An Examination of Curriculum Literacy Self-Efficacy Perceptions And Cognitive Flexibility Levels of Teachers

Yıl 2026, Cilt: 34 Sayı: 1, 1 - 17, 31.01.2026

Emine Can Yurt , Asuman Seda Saracaloğlu

https://doi.org/10.24106/kefdergi.1876272

Öz

Purpose: This study aims to examine teachers' curriculum literacy self-efficacy perception and cognitive flexibility level in terms of various variables and to obtain teachers' views on this topic.
Method: The study employed a exploratory sequential design, which combines both qualitative and quantitative methods. The quantitative sample consisted of 331 teachers from the Ministry of National Education, while the qualitative sample comprised 15 teachers who participated in both phases of the study. Data were gathered using the Curriculum Literacy Scale, Cognitive Flexibility Inventory, and a semi-structured interview protocol. The quantitative data were analyzed using non-parametric statistical tests, while content analysis was employed to examine the qualitative data.
Findings: The teachers in this study exhibited strong self-efficacy in curriculum literacy as well as high cognitive flexibility. A notable difference was identified in the 'structural features of the curriculum' subscale, influenced by the type of school, and in both the 'elements of the curriculum' and 'structural features of the curriculum' subscales based on school level. Although teachers showed high overall cognitive flexibility, no significant variations were found in total scores across the different variables considered. However, a meaningful difference emerged in the 'control' subdimension when analyzed by school level. Furthermore, a moderate to strong positive relationship was identified between teachers' self-efficacy in curriculum literacy and their cognitive flexibility. Despite the high levels of curriculum literacy and cognitive flexibility indicated in the quantitative data. External factors such as classroom conditions, administrative and exam pressures, and the mismatch between the curriculum and student needs, and the curriculum's emphasis on cognitive development rather than other areas were found to negatively affect teachers' perceptions of both curriculum literacy and cognitive flexibility.
Highlights: It has been observed that teachers are not sufficiently involved in curriculum development studies, and even if they are involved, their opinions are not sufficiently reflected in the curriculum. this situation is critical in terms of teachers' interaction in the classroom in terms of including not only cognitive but also affective goals of students and transforming them into practice.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Curriculum , Curriculum Literacy , Cognitive Flexibility

Öğretmenlerin Program Okuryazarlığı Öz-yeterlik Algısı ile Bilişsel Esneklik Düzeyinin İncelenmesi

Öz

Amaç: Bu araştırma öğretmenlerin öğretim programı okuryazarlığı öz-yeterlik algısı ile bilişsel esneklik düzeyinin çeşitli değişkenler açısından incelenmesi ve öğretmenlerin bu konu hakkındaki görüşlerinin alınmasını amaçlanmaktadır.
Yöntem: Araştırmada sıralı karma yöntem tasarımından sıralı-açıklayıcı desen kullanılmıştır. Nicel örneklem Millî Eğitim Bakanlığı'nda görev yapan 331 öğretmenden, nitel katılımcılar ise çalışmanın nicel kısmına katılan 15 öğretmenden oluşmaktadır. Araştırmada veri toplama aracı olarak; Öğretim Programı Okuryazarlığı Ölçeği, Bilişsel Esneklik Envanteri ve görüşme formu kullanılmıştır. Nicel verilerin analizinde non-parametrik testler kullanılırken nitel verilerin analizinde de içerik analizi kullanılmıştır.
