi.org/10.1080/1364557032000119616
Aydın-Ceran, S., & Ergül, E. (2022). Designing a science lesson: Developing pre-service teachers’ lesson planning skills based on real-life context-based approach. Language Teaching and Educational Research, 5(2), 142–165. https://doi.org/10.35207/later.1195137
Backfisch, I., Lachner, A., Hische, C., Loose, F., & Scheiter, K. (2020). Professional knowledge or motivation? Investigating the role of teachers’ expertise on technology-enhanced lesson plan quality. Learning and Instruction, 66, 101300. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2019.101300
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. Freeman. Beckmann, T., & Ehmke, T. (2023). Informal and formal lesson planning in school internships. Teaching and Teacher Education, 132, 104249. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2023.104249
Ben-Peretz, M. (1990). The teacher-curriculum encounter: Freeing teachers from the tyranny of texts. SUNY Press.
Bieda, K. N., Cavanna, J. M., Ji, X., & Quander, J. R. (2020). A large-scale study of how districts’ curriculum policies shape teachers’ mathematics lesson planning. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 52(6), 774–799. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220272.2020.1754921
Borg, S. (2003). Teacher cognition in language teaching: A review of research on what language teachers think, know, believe, and do. Language Teaching, 36(2), 81–109. https://doi.org/10.1017/S026144480200005X

