Teachers’ curriculum adaptation patterns: a scale development study

References

• Aksu, G., M. T. Eser, and C. O. Güzeller. 2017. Açımlayıcı Ve Doğrulayıcı Faktör Analizi Ile Yapısal Eşitlik Modeli Uygulamaları [Exploratory and Confirmatory Factor Analysis and Structural Equation Model Applications]. Ankara: Detay Yayıncılık.
   Google Scholar
• Ali Çağatay, K., E. Bozkurt, and H. İlhan. 2018. “Examination of Teacher Opinions about Teacher Autonomy.” [Öğretmen özerkliğine ilişkin öğretmen görüşlerinin incelenmesi]. Journal of Education and Humanities: Theory and Practice 9 (18): 77–98.
   Google Scholar
• Bay, E., R. Kahramanoğlu, B. Döş, and E. Turan Özpolat. 2017. “Analysis of Factors Affecting Curriculum Fidelity” [Programa Bağlılığı Etkileyen Faktörlerin Analizi]. Mehmet Akif Ersoy University Journal of Education Faculty 43: 110–137. doi:https://doi.org/10.21764/efd.02208
   Google Scholar
• Bernard, A. M. 2017. “Curriculum Decisions and Reasoning of Middle School Teachers.” PhD diss., Brigham Young University. http://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/etd/6488
   Google Scholar
• Blank, R. K., A. Porter, and J. Smithson. 2001. New Tools for Analyzing Teaching, Curriculum and Standards in Mathematics and Science. Results from survey of enacted curriculum project. Final Report to the National Science Foundation on Contract no. REC98-03080. Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Officers. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED458275
   Google Scholar
• Brown, M. W. 2009. “The Teacher-Tool Relationship: Theorizing the Design and Use of Curriculum Materials.” In Mathematics Teachers at Work: Connecting Curriculum Materials and Classroom Instruction, edited by J. T. Remillard, B. A. Herbel-Eisenmann, and G. M. Lloyd, 17–36. New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Bümen, N. T. 2009. “Investigation of Self-Efficacy Beliefs of Primary and Secondary Education Teachers: The Case of Izmir Province” [İlk ve Ortaöğretim Öğretmenlerinin Özyeterlik İnançlarının İncelenmesi: İzmir İli Örneği]. 18th National Educational Sciences Congress, Selçuk, İzmir, October [İlk ve Ortaöğretim Öğretmenlerinin Özyeterlik İnançlarının İncelenmesi: İzmir İli Örneği].
   Google Scholar
• Bümen, N. T., E. Çakar, and D. G. Yıldız. 2014. “Curriculum Fidelity and Factors Affecting Fidelity in the Turkish Context.” [Türkiye’de öğretim programına bağlılık ve bağlılığı etkileyen etkenler]. Educational Sciences:Theory and Practice 14 (1): 203–228.
   Google Scholar
• Bümen, N. T., and Ü. Yazıcılar. 2020. “A Case Study on the Teachers’ Curriculum Adaptations: Differences in State and Private High School” [Öğretmenlerin Öğretim Programı Uyarlamaları Üzerine Bir Durum Çalışması: Devlet ve Özel Lise Farklılıkları]. Gazi University Journal of Education 40 (1): 183–224.
   Google Scholar
• Burkhauser, M. A., and N. K. Lesaux. 2017. “Exercising a Bounded Autonomy: Novice and Experienced Teachers’ Adaptations to Curriculum Materials in an Age of Accountability.” Journal of Curriculum Studies 49 (3): 291–312. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/00220272.2015.1088065.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Büyüköztürk, Ş., Ç. Ebru Kılıç, Ö. Erkan Akgün, K. Şirin, and F. Demirel. 2017. Bilimsel Araştırma Yöntemleri [Scientific Research Methods]. 23th ed. Ankara: Pegem Akademi. doi:https://doi.org/10.14527/9789944919289.
   Google Scholar
• Campbell, E. 2006. “Curricular and Professional Authority in Schools.” Curriculum Inquiry 36 (2): 111–118. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-873X.2006.00349.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cansız Aktaş, M. 2013. “Evaluation of Secondary School Geometry Curriculum According to Teachers’ Opinions.” [Ortaöğretim Geometri öğretim programının öğretmen görüşleri doğrultusunda değerlendirilmesi]. Hacettepe University Journal of Education 28 (3): 69–82.
   Google Scholar
• Capa, Y., J. Cakiroglu, and H. Sarikaya. 2005. “The Development and Validation of a Turkish Version of Teachers’ Sense of Efficacy Scale.” Education and Science 30 (137): 74–81.
