Helping EFL teachers build capacity for effective curriculum implementation: A case study

Year 2024, Volume: 6 Issue: 2, 330 - 346, 31.12.2024

Huriye Arzu Öztürk , Derin Atay

https://doi.org/10.51535/tell.1450072

Abstract

The study presents the outcomes of capacity-building training that aims to facilitate and enhance Turkish EFL teachers’ curriculum fidelity in the state school context and provides in-depth insights into the issue in this context. After the training, all the participants developed positive perceptions about the curriculum. Five participants’ stages of concern evolved to concerned about and not resistant to the curriculum. One participant’s concerns altered to not resistant but unconcerned, whereas five participants’ concerns remained resistant. Only one participant showed ideal development, both in her stages of concern and instructional practices. As well as the insufficiency of curriculum-specific formal training, school-level institutional support, and individual and collective sense-making out of the curriculum were found to lack in the context. Whereas explicit grammar teaching and assessment were revealed to form a comfort zone, teaching and assessing language skills, especially speaking and writing, to present a challenge for the teachers. The ineffectiveness of train-the -trainers, and the need for curriculum maps and mentors were also asserted in the study

Keywords

Curriculum Fidelity, Capacity Building, Concerns-Based Adoption Model, In-Service Training, Educational Change

Ethical Statement

In conducting the study, which the present research article summarizes, utmost importance was given to academic rules and ethical condcut.