Borg, S. (2006). Teacher cognition and language education: Research and practice. Continuum.
Borko, H., & Livingston, C. (1989). Cognition and improvisation: Differences in mathematics instruction by expert and novice teachers. American Educational Research Journal, 26(4), 473–498. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312026004473
Bouguerba, T. (2025). The interplay of context-practice in intercultural education: Insights from Moroccan EFL classrooms. Journal of English Language Teaching and Applied Linguistics, 7(2), 159–176. https://doi.org/10.32996/jeltal.2025.7.2.17
Cevikbas, M., König, J., & Rothland, M. (2024). Empirical research on teacher competence in mathematics lesson planning. ZDM Mathematics Education, 56, 101–113. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-023-01487-2
Cherbow, K., & McNeill, K. L. (2022). Planning for student-driven discussions: A revelatory case of curricular sensemaking for epistemic agency. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 31(3), 408–457. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2021.2024433
Clark, C. M., & Peterson, P. L. (1986). Teachers’ thought processes. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed., pp. 255–296). Macmillan.
Clark, C. M., & Yinger, R. J. (1977). Research on teacher thinking. Curriculum Inquiry, 7(4), 279–304. https://doi.org/10.1080/03626784.1977.11075516
Contreras, J., Yáñez, S., & Villalón, R. (2020). Examining differences between pre- and in-service teachers’ cognition when lesson planning. System, 91, 102240. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2020.102240
Dasas, L. B. (2021). Looking at curriculum implementation from an actor-oriented lens: The case of a Filipino K-12 school. International Journal of Research Studies in Education, 10(15), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.5861/ijrse.2021.a078
Dixon-Woods, M., Agarwal, S., Jones, D., Young, B., & Sutton, A. (2006). Synthesising qualitative and quantitative evidence: A review of possible methods. Journal of Health Services Research & Policy, 10(1), 45–53. https://doi.org/10.1258/1355819054308576
Fives, H., & Buehl, M. (2012). Spring cleaning for the “messy” construct of teachers’ beliefs: What are they? Which have been examined? What can they tell us? In K. R. Harris, S. Graham, & T. Urdan (Eds.), APA educational psychology handbook: Vol. 2. Individual differences and cultural and contextual factors (pp. 471–499). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/13274-019
Geçici, F. (2023). Türkçe öğretmeni adaylarının yazma becerisine yönelik hazırladıkları ders planlarının ders işleme süreci açısından incelenmesi. Ana Dili Eğitimi Dergisi, 11(1), 47–63. https://doi.org/10.16916/aded.1156637
Goh, R., & Fang, Y. (2023). A tale of two schools: Curriculum deliberation and school-level orientation in transforming knowledge through lesson study. International Journal for Lesson and Learning Studies, 12(2), 166–178. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJLLS-02-2022-0026
Grossman, P. (1990). The making of a teacher: Teacher knowledge and teacher education. Teachers College Press.
Gülten, A. Z. (2013). Am I planning well? Teacher trainees’ voices on lesson planning. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 93, 1409–1413. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.10.053
Hall, T. J., & Smith, M. A. (2006). Teacher planning, instruction and reflection: What we know about teacher cognitive processes. Quest, 58(4), 424–442. https://doi.org/10.1080/00336297.2006.10491892
Hatch, L., & Clark, S. K. (2021). A study of the instructional decisions and lesson planning strategies of highly effective rural elementary school teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 108, 103505. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2021.103505
Hong, Q. N., Pluye, P., Fàbregues, S., Bartlett, G., Boardman, F., Cargo, M., Dagenais, P., Gagnon, M.-P., Griffiths, F., Nicolau, B., O’Cathain, A., Rousseau, M.-C., & Vedel, I. (2018). The Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) version 2018 for information professionals and researchers. Education for Information, 34(4), 285–291. https://doi.org/10.3233/EFI-180221
John, P. D. (2006). Lesson planning and the student teacher: Rethinking the dominant model. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 38(4), 483–498. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220270500363620
Kablan, Z. (2012). Öğretmen adaylarının ders planı hazırlama ve uygulama becerilerine bilişsel öğrenme ve somut yaşantı düzeylerinin etkisi. Eğitim ve Bilim, 37(163), 239–253.
Kang, H. (2017). Preservice teachers’ learning to plan intellectually challenging tasks. Journal of Teacher Education, 68(1), 55–68. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487116676313
Karabay, A. (2013). Eleştirel okuma-yazma eğitimi programının Türkçe öğretmeni adaylarının Türkçe dersini planlama ve uygulama sürecine etkisi. Turkish Studies, 8(8), 745–759. https://doi.org/10.7827/TurkishStudies.4977
Karlström, M., & Hamza, K. (2021). How do we teach planning to pre-service teachers – A tentative model? Journal of Science Teacher Education, 32(6), 664–685. https://doi.org/10.1080/1046560X.2021.1875163
Kohler, F. W., Henning, J. E., & Usma-Wilches, J. (2008). Preparing preservice teachers to make instructional decisions. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24(8), 2108–2117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2008.04.002
König, J., Bremerich-Vos, A., Buchholtz, C., & Glutsch, N. (2020). General pedagogical knowledge and pedagogical adaptivity in written lesson plans. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 52(6), 800–815. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220272.2020.1752804
König, J., Heine, S., Jäger-Biela, D., & Rothland, M. (2024). ICT integration in teachers’ lesson plans. European Journal of Teacher Education, 47(4), 821–849. https://doi.org/10.1080/02619768.2022.2138323
König, J., Krepf, M., Bremerich-Vos, A., & Buchholtz, C. (2021). Meeting cognitive demands of lesson planning: The CODE-PLAN model. The Teacher Educator, 56(4), 466–487. https://doi.org/10.1080/08878730.2021.1938324
Koni, I., & Krull, E. (2018). Differences in novice and experienced teachers’ perceptions of planning activities in terms of primary instructional tasks. Teacher Development, 22(4), 464–480. https://doi.org/10.1080/13664530.2018.1442876
Krepf, M., & König, J. (2023). Structuring the lesson: Preservice teacher decision-making during planning. Journal of Education for Teaching, 49(5), 911–926. https://doi.org/10.1080/02607476.2022.2151877
Li, W., & Zou, W. (2017). A study of EFL teacher expertise in lesson planning. Teaching and Teacher Education, 66, 231–241. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2017.04.015
Liberati, A., Altman, D. G., Tetzlaff, J., Mulrow, C., Gøtzsche, P. C., Ioannidis, J. P. A., Clarke, M., Devereaux, P. J., Kleijnen, J., & Moher, D. (2009). The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: Explanation and elaboration. PLoS Medicine, 6(7), e1000100. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000100
