Theoretical analysis and evaluation of music teacher training programs in Turkey and Kazakhstan within the framework of the Posner model

Abstract

The aim of this research is to comparatively examine the undergraduate music teacher training programs conducted at Gazi University (GU) in Turkey and South Kazakhstan State Pedagogical University (SKSPU) in Kazakhstan using the Posner analysis model. The research is structured around the mission and vision, objectives, content, subject sequencing, teaching processes, and evaluation dimensions of the programs. A qualitative research approach was adopted in the study; the document analysis method was used within the comparative education design. Data were obtained from the official program documents of both universities. Evaluated across Posner’s five analytical dimensions, the findings reveal the following contrasts: In terms of mission-vision and objectives, the GU program prioritizes the transmission of national musical heritage and a performer-educator identity, while the SKSPU program adopts goals of inclusivity, trilingual education, and international competency. With regard to content organization, GU offers genre-based disciplinary depth, whereas SKSPU employs a modular, technology-oriented structure. Concerning teaching-learning processes, GU maintains a traditional, performance-based model, while SKSPU foregrounds active learning, project-based work, and digital learning environments. In the assessment dimension, GU reflects an examination-based, outcome-oriented approach, whereas SKSPU employs multi-dimensional instruments encompassing rubrics, process evaluation, and capstone projects. These findings demonstrate that GU prioritizes cultural continuity and performance competence while SKSPU emphasizes digital transformation and contemporary teacher competencies, revealing that the two institutions embody structurally divergent yet complementary pedagogical orientations.

Keywords

• music education
• music education programs
• comparative education
• Posner model
• Kazakhstan

Supporting Institution

The authors declare that this study did not receive any funding.

Ethical Statement

Since this research did not use human, animal, or sensitive data, ethical committee approval is not required.

Thanks

We would like to express our gratitude to Aiman Musa, a faculty member of the Music Education Department at South Kazakhstan State Pedagogical University.

Türkiye-Kazakistan müzik öğretmenliği öğretim programlarının Posner modeli çerçevesinde kuramsal analizi ve değerlendirilmesi

Abstract

Bu araştırmanın amacı, Türkiye’de Gazi Üniversitesi (GÜ) ile Kazakistan’da Güney Kazakistan Devlet Pedagoji Üniversitesi (GKDPÜ) bünyesinde yürütülen müzik öğretmenliği lisans programlarını Posner analiz modeline göre karşılaştırmalı olarak incelemektir. Araştırma, programların misyon–vizyon, amaçlar, içerik, konu sıralaması, öğretim süreçleri ve değerlendirme boyutları çerçevesinde yapılandırılmıştır. Çalışmada nitel araştırma yaklaşımı benimsenmiş; karşılaştırmalı eğitim deseni kapsamında doküman analizi yöntemi kullanılmıştır. Veriler, her iki üniversiteye ait resmî program dokümanlarından elde edilmiştir. Bulgular, Posner’ın beş analiz boyutu çerçevesinde değerlendirildiğinde şu karşıtlıkları ortaya koymaktadır: Misyon-vizyon ve amaçlar açısından GÜ programı ulusal müzik mirasının aktarımını ve icracı-eğitimci kimliğini öncelerken, GKDPÜ programı kapsayıcılık, üç dilli eğitim ve uluslararası yetkinlik hedeflerini benimsemektedir. İçerik düzenlemesi bakımından GÜ tür temelli bir alan derinliği sunarken GKDPÜ modüler ve teknoloji odaklı bir yapıyı tercih etmektedir. Öğretim süreçleri açısından GÜ geleneksel, performans temelli bir modeli sürdürürken GKDPÜ aktif öğrenme, proje temelli çalışma ve dijital öğrenme ortamlarını ön plana çıkarmaktadır. Ölçme-değerlendirme boyutunda GÜ sınav temelli, sonuç odaklı bir anlayış sergilerken GKDPÜ rubrik, süreç değerlendirmesi ve bitirme çalışmasını kapsayan çok boyutlu araçlara başvurmaktadır. Bu bulgular, GÜ’nün kültürel süreklilik ve icra yeterliliğini, GKDPÜ’nün ise dijital dönüşüm ve çağdaş öğretmen yeterliklerini öncelediğini; iki kurumun yapısal olarak ayrışan ancak birbirini tamamlayan pedagojik anlayışlar sergilediğini ortaya koymaktadır.