Bulgular: Öğretmenlerin program okuryazarlığı öz yeterlik algıları ve bilişsel esneklik puanları yüksek düzeyde bulunmuştur. Okul türü açısından program okuryazarlığı ölçeğinin programın yapısal özellikleri alt boyutunda, okul kademesi açısından ise programın öğeleri ve programın yapısal özellikleri alt boyutlarında anlamlı bir fark bulunmuştur. Öğretmenlerin bilişsel esneklik puanlarının yüksek düzeyde olduğu ve değişkenlere göre toplam puanlar açısından anlamlı bir farklılık olmadığı, ancak okul düzeyi değişkeninin kontrol alt boyutunda anlamlı bir farklılık olduğu görülmüştür. Ayrıca öğretmenlerin öğretim programı okuryazarlığı öz yeterlik algısı ile bilişsel esneklik düzeyi arasında orta derecede güçlü ve anlamlı bir pozitif ilişki tespit edilmiştir. Nicel veriler öğretmenlerin program okuryazarlığı algılarının ve bilişsel esneklik düzeylerinin yüksek olduğunu gösterse de sınıfların fiziksel koşulları, yönetim ve sınav baskısı, öğretim programının öğrenci ihtiyaçlarına göre güncellenmemesi ve öğretim proframının ağırlıklı olarak bilişsel gelişim odaklı olması öğretmenlerin program okuryazarlığı algılarını ve bilişsel esneklik düzeylerini olumsuz etkilemiştir.
Önemli Vurgular: Öğretmenlerin program geliştirme çalışmalarına yeterince dahil edilmediği, dahil edilseler bile görüşlerinin programa yeterince yansıtılmadığı gözlemlenmiştir. Bu durum öğretmenlerin sınıf içi etkileşimi açısından öğrencilerin sadece bilişsel değil duyuşsal hedeflerine de yer verilmesi ve bunların uygulamaya dönüştürülmesi açısından kritik önem taşımaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Öğretim Programı , Öğretim Programı Okuryazarlığı , Bilişsel Esneklik

Kaynakça

• Akyıldız, S. (2020). A conceptual analysis of curriculum literacy concept: a study of scale development. Journal of Electronic Social Sciences, 19(73), 315-332. https://doi.org/10.17755/esosder.554205
• Akyüz, B. (2020). Investigation of the relationship between metacognition, cognitive flexibility and self-efficacy levels of pre-service teachers [Master thesis]. Izmir Democracy University.
• Alper, A., & Deryakulu, D. (2008). The effect of cognitive flexibility on students’ achievement and attitudes in web mediated problem based learning. Education and Science, 33(148), 49-63.
• Altunkol, F. (2011). The analysis of the relation between cognitive flexibility and perceived stress levels of college students [Master thesis]. Çukurova University.
• Asıcı, E., & İkiz F. E. (2015). A pathway to happiness: Cognitive flexibility. Mehmet Akif Ersoy University Faculty of Education Journal, 35, 191-211. https://doi.org/10.21764/efd.18524
• Aslan, N., & Cansever-Arslan, B. (2009). The primary school teachers’ attitudes for creativity in education. TUBAV Science Journal, 2(3), 333-340.
• Aslan, O. (2019). The analysis of primary and secondary school administrators' perception of curriculum literacy according to various variables [Master thesis]. Harran University.
• Aslan, S. (2018). The curriculum literacy level of secondary school teachers [Master thesis]. Hacettepe University.
• Aslan, S. (2019). An analysis of prospective teachers' curriculum literacy levels in terms of reading and writing. Universal Journal of Educational Research 7(4), 973-979. https://doi.org/10.13189/ujer.2019.070408
• Aslan S., & Gürlen, E. (2019). Curriculum literacy levels of middle school teachers. Kırşehir Ahi Evran University Faculty of Education Journal, 20(1), 171-186. https://doi.org/10.29299/kefad.2018.20.01.006
• Atlı, K., Kara, Ö., & Mirzeoğlu, A. D. (2021). Investigating physical education teachers perceptions about their curriculum literacy levels according to some variables. Gazi Journal of Physical Education and Sports Sciences, 26(2), 281-299. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4665406
• Aydınay-Satan, A. (2014). Religious beliefs and cognitive flexibility levels effect of the level of subjective well-being. Education and Society in the 21st Century, 3(7), 50-74.
• Bakan, İ., & Kefe, İ. (2012). The organizational perspective of perception and perception management. Journal of the Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences, Kahramanmaraş Sütçü Imam University, 2(1), 19-34.
• Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. W. H. Freeman and Company.
• Ben-Peretz, M. (1990). The teacher-curriculum encounter: Freeing teachers from the tyranny of texts. State University of New York Press.