   Google Scholar
• Castro Superfine, A., Marshall A. M., and C. Kelso; Castro Superfine. 2015. “Fidelity of Implementation: Bringing Written Curriculum Materials into the Equation.” The Curriculum Journal 26 (1): 164–191. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/09585176.2014.990910.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Çelik, Z., S. Gümüş, and B. S. Gür. 2017. “Moving beyond a Monotype Education in Turkey: Major Reforms in the Last Decade and Challenges Ahead.” In Multicultural Education in Glocal Perspectives, edited by Y. K. Cha, J. Gundara, S. H. Ham, and M. Lee, 103–119, Singapore: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Choppin, J., A. R. McDuffie, C. Drake, and J. Davis. 2018. “Curriculum Ergonomics: Conceptualizing the Interactions between Curriculum Design and Use.” International Journal of Education Research 92: 75–85. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2018.09.015.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Choppin, J. 2011. “Learned Adaptations: Teachers’ Understanding and Use of Curriculum Resources.” Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education 14 (5): 331–353. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s10857-011-9170-3.
   Google Scholar
• Davis, E. A., A. S. Palincsar, P. S. Smith, A. M. Arias, and S. M. Kademian. 2017. “Educative Curriculum Materials: Uptake, Impact, and Implications for Research and Design.” Educational Researcher 46 (6): 293–304. doi:https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X17727502.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Davis, E. A. , C. T. Forbes, and S. Stevens. 2011. “Understanding Pedagogical Design Capacity Through Teachers’ Narratives.” Teaching and Teacher Education 27 (4): 797–810. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2011.01.005.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Davis, E. A., and J. S. Krajcik. 2005. “Designing Educative Curriculum Materials to Promote Teacher Learning.” Educational Researcher 34 (3): 3–14. doi:https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X034003003.
   Google Scholar
• Debarger, A. H., W. R. Penuel, S. Moorthy, Y. Beauvineau, A. Kennedy, and C. K. Boscardin. 2017. “Investigating Purposeful Science Curriculum Adaptation as a Strategy to Improve Teaching and Learning.” Science Education 101 (1): 66–98. doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21249.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Drake, C., and M. G. Sherin. 2006. “Practicing Change: Curriculum Adaptation and Teacher Narrative in the Context of Mathematics Education Reform.” Curriculum Inquiry 36 (2): 153–187. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-873X.2006.00351.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Erkuş, A. 2016a. Psikolojide Ölçme Ve Ölçek Geliştirme – I: Temel Kavramlar Ve Işlemler [Measurement and Scale Development in Psychology – I: Basic Concepts and Procedures]. 3rd ed. Ankara: Pegem Akademi.
   Google Scholar
• Erkuş, A. 2016b. “Ölçek Geliştirme Ve Uyarlama Çalışmalarındaki Sorunlar Ile Yazım Ve Değerlendirilmesi” [Problems in Scale Development and Adaptation Studies, Writing and Evaluation]. In Eğitim Bilimlerinde Yenilik Ve Nitelik Arayışı [Searching Innovation and Quality in Educational Sciences] In edited by Ö. Demirel, and S. Dinçer, 1211–1224. Ankara: Pegem Akademi. doi:https://doi.org/10.14527/9786053183563b02.074.
   Google Scholar
• Fernandes, P., C. Leite, A. Mouraz, and C. Figueiredo . 2013. “Curricular Contextualization: Tracking the Meanings of a Concept.” The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher 22 (4): 417–425. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-012-0041-1.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fogleman, J., K. L. McNeill, and J. Krajcik. 2011. “Examining the Effect of Teachers‘ Adaptations of a Middle School Science Inquiry-oriented Curriculum Unit on Student Learning.” Journal of Research in Science Teaching 48 (2): 149–169. doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20399.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gelmez Burakgazi, S. 2019. “Curriculum Fidelity: Opening the Black Box.” [Programa Bağlılık: Kara Kutuyu Aralamak] Başkent University Journal of Education 6(2), 236–249.
   Google Scholar
• Güvenç, H. 2011. “Autonomy Support and Professional Self-Efficacy Perceptions of Classroom Teachers” [Sınıf öğretmenlerinin özerklik destekleri ve mesleki özyeterlik algıları] Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice 17 (1): 99–116.
   Google Scholar
• Hair, J. F., W. C. Black, B. J. Babin, and R. E. Anderson. 2009. Multivariate Data Analysis. 7th ed. London: Pearson Education.