Keywords

• müzik eğitimi
• müzik öğretmenliği programları
• karşılaştırmalı eğitim
• Posner modeli
• Kazakistan

Supporting Institution

Yazarlar, çalışmanın herhangi bir finansman almadığını beyan ederler

Ethical Statement

Bu araştırmada insan, hayvan ve hassas veriler kullanılmadığı için etik kurul onayı gerekmemektedir.

Thanks

Güney Kazakistan Devlet Pedagoji Üniversitesi Müzik Eğitimi Bölümü Öğretim Üyelerinden Aiman Musa’ya teşekkürü bir borç biliriz.

References

1. Aba, D. (20132). Internationalization of higher education and student mobility in Europe and the case of Turkey. Çukurova University Faculty of Education Journal, 42(2), 99-110. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/download/article-file/46515
2. Abdul Jabbar, S. (2012). Japanese language teaching in Malaysia and New Zealand: Recent history, current practice and curriculum [Master’s thesis, University of Waikato]. Research Commons. https://hdl.handle.net/10289/6637
3. Аkhmetova, T. Sh. (2023). Methodological commonality of the standards of general and higher education in terms of requirements for learning outcomes as a guideline for improving the training of a future music teacher (on the example of the discipline «Basic musical instrument»). Bulletin of the Karaganda University Pedagogy Series, 111(3), 107-116. https://doi.org/10.31489/2023ped3/107-116
4. Aksoy, V. (2020). Müzi̇k eği̇ti̇mi̇ ana bi̇li̇m dallarinda popüler müzi̇k eği̇ti̇mi̇. İnsan ve Toplum Bilimleri Araştırmaları Dergisi, 9(3), 2100-2125. https://doi.org/10.47479/IHEAD.768028
5. Alkaç, G., Kılıç, İ. ve Korkmaz, M. (2017). Yükseköğreti̇m kurumlarındaki̇ Türk müzi̇ği̇ çalgı eği̇ti̇mi̇ne kanun ve klasi̇k kemençe örneklemi̇ i̇le genel bi̇r bakış. e-Journal of New World Sciences Academy, 12(1), 1-19. https://doi.org/10.12739/NWSA.2017.12.1.D0186
6. Armstrong, D., Gosling, A., Weinman, J. ve Marteau, T. (1997). The place of inter-rater reliability in qualitative research: An empirical study. Sociology, 31(3), 597-606. https://doi.org/10.1177/0038038597031003015
7. Arta, B., Kholis, A., Rahayu, R., Azmi, U. ve Lisan, K. H. (2023). Looking for insights: A comparison of secondary education English curricula in Indonesia and Estonia. Journal of Advanced Multidisciplinary Research, 4(2), 76-89. https://doi.org/10.30659/JAMR.4.2.76-89
8. Baltiyeva, R., Ibraimova, A., Amangeldi, A. ve Kaumetova, D. (2025). Comparative analysis of professional training systems for musician-pedagogues in European countries and Kazakhstan. Yegah Müzikoloji Dergisi, 8(4), 3520-3547. https://doi.org/10.51576/ymd.1794140