• Bentler, P. M. (1980). Multivariate analysis with latent variables: Causal modeling. Annual Review of Psychology, 31, 419-456. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ps.31.020180.002223
• Bilgin, M. (2009). Predictors of cognitive flexibility. Journal of the Faculty of Education, Çukurova University, 3(6), 142-157.
• Bolat, Y. (2017). Concept of curriculum literacy and curriculum literacy scale. International Periodical for the Languages, Literature and History of Turkish or Turkic, 12(18), 121-138. http://dx.doi.org/10.7827/TurkishStudies.
• Boncuk, A. (2021). Examination of the relationship between teachers ' program literacy and their commitment to the curriculum. Anatolian Turkish Education Journal, 3(1), 88-108.
• Bümen, N. T., & Yazıcılar, Ü. (2020). A case study on the teachers' curriculum adaptations: differences in state and private high school. Gazi Education Faculty Journal, 40(1), 183-224. https://doi.org/10.17152/gefad.595058.
• Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2020). Data Analysis Handbook for the Social Sciences. Pegem Yayıncılık.
• Camcı-Erdoğan, S. (2018). A research on the cognitive flexibility skills of prospective teachers for gifted students. Celal Bayar University Journal of Social Sciences, 16(3), 77-96.
• Cañas, J. J., Fajardo, I., & Salmerón, L. (2006). Cognitive flexibility. In W. Karwowski (Ed.), International encyclopedia of ergonomics and human factors (2nd ed., pp. 297–300). CRC Press.
• Ceylan, V. K., & Karagöl, H. (2024). Investigation of training programme literacy of trainers in non-formal education in terms of various variables. National Education Journal, 4(2), 661-678.
• Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (5th ed.). Sage Publications.
• Çelikkaleli, Ö. (2014a). The validity and reliability of the cognitive flexibility scale. Education and Science, 39(176), 339-346. http://dx.doi.org/10.15390/EB.2014.3466
• Çelikkaleli, Ö. (2014b). The relationship between cognitive flexibility and academic, social, and emotional self-efficacy beliefs in adolescents. Education and Science, 39(176), 347-354. http://dx.doi.org/10.15390/EB.2014.3467.
• Çetinkaya, S., & Tabak, S. (2019). Curriculum literacy efficiency of preservice teachers. OnDokuz Mayıs University Journal of the Faculty of Education, 38(1), 296-309. http://dx.doi.org/10.7822/omuefd.535482.
• Çıkrık, M. (2017). The problems of teachers who work in multigrade classes (examples in Denizli and Erzurum) [Master thesis]. Pamukkale University.
• Çuhadaroğlu, A. (2011). Predictors of cognitive flexibility [Doctoral dissertation]. Ankara University.
• Dağgeçen Başsu, A. (2016). Analysing the cognitive flexibility levels of teachers according to certain demographic features and the cognitive flexibilty level of students [Master thesis]. Cag University.
• Darling-Hammond, L. ,& Young, P. (2002). Defining highly qualified teachers: What does scientifically based research actually tell us? Educational Researcher, 31(9), 13-25. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X031009013
• Deak, G. O. (2003). The development of cognitive flexibility and language abilities. Advances in Child Development and Behavior, 31, 271-327. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2407(03)31007-9
• Demir, E., & Toraman, Ç. (2021). Teachers' levels of curriculum literacy. Trakya Education Journal, 11(3), 1516-1528. https://doi.org/10.24315/tred.858813.
• Demirtaş, S. (2019). Cognitive control and cognitive flexibility in the context of stress: A scale adaptation. Psychology Studies, 39(2), 345-368. https://doi.org/10.26650/SP2019-0028
• Ellis, A. (1979). Rational-emotive therapy. In A. Ellis & J. M. Whiteley (Eds.), Theoretical and empirical foundations of rational-emotive therapy (pp. 1–7). Brooks/Cole Publishing Company.
• Erdamar, F. S. (2020). The analysis of primary school teachers' curriculum literacy perceptions and primary school administrators' perceptions of teachers' curriculum literacy skills in the context of progressive philosophy [Doctoral dissertation]. Fırat University.
• Erdem, C., & Eğmir, E. (2018). Prospective teachers’ levels of curriculum literacy. Afyon Kocatepe University Journal of Social Sciences, 20(2), 123-138. https://doi.org/10.32709/akusosbil.428727.