Supporting Institution

No funding

References

• Achinstein, B., & Ogawa, R. T. (2006). (In)Fidelity: What the resistance of new teachers reveals about professional principles and prescriptive educational policies. Harvard Educational Review, 76, 30-63. https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.76.1.e14543458r811864
• Aksoy, E., (2020). Evaluation of the 2017 updated secondary school English curriculum of Turkey by means of theory-practice link. Turkish Journal of Education, 9(1), 1−21. https://doi.org/10.19128/turje.575392
• Alismail, H. A., & McGuire, P. (2015). 21st Century Standards and Curriculum: Current Research and Practice. Journal of Education and Practice, 6, 150-154.
• Altun, T. (2011). INSET (In-Service Education and Training) and Professional Development of Teachers: A Comparison of British and Turkish Cases. US-China Education Review A 6. 846-858.
• An, F. (2020). AN INVESTIGATION OF THE CASES OF ENGLISH TEACHERS TO ENSURE PROGRAM ALIGNMENT [Unpublished Master’s Thesis]. University of Gaziantep, Gaziantep, Turkey. https://acikbilim.yok.gov.tr/bitstream/handle/20.500.12812/127042/yokAcikBilim_10328217.pdf?sequence=-1&isAllowed=y
• Apau, S. K. (2021). Teachers’ concerns about the implementation of the standard-based curriculum in Ghana: A case study of Effutu Municipality. Educational Research and Reviews, 16(5), 202-211.
• Arslan Çelik, F. M. (2020). AN INVESTIGATION OF SECONDARY SCHOOL ENGLISH TEACHERS’ CURRICULUM FIDELITY [Unpublished Master’s Thesis]. Hacettepe University, Ankara, Turkey.
• Arslan Çelik, F. M., & Gelmez Burakgazi, S. (2021). Analysis of The Fidelity of Curriculum Implementation Studies in Turkey: A MetaSynthesis Study. YYÜ Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi (YYU Journal of Education Faculty), 18(1), 796-824. https://doi.org/10.33711/yyuefd.938722
• Ayas, A.P., A. Akdeniz, S. Çepni, A. Baki, A. Çimer, and S. Odabası-Çimer. (2007). Hizmet İçi Eğitimin Etkililiği Temel Arastırması [Baseline research on in-service training]. (BEP2/04-CQ) Sonuç Raporu, Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı, Projeler Koordinasyon Merkezi Başkanlığı Temel Eğitim Projesi.
• Baş, G., & Şentürk, C. (2019). Teaching-learning conceptions and curriculum fidelity: A relational research. International Journal of Curriculum and Instruction 11(2), 163- 180.
• Bediako, S. (2019). Models and concepts of curriculum implementation, some definitions and influence of implementation. Curriculum Change and Evaluation, 11-18. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.17850.24009
• Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3, 77–101.
• Bingham, A. J. (2023). From data management to actionable findings: A five-phase process of qualitative data analysis. International Journal of Qualitative Methods. https://doi.org/10.1177/16094069231183620
• Bümen, N. T., Çakar, E., & Yıldız, D. G. (2014). Curriculum fidelity and factors affecting fidelity in the Turkish context. Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice, 14(1), 219-228. https://doi.org/10.12738/estp.2014.1.2020
• Carless, D. R. (1998). A case study of curriculum implementation in Hong Kong. System, 26, 353-368.
• Cetin-Berber, D., & Vásquez-Colina, M.D. (2016). A Case Study of Teachers' Views on New First Grade Curriculum Implementation in Turkey. Excellence in Education Journal, 5(1), 53-74.
• Cheung, A. C. K., & Wong, P. M. (2012). Factors affecting the implementation of curriculum reform in Hong Kong: Key findings from a large-scale survey study. International Journal of Educational Management, 26(1), 39-54.
• Çimer, S. O., Çakır, İ., & Çimer, A. (2010). ‘Teachers’ views on the effectiveness of in‐service courses on the new curriculum in Turkey’. European Journal of Teacher Education 33 (1), 31–41. https://doi.org/10.1080/02619760903506689
• Clark, A. J. (2017). Sustainable School Improvement: Suburban Elementary Principals' Capacity Building. Journal for Leadership and Instruction, 16(1), 5-8.
• Cooley, W. W., Gage, N. L., & Scriven, M. (1997). “The Vision Thing”: Educational Research and AERA in the 21st Century. Part 1: Competing Visions of What Educational Researchers Should Do. Educational Researcher, 26(4), 18–21. https://doi.org/10.2307/1176880
• Datnow, A., & Castellano, M. (2000). Teachers’ responses to success for all: How beliefs, experiences, and adaptations shape implementation. American Educational Research Journal, 37(3),775–799. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312037003775 Desimone, L. M., & Garet, M. S. (2015). Best practices in teachers’ professional development in the United States. Psychology, Society and Education, 7(3), 252-263.