9. Bennett, D. ve Hennekam, A. (Ed.). (2021). Higher music education and employability in a neoliberal world. Bloomsbury Academic. https://doi.org/10.5040/9781350266995
10. Bereday, G. Z. F. (1964). Comparative method in education. Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
11. Birt, L., Scott, S., Cavers, D., Campbell, C. ve Walter, F. (2016). Member checking: A tool to enhance trustworthiness or merely a nod to validation? Qualitative Health Research, 26(13), 1802-1811. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732316654870
12. Black, P. ve Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 5(1), 7-74. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969595980050102
13. Bray, M. ve Thomas, R. M. (1995). Levels of comparison in educational studies. Harvard Educational Review, 65(3), 472-490. https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.65.3.g3228437224v4877
14. Brinkman, D. J. (2010). Teaching creatively and teaching for creativity. Arts Education Policy Review, 111(2), 48-50. https://doi.org/10.1080/10632910903455785
15. Busse, V. (2011). CLIL: Content and Language Integrated Learning. System, 39(1), 123-125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2011.01.001
16. Byeon, D. (2025). Comparative study of vocal pedagogy systems in South Korea and the United States: Developmental strategies for classical voice education in South Korea [Doktora tezi, University of Nevada, Las Vegas]. UNLV ScholarWorks. https://oasis.library.unlv.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=6422&context=thesesdissertations
17. Campbell, J. L., Quincy, C., Osserman, J. ve Pedersen, O. K. (2013). Coding in-depth semistructured interviews: Problems of unitization and intercoder reliability and agreement. Sociological Methods & Research, 42(3), 294-320. https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124113500475
18. Campbell, P. S. (2004). Teaching music globally. Oxford University Press.
19. Choi, J. (2025). Comparative analysis of music curriculum in Korea and the U.S. in the age of digital transformation. Eum’ag Gyoyu Yeon’gu, 54(3), 263-281. https://doi.org/10.30775/kmes.54.3.263
20. Cohen, J. (1960). A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20(1), 37-46. https://doi.org/10.1177/001316446002000104
21. Creswell, J. W. ve Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (5. bs.). SAGE Publications.
22. Creswell, J. W. ve Miller, D. L. (2000). Determining validity in qualitative inquiry. Theory Into Practice, 39(3), 124-130. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip3903_2
23. Creswell, J. W. ve Poth, C. N. (2018). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (4. bs.). SAGE.
24. Crosier, D., Purser, L. ve Smidt, H. (2007). Universities shaping the European Higher Education Area. European University Association. https://www.eua.eu/downloads/publications/trends%20v%20universities%20shaping%20the%20european%20higher%20education%20area.pdf
25. Denzin, N. K. (1978). The research act: A theoretical introduction to sociological methods (2. bs.). McGraw-Hill.
26. Denzin, N. K. ve Lincoln, Y. S. (Ed.). (2018). The SAGE handbook of qualitative research (5. bs.). Sage.
27. Feng, X. (2025). Taking music education in China and Belarus as examples. Management of Education, 15(2-2), 296-304. https://doi.org/10.25726/r8331-5046-2148-j
28. Giani, M. (2025). Globalization, higher education, and neoliberal values: Evidence from the Bologna process. British Journal of Political Science, 55, e145. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007123425100963
29. Google. (t.y.). NotebookLM [AI tool]. https://notebooklm.google.com
30. Gök, B. ve Sayıcı, E. (2022). İlköğretim fen bilimleri öğretim programlarının karşılaştırmalı olarak incelenmesi: Türkiye, Singapur, Estonya örneği. Batı Anadolu Eğitim Bilimleri Dergisi, 13(2), 871-891. https://doi.org/10.51460/baebd.1064766
31. Gürer, M., Akbulut, E. ve Şen, Ü. S. (2023). Evaluation of 1998, 2006 and 2018 music teaching undergraduate programs in terms of program elements. International Journal of Education and Literacy Studies, 11(1), 207218. https://doi.org/10.7575/aiac.ijels.v.11n.1p.207
32. Hallgren, K. A. (2012). Computing inter-rater reliability for observational data: An overview and tutorial. Tutorials in Quantitative Methods for Psychology, 8(1), 23-34. https://doi.org/10.20982/tqmp.08.1.p023
33. Ho, W.-C. (2016). A comparative review of music education in mainland China and the United States: From nationalism to multiculturalism. International Education Journal: Comparative Perspectives, 15(2), 38-57. https://openjournals.library.sydney.edu.au/IEJ/article/view/7828
34. Kaya, E., Afacan, Ş. ve Aydıner Uygun, M. (2016). Assessment of creativity based learning environment for major instrument courses: A case study of Buca Faculty of Education, Department of Music Education. Journal of New Results in Science, 5(13), 44-60. https://doi.org/10.14687/JHS.V13I2.3873