• Esen-Aygün, H. (2018). The relationship between pre–service teachers’ cognitive flexibility and interpersonal problem solving skills. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 18(77), 105-128. https://doi.org/10.14689/ejer.2018.77.6
• Eysenbach, G., & Köhler, C. (2002). How do consumers search for and appraise health information on the world wide web? Qualitative study using focus groups, us ability tests, and in-depth interviews. BMJ,324(7337), 573-577. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.324.7337.573
• Good, M. (2006). Differentiated instruction: principles and techniques for the elementary grades [Unpublished Master Thesis]. Dominican University of California.
• Güleş, E., & Kılınç, H. H. (2024). Examination of primary and secondary teachers’ program literacy and commitment to the curriculum. Nevşehir Hacı Bektaş Veli University Journal of Social Sciences, 14(1), 183-202.
• Gülpek, U. (2020). Investigation of the physical education and sports teachers and prospective teachers curriculum literacy and physical education efficacy levels [Master thesis]. Uludag University.
• Gülüm İ. V., & Dağ, İ. (2012). The Turkish adaptation, validity and reliability study of the repetitive thinking questionnaire and the cognitive flexibility ınventory. Anatolian Journal of Psychiatry, 13(3), 216-223. https://doi.org/10.5455/apd.31295
• Gündoğan, G. (2019). A qualitative evaluation on teachers' curriculum literacy [Master thesis]. Kahramanmaras Sütcü Imam University.
• Güneş Şinego, S., & Çakmak, M. (2021). Examination of education program literacy levels of teachers. The Journal of Kesit Academy, 7(27), 233-256. https://doi.org/10.29228/kesit.51034
• Himmetoğlu, B., Balıktay, S. O., Demirci, S., Yılmaz, G. &, Cengizoğlu, S. (2021). Education at a Glance 2021: Assessment and Recommendations for Türkiye. Turkish Education Association.
• Kahramanoğlu, R. (2019). A study on teachers' levels of curriculum literacy. International Journal of Social Research, 12(65), 827-840. http://dx.doi.org/10.17719/jisr.2019.3495
• Kaptanbaş Gürbüz, E. (2017). Cognitive flexibility and self efficacy levels of pedagogical formation program students [Master thesis]. Abant Izzet Baysal University.
• Karakuş, F. (2016).Elementary teacher candidates' self-efficacy perceptions on teaching multigrade classes. Electronic Turkish Studies, 11(19), 491-510. http://dx.doi.org/10.7827/TurkishStudies.10056
• Kasapoglu, K. (2020). Perceived curriculum literacy scale for teachers: A scale development and validation study. Inonu University Journal of the Faculty of Education, 21(2), 963-977. https://doi.org/10.17679/inuefd.725916
• Kaya, T. (2018). Investigation of cognitive flexibility and psychological resilience levels of various professions working in special education centers [Master thesis]. Istanbul Arel University.
• Keskin, A. (2020). Determining the perceptions of teachers' instructional program literacy levels [Doctoral dissertation]. Hacettepe University.
• Keskin, A., & Korkmaz, H. (2021). Development of teachers’ curriculum literacy perception scale. Turkish Journal of Educational Sciences, 19(2), 857-884. https://doi.org/10.37217/tebd.917130.
• Kline, R. B. (2011). The principles and application of structural equation modeling (S. Sen, Trans.). Nobel Akademi Yayıncılık.
• Kurudayıoğlu, M., & Tüzel, S. (2010). The types of literacy of the 21st century, changing text comprehension and Turkish teaching. Journal of Turkology Research, (28), 283-298.
• Le Compte, M. D. and Goetz, J. P. (1982). Problems of reliability and validity in ethnographic research. Review of Educational Research,52(1), 31-60. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543052001031
• Martin, M. M., & Anderson, C. M. (1998). The cognitive flexibility scale: three validity studies. Communication Repots, 11(1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1080/08934219809367680.