Lim, W., Son, J.-W., & Kim, D.-J. (2018). Understanding preservice teacher skills to construct lesson plans. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 16, 519–538. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-016-9783-1
Lui, A. M., & Bonner, S. M. (2016). Preservice and inservice teachers' knowledge, beliefs, and instructional planning in primary school mathematics. Teaching and Teacher Education, 56, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2016.01.015
McCutcheon, G. (1980). How do elementary school teachers plan? The nature of planning and influences on it. Elementary School Journal, 81(1), 4–23. https://doi.org/10.1086/461237
Molina, S. C. (2019). Mediating teacher candidate sense of agency in response to policy and curricula planning in a community-based adult English language program. In G. P. Glasgow & J. Bouchard (Eds.), Researching agency in language policy and planning (pp. 120–138). Routledge.
Morady Moghaddam, M., & Parsaiyan, S. F. (2025). The mediational role of ‘teacher guides’ in TESOL: Teachers’ reported practices on scaffolding, appropriation, and self-regulation. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 38(2), 131–157. https://doi.org/10.1080/07908318.2024.2423757
Nagamine, T. (2025). Building teacher agency through collaborative lesson planning: Student teachers’ evaluative perspectives. Studies in English Language and Education, 12(2), 542–559. https://doi.org/10.24815/siele.v12i2.42271
Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., Shamseer, L., Tetzlaff, J. M., Akl, E. A., Brennan, S. E., Chou, R., Glanville, J., Grimshaw, J. M., Hróbjártsson, A., Lalu, M. M., Li, T., Loder, E. W., Mayo-Wilson, E., McDonald, S., … Moher, D. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ, 372, n71. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71
Pajares, M. F. (1992). Teachers’ beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up a messy construct. Review of Educational Research, 62(3), 307–332. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543062003307
Penuel, W. R., McWilliams, H., McAuliffe, C., Benbow, A. E., Mably, C., & Hayden, M. (2009). Teaching for understanding in Earth science: Comparing impacts on planning and instruction in three professional development designs for middle school science teachers. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 20(5), 415–436. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-008-9120-9
Popay, J., Roberts, H., Sowden, A., Petticrew, M., Arai, L., Rodgers, M., Britten, N., Roen, K., & Duffy, S. (2006). Guidance on the conduct of narrative synthesis in systematic reviews: A product from the ESRC methods programme. Lanchester University.
Poulton, P. (2020). Teacher agency in curriculum reform: The role of assessment in enabling and constraining primary teachers’ agency. Curriculum Perspectives, 40(1), 35–48. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41297-020-00100-w
Priestley, M., Biesta, G., & Robinson, S. (2015). Teacher agency: An ecological approach. Bloomsbury Academic.
Remillard, J. T. (2005). Examining key concepts in research on teachers’ use of mathematics curricula. Review of Educational Research, 75(2), 211–246. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543075002211
Sawyer, A. G., Watson, A., & Berson, M. J. (2020). Developing teachers as critical curators: Preservice teachers’ inspirations for lesson planning. Journal of Teacher Education, 71(5), 518–536. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487119879894
Schwab, J. J. (1969). The practical: A language for curriculum. School Review, 78(1), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1086/442881
Severance, S., Penuel, W. R., Sumner, T., & Leary, H. (2016). Organizing for teacher agency in curricular co-design. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 25(4), 531–564. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2016.1207541
Shavelson, R. J., & Stern, P. (1981). Research on teachers’ pedagogical thoughts, judgments, decisions, and behavior. Review of Educational Research, 51(4), 455–498. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543051004455
Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4–14. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X015002004
Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.57.1.j463w79r56455411
Şahin-Taşkın, Ç. (2017). Exploring pre-service teachers’ perceptions of lesson planning in primary education. Journal of Education and Practice, 8(12), 57–63.
Thomas, J., & Harden, A. (2008). Methods for the thematic synthesis of qualitative research in systematic reviews. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 8(1), 45. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-8-45
Tschannen-Moran, M., & Woolfolk Hoy, A. (2001). Teacher efficacy: Capturing an elusive construct. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17(7), 783–805. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0742-051X(01)00036-1
Ulusoy, F., & İncikabı, L. (2022). Preservice mathematics teachers’ selection of curriculum resources in individual and group lesson planning. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 53(8), 2040–2058. https://doi.org/10.1080/0020739X.2021.1958944
Valdez, P. N., Lapinid, M. R. C., & Chua, V. C. G. (2024). Agency at work: A metaphor analysis of lesson planning among English language teachers in the Philippines. TEFLIN Journal, 35(2), 352–369. https://doi.org/10.15639/teflinjournal.v35i2/352-369
Voogt, J., Westbroek, H., Handelzalts, A., Walraven, A., McKenney, S., Pieters, J., & De Vries, B. (2011). Teacher learning in collaborative curriculum design. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27(8), 1235–1244. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2011.07.003
Walker, D. F. (1971). A naturalistic model for curriculum development. School Review, 80(1), 51–65. https://doi.org/10.1086/442926
Wallace, C. S., & Priestley, M. (2017). Secondary science teachers as curriculum makers: Mapping and designing Scotland’s new Curriculum for Excellence. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 54(3), 324–349. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21346
Westerman, D. A. (1991). Expert and novice teacher decision making. Journal of Teacher Education, 42(4), 292–305. https://doi.org/10.1177/002248719104200407
Xu, H., & Wilkins, C. (2025). Cognitive dynamics in teacher knowledge development through lesson study: Insights from two Chinese teams. Cogent Education, 12(1), Article 2476289. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2025.2476289
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. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1026361208399
Yinger, R. J. (1980). A study of teacher planning. Elementary School Journal, 80(3), 107–127. https://doi.org/10.1086/4611