• Dichaba, M. M., & Mokhele, M. L. (2012). Does the Cascade Model Work for Teacher Training? Analysis of Teachers’ Experiences. International Journal of Educational Sciences, 4(3), 249-254
• Dikilitaş, K., & Griffiths, C. (2017). Developing Language Teacher Autonomy through Action Research. Cham, Switzerland: Springer Nature.
• Durlak, J. A., & DuPre, E. P. (2008). Implementation Matters: A Review of Research on the Influence of Implementation on Program Outcomes and the Factors Affecting Implementation. American Journal of Pyschology, 41, 237-350. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10464-008-9165-0 Fullan, M. (2006). Change theory: A force for school improvement (Centre for Strategic Education Seminar Series Paper No. 157, 3-14). Victoria: SCE.
• Fullan, M. (2007). Change the terms for teacher learning. Journal for Staff Development, 28(3), 35-36.
• Fuller, F. F. (1969). Concerns of teachers: A developmental conceptualization. American Educational Research Journal, 6(2), 207-226.
• George, A., Hall, G., & Stiegelbauer, S. (2006). Measuring Implementation in Schools: The Stages of Concern Questionnaire. Austin, TX: SEDL.
• Gouëdard, P., Pont, B., Hyttinen, S., & Huang, P. (2020, December). Curriculum reform: A literature review to support effective implementation (OECD Education Working Papers No. 239). OECD Publishing. https://doi:10.1787/efe8a48c-en
• Gökçek, T., & Baki, A. (2013). Turkish mathematics teachers’ concerns about the curriculum reform in the first year of implementation. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 9(2), 177–190.
• Güngör, F. (2017). The Tensions between EFL Teacher Identities and Inset in the Turkish Context. Profile Issues in Teachers’ Professional Development,19(1), 13-27. http://dx.doi.org/10.15446/profile.v19n1.55110
• Haines, K. J. (2018). Professional development for new classroom spaces: Extending the Concerns-Based Adoption Model. Journal of Perspectives in Applied Academic Practice, 6(2), 58- 66. https://doi.org/10.14297/jpaap.v6i2.297
• Hall, G. E., & Hord, S. M. (2015). Implementing change: Patterns, principles, and potholes (4th ed.). Pearson.
• Hord, S. M., Rutherford, W. L., Huling, L., & Hall, G. E. (2014). Taking charge of change, (2nd Ed.). https://sedl.org/pubs/change22/taking-charge-of-change-2014.pdf
• Johnson, K.E. (2009). Second Language Teacher Education: A Sociocultural Perspective (1st ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203878033
• Jones, S., & Tanner, H. (2002). Teachers' interpretations of effective whole-class interactive teaching in secondary mathematics classrooms. Educational Studies, 28(3), 265-274.
• Kara, Z. Y. & Bümen, N. T. (2023). The picture behind an intensive English language curriculum reform in Turkey: concerns of English teachers. International Journal of Learning and Change, 15(4), 405-429. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJLC.2023.132134
• Karabacak, E., & Kürüm-Yapıcıoğlu, D. (2020). The Alignment between the Official Curriculum and the Taught Curriculum: An Analysis of Primary School English Curriculum. International Journal of Contemporary Educational Research, 7(2), 165-186. https://doi.org/10.33200/ijcer.802528
• Kayaduman, H. & Delialioğlu, Ö. (2016). Investigating Pre-Service English Teachers’ Stages of Concern Towards Using Wiki. Mersin University Journal of the Faculty of Education, 12(2), 588-600. https://doi.org/10.17860/efd.89600
• Kayaduman, H. & Demirel, T. (2019). Investigating the Concerns of First-Time Distance Education Instructors. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 20(5), 85-103. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v20i5.4467
• Kırkgöz, Y. (2008). Curriculum innovation in Turkish primary education. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 36(4), 309-322, https://doi.org/10.1080/13598660802376204
• Land, T. J., Tyminski, A. M., & Drake, C. (2015). Examining elementary mathematics teachers’ reading of educative curriculum materials. Teaching and Teacher Education, 51, 16–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2015.05.009
• MoNE (2014). The Regulation on Preschool Education and Primary Education Institutions of MoNE. https://www.mevzuat.gov.tr/MevzuatMetin/yonetmelik/7.5.19942.pdf
• MoNE (2018). English Curriculum for Secondary Education. http://mufredat.meb.gov.tr/Programlar.aspx Morgan, C., & Xu, G. R. (2011, July). Reconceptualising ‘Obstacles’ to Teacher Implementation of Curriculum Reform: Beyond Beliefs. Paper presented at the Manchester Metropolitan University Conference, Manchester, England. http://www.esri.mmu.ac.uk/mect/papers_11/Morgan.pdf
• Msamba, E. M., Msuya, E. A., Anangisye, W. A. L. (2023). "The Impact of In-Service Education and Training on Teachers’ Learning: Perspectives from English Foreign Language Teachers in Tanzania", Education Research International, Article ID 6135444, 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1155/2023/6135444