   Google Scholar
• Harman, H. H. 1976. Modern Factor Analysis. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. https://books.google.com.tr/books?id=e-vMN68C3M4C
   Google Scholar
• Henson, R., K. Robin, and J. Kyle. Roberts. 2006. “Use of Exploratory Factor Analysis in Published Research Common Errors and Some Comment on Improved Practice.” Educational and Psychological Measurement 66 (3): 393–416. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164405282485.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hong, W.-P., and P. Youngs. 2016. “Why are Teachers Afraid of Curricular Autonomy? Contradictory Effects of the New National Curriculum in South Korea.” Asia Pacific Journal of Education 36 (sup1): 20–33. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/02188791.2014.959471.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jöreskog, K. G., and S. Dag. 1993. LISREL 8: Structural Equation Modeling with the SIMPLIS Command Language. Lincolnwood: Scientific Software International.
   Google Scholar
• Karabacak, M. S. 2014. “Ankara Ili Genel Liselerinde Görev Yapan Öğretmenlerin Özerklik Algıları Ile Özyeterlik Algıları Arasındaki Ilişki” [The Relationship Between the Perceptions of Autonomy and Self-Efficacy of Teachers Working in General High Schools in Ankara]. Masters diss., University of Ankara.
   Google Scholar
• Karacaoğlu, Ö. C., and E. Acar. 2010. “Yenilenen Programların Uygulanmasında Öğretmenlerin Karşılaştığı Sorunlar” [Problems Faced by Teachers in the Implementation of Renewed Curricula]. Yüzüncü Yıl University Journal of Education Faculty VII (I): 45–58.
   Google Scholar
• Kärkkäinen, K. 2012. Bringing about Curriculum Innovations: Implicit Approaches in the OECD Area. OECD Education Working Papers, No. 82. Paris: OECD Publishing. doi: https://doi.org/10.1787/5k95qw8xzl8s-en.
   Google Scholar
• Kauffman, D. 2005. Curriculum Prescription and Curriculum Constraint: Second-Year Teachers’ Perceptions. PNGT Working Paper. Cambridge, MA: Project on the Next Generation of Teachers. Retrieved from http://www.gse.harvard.edu/,ngt
   Google Scholar
• Kim, J. S., M. A. Burkhauser, D. M. Quinn, J. Guryan, H. C. Kingston, and K. Aleman. 2017. “Effectiveness of Structured Teacher Adaptations to an Evidence-Based Summer Literacy Program.” Reading Research Quarterly 52 (4): 443–467. doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.178.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Koşar Altınyelken, H.et al 2013. “Teachers’ principled resistance to curriculum change: A compelling case from Turkey.” In Global managerial education reforms and teachers: Emerging policies, controversies and issues in developing contexts, edited by A. Verger, H. Koşar Altinyelken, and M. Koning, 109–126. Education International Research Institute.
   Google Scholar
• Kurz, A., S. N. Elliott, J. H. Wehby, and J. L. Smithson. 2010. “Alignment of the Intended, Planned, and Enacted Curriculum in General and Special Education and Its Relation to Student Achievement.” The Journal of Special Education 44 (3): 131–145. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/0022466909341196.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• LaCoe, C. S. 2006. “Decomposing Teacher Autonomy: A Study Investigating Types of Teacher Autonomy and How Current Public School Climate Affects Teacher Autonomy.” PhD diss., University of Pennsylvania.
   Google Scholar
• Leech, N. L., K. C. Barrett, and G. A. Morgan. 2014. SPSS for Intermediate Statistics: Use and Interpretation. Igarss 2014. 2nd ed. London: Routledge. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s13398-014-0173-7.2.
   Google Scholar
• Leite, C., P. Fernandes, and C. Figueiredo. 2020. “National Curriculum vs Curricular Contextualisation: Teachers’ Perspectives.” Educational Studies 46 (3): 259–272. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/03055698.2019.1570083.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leshota, M., and J. Adler. 2018. “Disaggregating a Mathematics Teacher’s Pedagogical Design Capacity.”In Research on Mathematics Textbooks and Teachers’ Resources: Advances and Issues, edited by L. Fan, L. Trouche, C. Qi, S. Rezat, and J. Visnovska, 89–117. ICME13 Monograph. . ICME13 Monograph. Cham, Switzerland: Springer. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-73253-4_5.