Details

Primary Language

English

Subjects

Curriculum and Instration (Other)

Journal Section

Systematic Reviews and Meta Analysis

Authors

Özlem Tokgöz ^*
0000-0002-7916-2277
Türkiye

Publication Date

June 30, 2026

Submission Date

March 30, 2026

Acceptance Date

June 14, 2026

Published in Issue

Year 2026 Volume: 16 Number: 1

DOI

https://doi.org/10.31704/ijocis.1918818

IZ

https://izlik.org/JA64MJ33BL

Cite

RIS / Bibtex

APA

Tokgöz, Ö. (2026). Teachers’ instructional planning as a cognitive and deliberative practice: A systematic review of research (2005–2025). International Journal of Curriculum and Instructional Studies, 16(1), 1-31. https://doi.org/10.31704/ijocis.1918818

AMA

1.Tokgöz Ö. Teachers’ instructional planning as a cognitive and deliberative practice: A systematic review of research (2005–2025). IJOCIS. 2026;16(1):1-31. doi:10.31704/ijocis.1918818

Chicago

Tokgöz, Özlem. 2026. “Teachers’ Instructional Planning As a Cognitive and Deliberative Practice: A Systematic Review of Research (2005–2025)”. International Journal of Curriculum and Instructional Studies 16 (1): 1-31. https://doi.org/10.31704/ijocis.1918818.

EndNote

Tokgöz Ö (June 1, 2026) Teachers’ instructional planning as a cognitive and deliberative practice: A systematic review of research (2005–2025). International Journal of Curriculum and Instructional Studies 16 1 1–31.

IEEE

[1]Ö. Tokgöz, “Teachers’ instructional planning as a cognitive and deliberative practice: A systematic review of research (2005–2025)”., IJOCIS, vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 1–31, June 2026, doi: 10.31704/ijocis.1918818.

ISNAD

Tokgöz, Özlem. “Teachers’ Instructional Planning As a Cognitive and Deliberative Practice: A Systematic Review of Research (2005–2025)”. International Journal of Curriculum and Instructional Studies 16/1 (June 1, 2026): 1-31. https://doi.org/10.31704/ijocis.1918818.

JAMA

1.Tokgöz Ö. Teachers’ instructional planning as a cognitive and deliberative practice: A systematic review of research (2005–2025). IJOCIS. 2026;16:1–31.

MLA

Tokgöz, Özlem. “Teachers’ Instructional Planning As a Cognitive and Deliberative Practice: A Systematic Review of Research (2005–2025)”. International Journal of Curriculum and Instructional Studies, vol. 16, no. 1, June 2026, pp. 1-31, doi:10.31704/ijocis.1918818.

Vancouver

1.Özlem Tokgöz. Teachers’ instructional planning as a cognitive and deliberative practice: A systematic review of research (2005–2025). IJOCIS. 2026 Jun. 1;16(1):1-31. doi:10.31704/ijocis.1918818