• Martin, M. M., & Rubin, R. B. (1995). A new measure of cognitive flexibility. Psychological Reports, 76(2), 623–626. https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.1995.76.2.623
• Millî Eğitim Bakanlığı [MEB]. (2017). General competencies for the teaching profession. http://oygm.meb.gov.tr/meb_iys_dosyalar/2017_12/11115355.
• Nsibande, R. N., & Modiba, M. M. (2012). I just do as expected. Teachers’ implementation of Continuous Assessment and challenges to curriculum literacy. Research Papers in Education, 27(5), 629-645. https://doi.org/10.1080/02671522.2011.560961
• Odden, A., Borman, G., & Fermanich, M. (2004). Assessing teacher, classroom, and school effects, including fiscal effects. Peabody Journal of Education, 79(4), 4-32. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327930pje7904_2
• Özen, F., & Üçüncü, A. S. (2022). Developing the critical thinking skill test for high school students: A validity and reliability study. International Journal of Psychology and Educational Studies, 9(2), 492-508. https://dx.doi.org/10.52380/ijpes.2022.9.2.752
• Özgen, K., & Bindak, R. (2008). The development of self-efficiacy scale for mathematics literacy. Kastamonu Education Journal, 16(2), 517-528.
• Özgür, H., & Çuhadar, C. (2015). Investigation the relationship between self-efficacy perceptions on computer programming and cognitive flexibility levels of information technology pre-service teachers. [Paper presentation]. 9th International Computer & Instructional Technologies Symposium. Afyon, Türkiye.
• Özhan, Ş. Ç., Tekeli, P., & Altun, A. (2024). Investigating the role of cognitive flexibility in shaping teacher engagement in a simulated virtual classroom. In International Technology, Education and Development Conference 2024 Proceedings (pp. 6475-6480). International Academy of Technology, Education and Development (IATED). https://doi.org/10.21125/inted.2024.1627
• Parlaktaş, B. (2018). Examining the perceptions of science teacher candidates' toward laboratory learning environment, cognitive flexibilitiy and social problem solving skills [Master thesis]. Aydin Adnan Menderes University.
• Pepe, Ş. (2021). The relationship between academic self-efficacy and cognitive flexibility: Physical education and sports teacher candidates. Propósitos y Representaciones, 9(SPE3), e1159. https://doi.org/10.20511/pyr2021.v9nSPE3.1159
• Polatoğlu, E. (2018). The relationship between cognitive flexibility levels and creativity and empathy levels of teachers working with special required individuals [Master thesis]. Marmara University.
• Powers, E. A. (2008). The use of independent study as a viable differentiation technique for gifted learners in the regular classroom. Gifted Child Today, 31(3), 57-65. https://doi.org/10.4219/gct-2008-782
• 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
• Rivkin, S., Hanushek, E. A., & Kain. J. F. (2005). Teachers, schools and academic achievement. Econometrica, 73(2), 417–458. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0262.2005.00584.x
• Saracaloğlu, A. S. (2019). Program development and evaluation in education. In A. S. Saracaloğlu (Ed.), Principles and methods of teaching (4th ed., pp. 23–78). Pegem Akademi.
• Saracaloğlu, A. S., Madran, F., & Altın, M. (2019, November 30–December 1). An investigation of teachers' curriculum literacy [Paper presentation]. Third International Congress on Teacher Education and Accreditation, Ankara, Türkiye.
• Saracaloğlu, A. S., & Gündüz Çetin, İ. (2020, October 23–24). Analysis of the relationship between teachers' educational program literacy and professional self-efficiency levels [Paper presentation]. Experiential Learning Congress 2020, İstanbul, Türkiye.
• Saral, N. Ç. (2019). Exploring curriculum literacy level of English language teachers in Türkiye [Master thesis]. Gazi University.
• Sarıca, R. (2021). A study on teachers’ curriculum literacy. Kırşehir Faculty of Education Journal, 22(1), 132-170. https://doi.org/10.29299/kefad.776214
• Sarıgöz, O. (2021). The opinions of teacher candidates on educational programmes and its literacy. Social Science Development Journal, 6(25), 273-284. http://dx.doi.org/10.31567/ssd.393
• Schroeder, S., & Curcio, R. (2022). Critiquing, curating, and adapting: cultivating 21st-century critical curriculum literacy with teacher candidates. Journal of Teacher Education, 73(2), 129-144. https://doi.org/10.1177/00224871221075279
• 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
• Soylu, F. (2019). Investigating relationship between science teaching attitudes and cognitive flexibility levels of preschool teachers [Master thesis]. Kütahya Dumlupinar University.