35. Kertz-Welzel, A. (2018). Globalizing music education: A framework. International Journal of Music Education, 36(4), 483-496. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctt2204p3c
36. Kotsis, K. T., Randjelovic, B. M., Tsiouri, E. ve Ilibašić, S. (2025). Comparing science curriculum for primary education in Greece and Serbia. Journal of Studies in Education, 15(1), 57. https://doi.org/10.5296/jse.v15i1.22528
37. Landis, J. R. ve Koch, G. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33(1), 159-174. https://doi.org/10.2307/2529310
38. Leikvoll, K. J. (2025). Non-compulsory instrumental music education in Poland and Norway: Perspectives on accessibility, curriculum framework and learning goals in two different music education systems. Nordic Journal of Comparative and International Education (NJCIE), 9(3). https://doi.org/10.7577/njcie.6326
39. Lincoln, Y. S. ve Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. SAGE. https://doi.org/10.1016/0147-1767(85)90062-8
40. Ling, S. I. (2024). Analysis of music curriculum standards in Mainland China, Hong Kong and Macao: A comparative study. Korean Music Education Society, 53(1), 123-141. https://doi.org/10.30775/kmes.53.1.123
41. Lloria, S. D. ve Juste, M. P. (2020). Comparative analysis of initial teacher training for primary and secondary music teachers in Europe. Revista Electrónica de LEEME, 46, 224-239. https://doi.org/10.7203/LEEME.46.18033
42. Lombard, M., Snyder-Duch, J. ve Bracken, C. C. (2002). Content analysis in mass communication. Human Communication Research, 28(4), 587-604. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2002.tb00826.x
43. MacQueen, K. M., McLellan, E., Kay, K. ve Milstein, B. (1998). Codebook development for team-based qualitative analysis. Cultural Anthropology Methods Journal, 10(2), 31-36. https://doi.org/10.1177/1525822X980100020301
44. Mariati, P., Suprapto, N., Mariana, N., Sunanto, S. ve Khairiyah, U. (2024). Comparative analysis of education curricula between Germany and Indonesia. Premiere Educandum, 13(2). https://doi.org/10.25273/pe.v13i2.16896
45. Mateu-Luján, B. (2021). ¿Estamos tan mal? La educación musical en España respecto a Alemania y Austria. Revista Electrónica de LEEME, 48, 59. https://doi.org/10.7203/LEEME.48.21552
46. Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (3. bs.). SAGE Publications.
47. Mellizo, J. M. ve Cabedo-Mas, A. (2024). Global mindset and music education: A comparison of curriculum documents in the United States and Spain. Arts Education Policy Review, 125(4), 199-212. https://doi.org/10.1080/10632913.2022.2070887
48. Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. Jossey-Bass.
49. Merriam, S. B. ve Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation (4. bs.). Jossey-Bass.
50. Mihaljević Djigunović, J. (2009). Individual differences in early language programmes. M. Nikolov (Ed.), The age factor and early language learning içinde (s. 199-225). Mouton de Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110218282.199
51. Miksza, P. (2009). An exploratory study of a confluence model of preservice music teacher creativity. Music Education Research International, 3, 29-43. https://www.usf.edu/arts/music/documents/meri-archives/977-meri-03pp29-43.pdf
52. Miles, M. B. ve Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2. bs.). SAGE.
53. Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M. ve Saldaña, J. (2020). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook (4. bs.). SAGE.
54. O’Connor, C. ve Joffe, H. (2020). Intercoder reliability in qualitative research: Debates and practical guidelines. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 19, 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406919899220
55. O’Flynn, J., Moore, G., Burgess, F. ve Moore, J. (2022). Comparative music education in partnership: examining policy and provision of music in initial teacher education in Ireland and Northern Ireland. Music Education Research, 24(3), 364-376. https://doi.org/10.1080/14613808.2022.2069234
56. Odena, O. (2001). The construction of creativity: Using video to explore secondary school music teachers’ views. Educate. https://www.educatejournal.org/index.php/educate/article/view/52
57. Özgül, İ. (2023). Vocational music education institutions and music teacher training in Turkey in the 21st century. International Education Studies, 16(6), 71-84. https://doi.org/10.5539/ies.v16n6p71
58. Özmen, B. (2024). Comparison of the elementary music curricula in Ontario, Canada, and Turkey. Social Sciences & Humanities Open, 9, 100747. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssaho.2023.100747
59. Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative research & evaluation methods (4. bs.). SAGE.
60. Posner, G. J. (1992). Analyzing the curriculum. McGraw-Hill.
61. Posner, G. J. (2004). Analyzing the curriculum (3. bs.). McGraw-Hill.