• Muhammad, A. E. (2020). THE 21ST CENTURY LEARNING AS A KNOWLEDGE AGE: THE EFFECTS ON TEACHER’S TRANSFORMING TEACHER’S KNOWLEDGE IN TECHNOLOGY-RICH ENVIRONMENT IN SOCIAL STUDIES EDUCATION. Journal of Critical Reviews, 7(7), 286-294. https://doi.org/10.31838/jcr.07.07.46
• Nawastheen, F. M. (2021). Sri Lankan Teachers’ Concerns Towards Implementation of Curriculum Reforms in the Competency Based Curriculum Reforms. MJSSH 5(1), 1-18, e-ISSN: 2590-3691
• Nnabuike, E. K., Aneke, M. C., & Otegbulu, R. I. (2016). Curriculum implementation and the teacher: Issues, Challenges, and the way forward. International Journal in Commerce, IT and Social Sciences 3(6), 41-48. ISSN: 2394-5702
• Ndagi, M. A., Abiodun, N. L., Rebecca, M. (2023). Teachers’ Capacity Building Strategies and Pupils’ Academic Performance in Muslim Public Primary Schools in Namutumba District of Uganda. Research Journal of Education, 9(3), 15-22. DOI: https://doi.org/10.32861/rje.93.15.22
• Nevenglosky, E. A., Cale, C., & Aguilar, S. P. (2019). Barriers to Effective Curriculum Implementation. Research in Higher Education Journal, 36, Article ID: 182882.
• OECD (2012). Getting it right: Capacity building for local stakeholders in education. Background paper for the OECD/Poland conference Effective Governance on the Local Level 16-17 April, Warsaw, Poland.
• Olson, K., Lannan, K., Cumming, J., MacGillivary, H. & Richards, K. (2020). The Concerns-Based Adoption Model and Strategic Plan Evaluation: Multiple Methodologies to Understand Complex Change. Educational Research: Theory and Practice, 31(3), 49-58.
• Olteanu, C. (2017). Reflection-for-action and the choice or design of examples in the teaching of mathematics. Math Ed Res J, 29, 349–367. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13394-017-0211-9
• Önalan, O., & Gürsoy, E. (2020). EFL teachers’ demands and preferences on in-service training in Turkey. International Online Journal of Education and Teaching (IOJET), 7(3). 945-958. https://iojet.org/index.php/IOJET/article/view/878
• Öztürk, G., & Aydın, B. (2019). English Language Teacher Education in Turkey: Why Do We Fail and What Policy Reforms Are Needed? Anadolu Journal of Educational Sciences International, 9(1), 181-213. https://doi.org/10.18039/ajesi.520842
• Öztürk, H. A. (2020). My quest for negotiating meaning. Reflections on my dilemmas about practices of English language teaching in public school context in Turkey: An autoethnography. Technium Social Sciences Journal, 7(1), 36–48. https://doi.org/10.47577/tssj.v7i1.352
• Pring, R. (2015). Philosophy of Educational Research. London: Bloomsbury.
• Pultorak, E. G. and Young, M. (2010). Quality Leaders, Strategies for Guiding Beginning Teachers through Stages of Reflective Practice. In E.G. Pultorak (Ed.), The Purposes, Practices, and Professionalism of Teacher Reflectivity: Insights for Twenty-first-century Teachers and Students (pp. 257-276). Lanham, ML: Rowman & Littlefield
• Reinholz, D. L., & Andrews, T. C. (2020). Change theory and theory of change: What is the difference anyway? IJ STEM Ed. 7(2). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-020-0202-3
• Simister, N. & Smith, R. (2010). Monitoring and Evaluating Capacity Building: Is it really that difficult? INTRAC. Praxis Paper 23 Monitoring and Evaluating Capacity Building - is it really that difficult (intrac.org)
• Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: how professionals think in action. New York: Basic Books, Inc..
• Süer, S., & Kinay, İ. (2022). Investigation of primary teachers' curriculum fidelity. International Journal of Curriculum and Instructional Studies, 12(1), 191-214. https://doi.org/10.31704/ijocis.2022.009 TEPAV (2014). Turkey National Needs Assessment of State School English Language Teaching. https://www.tepav.org.tr/upload/files/1399388356-5.Turkey_National_Needs_Assessment_of_State_School_English_Language_Teaching.pdf UNESCO-IBE. (2013, November). Training Tools for Curriculum Development. A Resource Pack. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000250420_eng
• Wang, W. (2014). Teachers’ stages of concerns and levels of use of a curriculum innovation in China: A case study. International Journal of English Language Teaching, 1(1), 22-31.
• Yeni-Palabıyık, P., & Daloğlu, A. (2016). English language teachers’ implementation of curriculum with action-oriented approach in Turkish primary education classrooms. I-Manager’s Journal on English Language Teaching, 6(2), pp. 45-57.
• Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
• Yin, R. K. (2017). Case study research and applications: Design and methods. Washington DC: Sage Publications.