   Google Scholar
• Li, Z., and G. J. Harfitt. 2017. “An Examination of Language Teachers’ Enactment of Curriculum Materials in the Context of a Centralised Curriculum.” Pedagogy, Culture and Society 25 (3): 403–416. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/14681366.2016.1270987.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McCarthey, S. J., and R. Woodard. 2018. “Faithfully Following, Adapting, or Rejecting Mandated Curriculum: Teachers’ Curricular Enactments in Elementary Writing Instruction.” Pedagogies: An International Journal 13 (1): 56–80. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/1554480X.2017.1376672.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McGee, J. R., C. Wang, and D. Polly. 2013. “Guiding Teachers in the Use of a Standards-Based Mathematics Curriculum: Teacher Perceptions and Subsequent Instructional Practices after an Intensive Professional Development Program.” School Science and Mathematics 113 (1): 16–28. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1949-8594.2012.00172.x.
   Google Scholar
• Meidl, T. D., and C. Meidl. 2011. “Curriculum Integration and Adaptation: Individualizing Pedagogy for Linguistically and Culturally Diverse Students.” Current Issues in Education 14 (1). Retrieved from http://cie.asu.edu/
   Google Scholar
• MoNE. 2018. 2023 Education Vision Document. [2023 Eğitim Vizyon Belgesi]. http://2023vizyonu.meb.gov.tr/doc/2023_EGITIM_VIZYONU.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Özoğlu, M., B. S. Gür, and A. Altınoğlu. 2013. Teacher in the World and Turkey: Rhetoric and Practice [Türkiye’de Ve Dünyada Öğretmenlik: Retorik Ve Pratik], 54. Ankara: Eğitim Bir-Sen.
   Google Scholar
• Öztürk, İ. H. 2012. “The Role and Autonomy of the Teacher in the Planning of Instruction: The Annual Plan of Secondary School History Teachers.” [Öğretimin planlanmasında öğretmenin rolü ve özerkliği: Ortaöğretim tarih öğretmenlerinin yıllık plan hazırlama ve uygulama örneği] Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice 12 (1): 271–299.
   Google Scholar
• Penuel, W. R., H. McWilliams, C. McAuliffe, A. E. Benbow, C. Mably, and Hayden, M.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: 415–436. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-008-9120-9.
   Google Scholar
• Penuel, W. R., and L. P. Gallagher. 2009. “Preparing Teachers to Design Instruction for Deep Understanding in Middle School Earth Science.” The Journal of the Learning Sciences 18 (4): 461–508. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/10508400903191904.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Penuel, W. R., L. P. Gallagher, and S. Moorthy. 2011. “Preparing Teachers to Design Sequences of Instruction in Earth Systems Science: A Comparison of Three Professional Development Programs.” American Educational Research Journal 48 (4): 996–1025. doi:https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831211410864.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Polly, D., J. R. McGee, C. Wang, R. G. Lambert, D. K. Pugalee, and S. Johnson. 2013. “The Association between Teachers’ Beliefs, Enacted Practices, and Student Learning in Mathematics.” The Mathematics Educator 22 (2): 11–30.
   Google Scholar
• Remillard, J. T., and D. J. Heck. 2014. “Conceptualizing the Curriculum Enactment Process in Mathematics Education.” ZDM Mathematics Education 46 (5): 705–718. doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21249.
   Google Scholar
• Remillard, J. T. 2018. “Mapping the Relationship between Written and Enacted Curriculum: Examining Teachers’ Decision Making.” In Invited Lectures from the 13th International Congress on Mathematical Education, edited by G. Kaiser, H. Forgasz, M. Graven, A. Kuzniak, E. Simmt, and B. Xu, 483–500. Hamburg: Springer, Germany. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-72170-5.
   Google Scholar
• Remillard, J. T., and M. B. Bryans. 2004. “Teachers‘ Orientations toward Mathematics Curriculum Materials: Implications for Teacher Learning.” Journal for Research in Mathematics Education 35 (5): 352–388. doi:https://doi.org/10.2307/30034820.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Remillard, J. T. 2005. “Examining Key Concepts in Research on Teachers’ Use of Mathematics Curricula.” Review of Educational Research 75 (2): 211–246. doi:https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543075002211.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Remillard, J. T. 2016. “Examining Teachers’ Interactions with Curriculum Resource to Uncover Pedagogical Design Capacity.” In Research on Mathematics Textbooks and Teachers’ Resources: Advances and Issues, edited by L. Fan, L. Trouche, C. Qi, S. Rezat, and J. Visnovska, 69–88. Hamburg: Springer. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-73253-4.