62. Rahmanov, F., Ganiyeva, S., Aliyeva, N., Neymatova, L. ve Aghazada, T. (2025). The impact of education digitalization on achieving SDG4: A comparative assessment of Azerbaijan and SDG4 leaders. Problems and Perspectives in Management, 23(2), 634-650. https://doi.org/10.21511/ppm.23(2).2025.46
63. Rosenbaum, L. S. (2014). Comparative study on mathematics education in curricula: Brazil and Uruguay. https://tede2.pucsp.br/handle/handle/10996
64. Saldaña, J. (2021). The coding manual for qualitative researchers (4. bs.). SAGE.
65. Silva, M. N. ve & Almouloud, S. A. (2017). Educação comparada: Uma análise dos currículos prescritos de Matemática de Brasil e México. Educação Matemática Pesquisa, 19(3), 328-352. https://doi.org/10.23925/1983-3156.2017v19i3p328-352
66. Ski-Berg, V. (2022). ‘Blazing the trail or exposing the gaps?’ Discourses on student-centredness in genre independent and classical music performance study programmes in Norway and the Netherlands. Music Education Research, 24(1), 31-41. https://doi.org/10.1080/14613808.2022.2028753
67. Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. SAGE.
68. Tao, C. H.-Y. ve Hou, A. Y. C. (2023). A comparative study of Hong Kong branch campuses in UIC and CUHK SZ: Motivations, challenges, impacts on higher education regionalization in the Greater Bay Area. A. Y. C. Hou, J. Smith, K. H. Mok ve C.-Y. Guo (Ed.), Crafting the future of international higher education in Asia via systems change and innovation: Reimagining new modes of cooperation in the post pandemic içinde (s. 69-82). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-1874-4_4
69. Teke, İ., Akbulut, E. ve Şen, Ü. S. (2019). Müzi̇k öğretmenli̇ği̇ li̇sans programlarındaki̇ müzi̇ksel i̇şi̇tme okuma ve yazma dersleri̇ni̇n i̇çeri̇k bakımından karşılaştırılması. Online Journal of Music Sciences, 4(2), 139-165. https://doi.org/10.31811/OJOMUS.655014
70. Tran, T. M. ve Stoilescu, D. (2016). An analysis of the content, policies and assessment of ICT curricula in the final years of secondary schooling in Australia and Vietnam: A comparative educational study. Journal of Information Technology Education: Research, 15, 49-73. https://doi.org/10.28945/2335
71. Tyler, R. W. (1949). Basic principles of curriculum and instruction. University of Chicago Press.
72. Ültanır, Y. G., Ültanır, E. ve Temel, C. (2018). Comparing teacher competencies formed by professional teaching knowledge lectures in terms of teacher training moves in Turkey and Germany. International Journal of Curriculum and Instruction 10(2), 14-29. https://ijci.net/index.php/IJCI/article/view/172/69
73. Volk, T. M. (1998). Music, education, and multiculturalism: Foundations and principles. Oxford University Press.
74. Wanabuliandari, S., Junaedi, I. ve Mulyono, M. (2024). Studi perbandingan implementasi kurikulum Indonesia dan Kanada pada mata pelajaran matematika. Kognitif: Jurnal Riset HOTS Pendidikan Matematika, 4(4), 1591-1607. https://doi.org/10.51574/kognitif.v4i4.2516
75. Wang, K. (2025). Comparative study on non-elite clarinet education in China and Australia: Cultural influences and educational approaches. Lecture Notes in Education Psychology and Public Media, 76(1), 175-183. https://doi.org/10.54254/2753-7048/2024.20384
76. Webster, P. R. (2011). Computer-based technology and music teaching and learning. R. Colwell ve P. R. Webster (Ed.), The MENC handbook of research on music learning içinde (s. 416-439). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780195138849.003.0027
77. Witte, J., Huisman, J. ve Purser, L. (2009). European higher education reforms in the context of the Bologna Process: How did we get here, where are we and where are we going? (2. Cilt). OECD.
78. Woddis, J. ve Nilsen, A. C. E. (2018). Music for one and all? Music education policy in Norway and England. Aesthetics and politics içinde (s. 95-135). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-77854-9_4
79. Yang, S., Kim, J. ve Park, H. (2015). Key factors for developing a cross-cultural education program. International Journal of Educational Management, 29(7), 863-879. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEM-12-2013-0177
80. Yin, R. K. (2018). Case study research and applications (6. bs.). SAGE Publications.
81. Yükseköğretim Kurulu. (2024). Yükseköğretim kurumları bilimsel araştırma ve yayın faaliyetlerinde üretken yapay zekâ kullanımına dair etik rehber. https://proje.yok.gov.tr/documentFiles/17539645334.Y%C3%BCksek%C3%B6%C4%9Fretimde%20%C3%BCretken%20yapay%20zeka%20kullan%C4%B1m%C4%B1-tr.pdf
82. Zbainos, D., Anastasopoulou, A. ve Leonardou, E. (2012). Creativity in Greek music curricula and pedagogy: An investigation of Greek music teachers’ perceptions. Creative Education, 3(1), 55-60. https://doi.org/10.4236/CE.2012.31009
83. Zhan, Y. (2025). Music education from a cross-cultural perspective: Comparing music teaching methods in different countries. SHS Web of Conferences, 213, 02010. https://doi.org/10.1051/shsconf/202521302010