• Stevens, G. (1999). Age at immigration and second language proficiency among foreign-born adults. Language in Society, 28(4), 555-578. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404599004030
• Superfine, A. C. (2008). Planning for mathematics instruction: A model of experienced teachers’ planning processes in the context of a reform mathematics curriculum. The Mathematics Educator, 18(2), 11-22.
• Sural, S., & Dedebali N. C. (2018). A study of curriculum literacy and information literacy levels of teacher candidates in department of social sciences education. European Journal of Educational Research, 7(2), 303-317. https://doi.org/10.12973/eu-jer.7.2.303
• Türe, H., & Sarıçam, H. (2016, 28–29 Nisan). An investigation of the relationship between pre-service teachers' cognitive flexibility levels and their problem-solving skills [Paper presentation]. 1st Eurasian Positive Psychology Congress, Istanbul, Türkiye.
• Türeyen, H., & Berkant, H. G. (2023). Investigation of curriculum literacy levels of school administrators and teachers. International Social Mentality and Researcher Thinkers Journal, 9(78), 5435-5448. http://dx.doi.org/10.29228/smryj.74012
• Türk Eğitim Derneği [TED]. (2009). Teacher competencies. http://portal.ted.org.tr/yayinlar/Ogretmen_Yeterlik_Kitap.pdf
• Ustabulut, M. Y. (2021). Literacy levels in the education program of teachers teaching Turkish as a foreign language. Fırat University Journal of Social Sciences, 31(3), 1235-1243. https://doi.org/10.18069/firatsbed.941957
• Üzümcü, B., & Müezzin, E. E. (2018). Investigation of the level of cognitive flexibility and job satisfaction of teachers. Sakarya University Journal of Education, 8(1), 8-25. https://doi.org/10.19126/suje.325679
• Yakar, A. (2022). Action research on the development of curriculum literacy and curriculum modeling skills of mathematics teacher candidates through the socratic seminar technique. International Journal of Educational Studies and Policy, 3(2), 1-13. https://doi.org/10.58385/ijesp.1118944
• Yar Yıldırım, V. (2020). Development of teachers’ curriculum literacy scale: validity and reliability study. Inonu University Journal of the Faculty of Education, 21(1), 208-224. https://doi.org/10.17679/inuefd.590695
• Yar Yıldırım, V. (2021). The impact of teacher idealism on curriculum literacy: The role of believing in education as a mediator variable. International Journal of Curriculum and Instruction, 13(2), 1548-1563.
• Yazgan, A. D. (2021). Investigation of the relationship between pre-service teachers' cognitive flexibility levels and cultural intelligence levels. Ahi Evran University Journal of the Institute of Social Sciences, 7(1), 212-231. https://doi.org/10.31592/aeusbed.803469
• Yelpaze, İ., & Yakar, L. (2019). The investigation of life satisfaction and cognitive flexibility of university students. Turkish Journal of Psychological Counseling and Guidance, 9(54), 913-935. https://doi.org/10.17066/tpdrd.598282
• Yıldırım, A. and Şimşek, E. (2018). Qualitative research methods in the social sciences. Ankara: Seçkin Yayınları
• Yıldız, S. (2019). The relationship between perceptions of cognitive awareness of curriculum development and educational program literacy of prospective teachers. International Social Sciences Studies Journal, 5(44), 5177-5191. https://doi.org/10.26449/sssj.1767
• Yılmaz, G., & Kahramanoğlu, R. (2021). Examining the relationship between curriculum literacy levels, curriculum orientations and curriculum fidelity levels of teachers. Disiplinlerarası Eğitim Araştırmaları Dergisi, 5(10), 178-187. https://doi.org/10.51262/deader.951564
• Wang, H., & Cheng, L. (2019). Factors affecting teachers’ curriculum implementation. The Linguistics Journal, 4(2), 135-166.