   Google Scholar
• Roehrig, G. H., R. A. Kruse, and A. Kern. 2007. “Teacher and School Characteristics and Their Influence on Curriculum Implementation.” Journal of Research in Science Teaching 44 (7): 883–907. doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20180.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Roth McDuffie, A., J. Choppin, C. Drake, and J. Davis. 2018. “Middle School Mathematics Teachers’ Orientations and Noticing of Features of Mathematics Curriculum Materials.” International Journal of Educational Research 92: 173–187. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2018.09.019.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Seçer, İ. 2015. Psikolojik Test Geliştirme Ve Uyarlama Süreci: SPSS Ve LISREL Uygulamaları [Psychological Test Development and Adaptation Process: SPSS and LISREL Applications]. Ankara: Anı Yayıncılık.
   Google Scholar
• Sherin, M. G., and C. Drake. 2009. “Curriculum Strategy Framework: Investigating Patterns in Teachers’ Use of a Reform Based Elementary Mathematics Curriculum.” Journal of Curriculum Studies 41 (4): 467–500. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/00220270802696115.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Şimşek, Ö. F. 2007. Yapısal Eşitlik Modellemesine Giriş: Temel Ilkeler Ve LISREL Uygulamaları [Introduction to Structural Equation Modeling: Basic Principles and LISREL Applications]. Ankara: Ekinoks.
   Google Scholar
• Skilbeck, M. 2005. “School-Based Curriculum Development.” In The Roots of Educational Change, edited by A. Lieberman, 109–132. Dordrecht: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Streiner, D. L. 1994. “Figuring Out Factors: The Use and Misuse of Factor Analysis.” Canadian Journal of Psychiatry 39 (3): 135–140. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/070674379403900303.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tabachnick, B. G., and L. S. Fidell. 2001. Using Multivariate Statistics. 4th ed. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
   Google Scholar
• Tarr, J. E., Ó. Chávez, R. E. Reys, and B. J. Reys. 2006. “From the Written to the Enacted Curricula: The Intermediary Role of Middle School Mathematics Teachers in Shaping Students‘ Opportunity to Learn.” School Science and Mathematics 106 (4): 191–201. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1949-8594.2006.tb18075.x.
   Google Scholar
• Tokgöz, Ö. 2013. “Transformation of Centralized Curriculum into Teaching and Learning Processes: Teachers’ Journey of Thought Curriculum into Enacted One.” PhD diss., Ankara, Middle East Technical University.
   Google Scholar
• Troyer, M. 2017. “Teachers’ Adaptations to and Orientations Towards an Adolescent Literacy Curriculum.” Journal of Curriculum Studies 51 (2): 1–27.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Troyer, M. 2019. “Productivity of Teacher Adaptations to an Adolescent Literacy Curriculum.” The Elementary School Journal 119 (3): 1–35. doi:https://doi.org/10.1086/701719.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tschannen-Moran, M., and A. W. Hoy. 2001. “Teacher Efficacy: Capturing an Elusive Construct.” Teaching and Teacher Education 17 (7): 783–805. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/S0742-051X(01)00036-1.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ulaş, J., and M. Aksu. 2015. “Development of Teacher Autonomy Scale for Turkish Teachers.” Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 186 (4): 344–349. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.04.023.
   Google Scholar
• Valverde, G. A., L. J. Bianchi, R. G. Wolfe, W. H. Schmidt, and R. T. Houang. 2002. According to the Book: Using TIMSS to Investigate the Translation of Policy into Practice through the World of Textbooks. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
   Google Scholar
• Vieira, F. 2007. “Teacher Autonomy: Why Should We Care?” Independence 41: 20–28.
   Google Scholar
• Viirpalu, P., E. Krull, and R. Mikser. 2014. “Investigating Estonian Teachers’ Expectations for the General Education Curriculum.” Journal of Teacher Education for Sustainability 16 (2): 54–70. doi:https://doi.org/10.2478/jtes-2014-0011.
   Google Scholar
• Wadheefa, A., and M. Y. Tee. 2020. “Teachers’ Use of Curriculum: A Review of Literature.” Jurnal Kurikulum & Pengajaran Asia Pasifik 8 (3): 39–48.
   Google Scholar
• Westwood Taylor, M. 2013. “Replacing the ‘teacher-proof’ curriculum with the ‘curriculum-proof’ teacher: Toward more effective interactions with mathematics textbooks.” Journal of Curriculum Studies 45(3), 295–321. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/00220272.2012.710253
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Westwood Taylor, M. 2016. “Research Commentary: From Effective Curricula Toward Effective Curriculum Use.” Journal for Research in Mathematics Education 47 (5): 440–453. doi:https://doi.org/10.5951/jresematheduc.47.5.0440.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yazıcılar, Ü., and N. T. Bümen. 2019. “Crossing over the Brick Wall: Adapting the Curriculum as a Way Out.” Issues in Educational Research 29 (2): 583–609.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar