The Relationship Between Curriculum Literacy of Teachers, Educational Philosophies and Curriculum Design Approach Preferences

Year 2026, Issue: Advanced Online Publication, 116 - 134

Alperen Derda Aydemir , Ceyhun Ozan

https://doi.org/10.17275/per.26.07.13.1

Abstract

This study investigates the relationships among teachers’ curriculum literacy, educational philosophies, and curriculum design approach preferences. Employing a predictive correlational research design, the study aims to identify both associations and predictive relationships among these key variables. The sample consisted of 348 teachers from various educational levels in Erzurum, Türkiye, selected through random sampling within a convenience framework. Data were collected using three validated instruments: the Curriculum Literacy Scale, Educational Beliefs Scale, and Curriculum Design Approach Preference Scale. The data collection process lasted approximately one month and was carried out in accordance with ethical guidelines approved by the relevant institutional review board. Statistical analyses, including Pearson correlation and multiple regression, were conducted using SPSS 25. Assumptions of normality, linearity, homoscedasticity, and multicollinearity were checked and met. The findings revealed that teachers’ curriculum literacy was positively associated with progressivist and existentialist philosophies, which in turn were linked to learner-centered and problem-centered design preferences. Essentialism emerged as a significant predictor of subject-centered design preferences. These results suggest that curriculum literacy enhances teachers’ ability to align their philosophical beliefs with appropriate curriculum design approaches. The study highlights the importance of promoting reflective practice and philosophical awareness through professional development. Enhancing teachers’ curriculum literacy may support more coherent and effective instructional planning, ultimately contributing to improved educational quality.

Keywords

curriculum literacy , educational philosophy , curriculum design approach , teachers

Ethical Statement

The ethics committee permissions were obtained with the letter dated 11.11.2021 and numbered 12/12 of the “Social and Human Sciences Scientific Research and Publication Ethics Committee of University Institute of Educational Sciences.”

Supporting Institution

Atatürk University Scientific Research Projects Unit

Project Number

SYL-2022-10318

References

• Adıgüzel, O. (2017). Curriculum development in education: Concepts and approaches. Ankara: Anı.
• Akyıldız, S. (2020). A conceptual analysis of curriculum literacy concept: A study of scale development. Electronic Journal of Social Sciences, 19(73), 315-332. https://doi.org/10.17755/esosder.554205
• Ariav, T. (1991). Growth in teacher’s curriculum knowledge through the process of curriculum analysis. Journal of Curriculum and Supervision, 6(3), 183-200.
• Avar Vayvay, N. (2020). An analysis of the relationship between preschool teachers' educational philosophies and their curriculum literacy levels. (Unpublished master’s thesis). Kahramanmaraş Sütçü İmam University, Kahramanmaraş.
• Ballı, C. (2022). Investigation of the relationship between pre-service teachers' curriculum literacy and educational beliefs. (Unpublished master’s thesis). Bülent Ecevit University, Zonguldak.
• Barron, B. J., Schwartz, D. L., Vye, N. J., Moore, A., Petrosino, A., Zech, L., & Bransford, J. D. (1998). Doing with understanding lessons from research on problem-and project-based learning. The Journal of The Learning Sciences, 7(3), 271-311. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.1998.9672056
• Baş, G. (2013). Curriculum Design Orientations Preference Scale of Teachers: Validity and reliability study. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 13(2), 965-992.
• Baş, G., & Senturk, C. (2019). Teachers' educational beliefs and curriculum orientations: A relational research. Teachers and Curriculum, 19(1), 45-53. https://doi.org/ 10.15663/TANDC.V19I1.336
• Bay E., Gündoğdu K., Ozan C., Dilekçi D., & Özdemir D. (2012). Analysis of elementary prospective teachers` curriculum orientations. International Journal of Curriculum and Instructional Studies, 2(3), 15-29.
• Beauchamp, C. (2012). Curriculum theory: Meaning, development, and use. Journal of Education and Learning, 1(1), 1–10.
• Cornelius-White, J. (2007). Learner-centered teacher-student relationships are effective. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 113-143.
• Çubukçu, Z. (2013). Curriculum design and development. B. Duman (Ed.), Teaching principles and methods (pp. 132-174). Ankara: Maya Academy.
• Darling-Hammond, L. (2006). Powerful teacher education: Lessons from exemplary programs. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
• Darling-Hammond, L. (2008). Teaching and the change wars: the professionalism hypothesis. In Hargreaves, A. & Fullan, M. (Eds.), Change wars (pp. 45-68). Bloomington: Solution Tree.
• Demeuse, M., & Strauven, C. (2016). Curriculum development in education: From political decisions to implementation (Y. Budak, Trans. Ed.). Ankara: Pegem Academy.
• Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. Macmillan.
• Doğan, H. (1997). Curriculum and instructional design in education. Ankara: Önder.
• Eisner, E. W. (2002a). The arts and the creation of mind. Yale University Press.
• Eisner, E. W. (2002b). The educational imagination: On the design and evaluation of school programs (3rd ed.). Prentice Hall.
• Erdem, C. (2021). Testing the relationships between teachers’ curriculum design orientations and their underlying educational philosophies. Curriculum Matters, 17(1), 83-104. https://doi.org/10.18296/cm.0054
• Fullan, M. (2007). The new meaning of educational change (4th ed.). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
• Hargreaves, A. (2003). Teaching in the knowledge society: Education in the age of insecurity. Open University Press.
• Johnson, D., & Johnson, R. (2000). The literate classroom: Making literacy accessible for all students. Allyn & Bacon.
• Kabadayı, T. (2012). Philosophy of education. Ankara: Lisans.
• Karasar, N. (2018). Scientific research method. Ankara: Nobel.
• Kıncal, R. Y. (2009). Philosophy of education. Ankara: Nobel.
• Kliebard, H. M. (2004). The struggle for the American curriculum, 1893-1958 (3rd ed.). Routledge Falmer.
• Kozikoğlu, İ., & Uygun, N. (2018). Investigation of the relationship between teachers' philosophies of education beliefs and curriculum design approaches. Çukurova University Faculty of Education Journal, 47(2), 411-438. https://doi.org/1010.14812/cuefd.404297
• Kumar, K. (2005). Political agenda of education: A study of colonialist and nationalist ideas. Sage.
• March, C. (2014). Perspectives key concepts for understanding the curriculum. Routledge.
• McCutcheon, G. (2002). Developing the curriculum: Solo and group deliberation. Educator’s International.
• McMillan, J. H., & Schumacher, S. (2006). Research in education: Evidence-based inquiry (6th ed.). Pearson Education.
• OECD (2018). The future of education and skills: Education 2030. Paris: OECD Publishing.
• Ornstein, A. C. (2014). Philosophy as a basis for curriculum decision. In A. C. Ornstein, E. F. Pajak & S. B. Ornstein (Eds.), Contemporary issues in curriculum. London: Pearson.
• Ornstein, A. C., & Hunkins, F. P. (2018). Curriculum: Foundations, principles and issues (7th ed.). London: Pearson.
• 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/10.3102/0034654306200330
• Park, R. (2008). Justifying curriculum decisions. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
• Pinar, W. F., Reynolds, W. M., Slattery, P., & Taubman, P. M. (2008). Understanding curriculum: An introduction to the study of historical and contemporary curriculum discourses. Peter Lang.
• Priestley, M., Biesta, G., & Robinson, S. (2015). Teacher agency: An ecological approach. London: Bloomsbury.
• Savery, J. R. (2006). Overview of problem-based learning: Definitions and distinctions. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning, 1(1), 9-20.
• Schiro, M. S. (2013). Curriculum theory: Conflicting visions and enduring concerns (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
• Shami, P. A. (1993). Elementary science programme: Institute for the promotion of science education and training. Islamabad Ministry of Education.
• Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4-14. https://doi.org/10.2307/1175860
• Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1-23.
• Smith, M. K. (2004). 'Essentialism' and 'progressivism' in education. The Encyclopedia of Informal Education.
• Sönmez, V. (1998). Philosophy of education. Ankara: Anı.
• Tucker, T. (2011). What they want and how they want it student’s expectations of ESL curriculum at the classroom level. Journal of College Teaching & Learning, 8(11), 11-19.
• Tuncel, G. (2020). Character and values education. Ankara: Nobel.
• Van Deurzen, E. (2002). Existential counselling and psychotherapy. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
• Varış, F. (1994). Curriculum development in education: Theory and techniques. İstanbul: Alkım.
• Wang, H., & Cheng, L. (2009). Factors affecting teacher’s curriculum implementation. The Linguistics Journal, 4(2), 135-166.
• Weimer, M. (2002). Learner-centered teaching: Five key changes to practice. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
• Wiggins, G., & Mctighe, J. (2005). Understanding by design. Alexandria: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
• Yılmaz, K., Altınkurt, Y., & Çokluk, Ö. (2011). Developing the Educational Belief Scale: The validity and reliability study. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 11(1), 335-350.