Teaching and Teacher Education 137 (2024) 104386

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Teaching and Teacher Education

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/tate

Research paper

Changes in the curriculum adaptation skills of teachers as a result of

professional development support: A Turkish case study
Ümran Y. Nalbantoğlu a, *, Nilay T. Bümen b
a
OLDENDORFF CARRIERS GmbH & Co. KG., Lübeck, Germany
b
Educational Sciences Department, Education Faculty, Ege University, Izmir, Turkey

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Despite the growing popularity of research on teachers’ curriculum adaptation, how to improve their ability to
Curriculum use adapt curriculum productively remains unexplored. This paper presents a multi-case study to reveal changes in
Curriculum adaptation the productivity of curriculum adaptation patterns through long-term professional development (PD) support.
Teachers’ professional development
The findings indicate that PD support enhanced the productive adaptation of teachers in all patterns and that
Productive adaptation patterns
adaptive decisions became systematic and deliberative at the 14-week follow-up. Moreover, extending and
omitting demand high levels of pedagogical design capacity, which requires further support for teachers. Lastly,
the study discusses the implications on the growth and adaptation of teachers.

1. Introduction curriculum-teacher relationship. “PDC is a teacher’s capacity to perceive

A well-known fact is that formal and enacted curricula may only be
partially replicated, such that adaptations are inevitable (Roth McDuffie
et al., 2018), because strictly adhering to the curricula is impossible for
teachers due to differences in region, school, class, and personal char­
acteristics. This perspective has led researchers in the United States
(Burkhauser & Lesaux, 2017; McCarthey & Woodard, 2018), Portugal
(Leite et al., 2020), the Netherlands (Schipper et al., 2020), Estonia
(Viirpalu et al., 2014), the Maldives (Wadheefa & Tee, 2020), China (Li
& Harfitt, 2018), South Korea (Hong & Youngs, 2016), and Türkiye
(Bümen & Yazıcılar, 2020; Yazıcılar & Bümen, 2019) to investigate how
the curriculum is adapted in the classroom. In other words, research on
how teachers adapt the curriculum has increased in many countries over
the past decade. The process of making modifications and changes in
conjunction with a curriculum is known as curriculum adaptation (Sherin
& Drake, 2009). However, teachers without knowledge of analyzing
curriculum resources in a productive manner may fail to identify the
strengths and weaknesses of such resources. Hence, teachers may make
haphazard adaptations or may fail to make the necessary adaptations
due to a lack of understanding of curriculum resources. Therefore,
investigating the type of support needed by teachers to enable produc­
tive adaptation is becoming increasingly important.
Brown (2009) introduced the concept of pedagogical design capacity
(PDC) to define the skills that teachers should possess in the
and mobilize existing curricular resources in order to craft instructional
episodes” (Brown, 2009, p. 29). Perceiving can be considered as a
teacher’s act of recognizing and interpreting available curricular re­
sources, assessing the limitations of the curriculum and classroom
setting, and balancing trade-offs, whereas mobilizing emphasizes a
teacher’s enactment to devise strategies and act on or with the curricular
resources (Brown & Edelson, 2003). To overcome balancing problems
with the local context, teachers should employ their ability to perceive
and mobilize the curriculum (PDC), which is a relatively difficult pro­
cess. As such, the need emerges to support teachers who address cur­
riculum adaptation to the classroom through professional development
(PD) to overcome this challenging process (Debarger et al., 2017;
Westwood Taylor, 2016). When no support is provided to teachers, that
is, they are expected to adapt using their expertise or competence, then
their adaptation may undermine or obstruct the learning of students
(Bümen & Yazıcılar, 2020). Consequently, as Troyer (2019) states, many
adaptations are reasonable and productive, whereas others can create
“lethal mutations.”
Some studies in Western countries reveal that PD support has
improved not only the curriculum literacy of teachers (Rudduck, 1987)
but also their skills in evaluating, planning, implementing, and adapting
the curriculum (Davis et al., 2011; Penuel et al., 2009; Penuel & Gal­
lagher, 2009; Roth McDuffie & Mather, 2009; Westwood Taylor, 2013).
In other words, as quoted by Roth McDuffie and Mather (2009, p. 308),

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: umranyazicilar@gmail.com (Ü.Y. Nalbantoğlu), nilay.bumen@ege.edu.tr (N.T. Bümen).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2023.104386
Received 10 June 2022; Received in revised form 5 October 2023; Accepted 17 October 2023
Available online 1 November 2023
0742-051X/© 2023 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Ü.Y. Nalbantoğlu and N.T. Bümen
“their curriculum reasoning” has been enhanced using PD support. Also,
a limited number of studies (Roth McDuffie and Mather, 2009; Schipper
et al., 2020; Westwood Taylor, 2013) demonstrate that less adherence to
the curriculum occurs, but an increased tendency is observed in adapt­
ing the curriculum as a result of PD support. However, they lack any
indication of improvement in productivity based on teacher adaptation.
Additionally, the type of change that occurs, wherein the adaptation
pattern is a result of PD support, remains unknown. In summary, the
need emerges for further discussions on improving changes in adapta­
tion patterns and productivity using PD support.
When teachers are supported to develop their capacity to interpret
the pedagogical meaning and contextualization of curriculum resources,
they will be more likely to adapt them in a more deliberative and pro­
ductive manner. This aspect is particularly beneficial for varied con­
texts, such as Türkiye, where a single curriculum resource (textbooks
published by the Ministry of National Education [MoNE], the central
system) is provided for classes with diverse student profiles. Hence,
using a single resource for different levels and interests of classes,
teachers in Türkiye require PD support in the form of workshops, where
they can debate and share ideas with colleagues on adapting this single
resource. Within this context, PD activities are considered extremely
valuable, because they can improve the ability of teachers to interpret
and adapt these resources.
Although few scholars in Western countries question the quality of
adaptation within the context of PD (Davis et al., 2011; McCartney &
Woodard, 2018; Penuel et al., 2009; Penuel & Gallagher, 2009; West­
wood Taylor, 2013), it is still unclear what kind of support system
teachers in centralized countries need to make more deliberate and
productive adaptations. The question of whether similar findings would
have emerged if PD support had been provided to teachers in a
centralized country encouraged us to conduct this study. To fulfill this
gap, we designed and implemented a PD program (called Productive
Adaptation of the Math Curriculum-PAMC) so that teachers could make
more systematic, deliberative, and productive curriculum adaptations.
We also examined how teachers’ adaptation patterns and the progress of
their productivity changed through PD support. In line with this aim,
this study assumes that teachers will be able to use and adapt the cur­
riculum more productively as a result of PD support, which includes
long-term follow-up studies. The study formulated the following
research questions within this viewpoint:
1. To what extent has the teachers’ engagement in PAMC activities
changed their ability to adapt curriculum in terms of the level of
adaptation and frequently used adaptation patterns?
2. How did the teachers’ engagement in PAMC change their produc­
tivity of adaptations?
We believe that the findings of the research might help us understand
better the risks of unproductivity in adaptation patterns, which guides us
to explore the ways to support teachers on how to avoid them. This study
differs from others (Roth McDuffie & Mather, 2009; Schipper et al.,
2020; Westwood Taylor, 2013) in adaptation patterns and productivity
change as a result of PD activities. In addition, it is the first study on the
improvement of productivity in adaptation through PD support. Thus, it
can serve as an example of providing support to teachers to increase
their productivity in adaptation. Furthermore, the findings can provide
crucial insights into which adaptation patterns represent more risks to
productivity.
2. Theoretical framework
2.1. Curriculum adaptation, adaptation patterns, and productivity in
adaptation
In Western countries, the latest research conceptualized and differ­
entiated curricula such as formal/official/written, teacher-intended,
2
Teaching and Teacher Education 137 (2024) 104386
operational/implemented, and enacted/attained according to some
multi-levels (e.g. macro, meso, micro curricula) (Burkhauser & Lesaux,
2017; Pepin et al., 2019; Remillard & Heck, 2014). These definitions of
various curriculum levels and types represent that a curriculum is
re-contextualized. However, we think that this conceptualization is not
suited for countries with centralized curricula. Indeed, in centralized
countries, the curriculum is in the hands of the government (Yun-peng
et al., 2006) and a single curriculum implementation is expected for all
types of schools and districts despite the great diversity at schools. For
instance, Turkish teachers need to report on what they teach daily by
writing learning outcomes specified in the curricula into the classroom
notebooks to be loyal to the official curriculum. They are constantly
monitored by school administrators to control if they adhere to the
curriculum. The school administration is empowered to formally
investigate teachers when they detect any inconsistency. Therefore, in
the Turkish context, it can be stated that constant monitoring on con­
ducting lessons according to curricula is very crucial (Bümen &
Holmqvist, 2022).
As stated by Remillard (2019), using a curriculum involves a series of
teacher practices that involve selecting specific parts of the curriculum
that are relevant to their context and purposefully reading, interpreting,
adjusting, and re-interpreting the curriculum to design instruction.
Curriculum resources (e.g., textbooks and digital materials) are also
included in this definition because they mediate the interaction between
teachers and the enacted curriculum, as Li (2021) emphasizes. Brown
(2009) defines the interaction between teachers and curriculum re­
sources in the context of “types to curriculum use” (p. 24) and states that
one of these types is curriculum adaptation. Curriculum adaptation
denotes significant adjustments made by teachers to a prescribed cur­
riculum such as the structure, activities, or objective of the lesson (Drake
& Sherin, 2006; Sherin & Drake, 2009).
Sherin and Drake (2009), who determine that teachers act according
to certain patterns in the process of adapting the curriculum, define
three patterns, namely, create, omit, and replace. Although various
studies assign different names to these patterns (e.g., Bernard, 2017; Li
& Harfitt, 2017), one can infer that three main patterns are visible,
namely, extending, omitting, and replacing/revising (Yazıcılar Nalban­
toglu et al., 2021, pp. 1–23). Extending denotes that teachers create a
new concept in teaching or make additions to teaching using resources
that differ from curriculum resources. Omitting indicates failure in
including a part of the official curriculum or materials for instruction or
negligence by a teacher of such parts because they are considered
impractical or useless. Finally, replacing or revising denotes the modifi­
cations made by teachers to the official curriculum or curriculum ma­
terials in terms of format, duration, and order.
Debarger et al. (2013) developed the theoretical framework of pro­
ductivity in curriculum adaptation. According to this framework, pro­
ductive adaptation must first be responsive to multiple stakeholders. In
other words, adaptation should be both faithful to the intentions of
curriculum designers and responsive to the needs of students. Second,
productive adaptation must incorporate responsive discourse practices,
that is, teachers should create a structure that
“emphasizes the contributions of all students, encourages students to
develop their ideas and listen to others’ ideas, and supports students
as they build logical connections and draw reasonable conclusions
rather than the traditional initiate–respond–evaluate sequence, in
which classroom talk consists of a series of brief dialogs between
teacher and selected individual students” (Troyer, 2019, p. 359).
Finally, the third criterion for productive adaptation is related to the
complexity of tasks presented to students. Debarger et al. (2013) pro­
posed that productive adaptation maintains or enhances task
complexity.
The knowledge base reveals that not only how teachers adapt the
curriculum but also the process of adapting the curriculum is influenced
by major factors. Some researchers (Bernard, 2017; Li & Harfitt, 2017;
Ü.Y. Nalbantoğlu and N.T. Bümen
Remillard & Bryans, 2004) found that especially teachers’ orientations
toward teaching, learning, and curriculum materials are influential in
their decision-making in adapting the curriculum resources. The second
factor is related mostly to teachers’ PDC (Brown, 2009; McCartney &
Woodard, 2018; Westwood Taylor, 2016). Indeed, PDC is linked directly
to teachers’ capacity to perceive and mobilize existing resources to
decide on suitable adaptations. Identifying the impacts of adaptations on
student learning (Fogleman et al., 2011; Kim et al., 2017) prompted
several researchers to investigate the important aspects of conducting
productive adaptation to create learning opportunities for students
(Jukić Matić, 2019a; 2019b; Leshota & Adler, 2018). Accordingly,
teacher productivity or unproductivity in terms of adaptation during the
design of instruction is an indicator of high or low levels of PDC. Given
that curriculum adaptation is inevitable in this context, identifying
support mechanisms (concerning PD) that will enhance the PDC of
teachers is vital for productively utilizing the curricula and designing
adaptation that promotes student learning.
2.2. Approaches of PD for systematic and deliberative curriculum use
Before discussing the approaches of systematic and deliberative
curriculum use, it is worth noting that we should start with its definition.
It is known that teachers are involved in the design of meso and micro-
level curricula for decentralized countries (Pepin et al., 2019). For
example, in the countries like the UK, France, or Netherlands, teachers
are bridging the gap between the nationally offered curricula and
teaching in schools by doing design. These kinds of teacher designs are
characterized to ensure the products are for generic use (Pepin et al.,
2013). Therefore, the deliberative use of curricula at these levels is
perhaps to ensure inter-level standardization. On the other hand, this
fact is somewhat different in centralized countries, since there are no
meso, micro, or nano curricula (Pepin et al., 2019) in Türkiye, -only
macro curricula are dominant-. Therefore, with systematic and delib­
erative curriculum use, we mean curriculum implementation balancing
between a centralized country perspective and classroom settings.
Hence, instead of inter-level standardization, we mean adaptations that
teachers purposefully design based on micro- and meso-level needs and
macro-level expectations to enrich students’ learning.
In the Western context, there are few studies on PD to support
teachers’ ability to use and adapt the curriculum, and they have used
different approaches in the PDs implemented. For example, Roth
McDuffie and Mather (2009) used a lesson study and they found an
increase in teachers’ curricular reasoning during collaborative discus­
sions. However, they have not been able to provide a long-term profile of
change showing which adaptation patterns have increased and why.
Similarly, Schipper et al. (2020) intended to increase adaptive teaching
among teachers by encouraging them to consider the different needs of
students through an experimental lesson study. They found that lesson
study played an important role in increasing adaptations and that
teachers became more aware of the different learning needs of their
students. Nonetheless, there was no significant difference in the fre­
quency of adaptations between the experimental and control groups.
Unlike them, Westwood Taylor (2013) used a backward design approach
to identify the stages of systematic adaptation in the context of effective
curriculum use. These stages are (1) the prioritization of goals and
identification of expected or possible ranges of student understanding,
(2) the assessment of the ability of the curriculum to meet the student
needs and maximize learning, and (3) the adaptation of the curriculum
(if necessary), including supplementation or replacement of materials.
Consequently, allowing teachers to follow these stages lowered their
fidelity to the curriculum and enabled them to conduct more systematic
and deliberative adaptations (Westwood Taylor, 2013). Nevertheless,
Westwood Taylor (2013) did not examine teacher change and devel­
opment based on the productivity and patterns of adaptation. In sum, all
these studies, which used different approaches, are still unclear on how
teachers should be supported to productively adapt the curriculum.
3
Teaching and Teacher Education 137 (2024) 104386
Moreover, they have been conducted in decentralized country contexts.
Thus, it is still worth exploring what the big picture would look like in a
curriculum structure for centralized countries.
Our study expands the framework developed by Westwood Taylor
(2013) in two ways. First, the Understanding by Design (UbD) approach,
which involves backward design has been used because UbD, enables
teachers to identify the priorities of the curriculum and formulate a
considerable instructional design before teaching (Wiggins & McTighe,
2011). At the same time, UbD is a manner of thinking, which teaches the
adaptation of curriculum resources for the lasting understanding of
students (Tomlinson & McTighe, 2006). Moreover, the current study
agrees with Westwood Taylor (2013) in that the backward design
adopted by UbD will provide the necessary systematicity for teachers.
The reason for this notion is that acquiring systematic thinking skills is
critical for teachers in implementing a more productive adaptation.
Second, this study adopted differentiated instruction (DI) for PD. The
rationale is the concept that “teachers adapt the curriculum resources to
maximize the knowledge, skills, and understandings of students” un­
derlies the basis of DI (Tomlinson & McTighe, 2006, p. 10). Thus, it
seems to be extremely compatible with the curriculum adaptation
approach. In fact, the notion of curriculum adaptation is based on the
idea that teachers are capable of meeting the interests and needs of their
students if they are granted greater autonomy and contextualization of
curriculum content given the diversity of students (Fernandes et al.,
2013). Hence, one can infer that DI is a necessary approach in curricu­
lum adaptation given that teachers constantly evaluate the process, re­
view different student needs, and use the results to adapt their plans in a
classroom environment where differentiation is used effectively (Tom­
linson & McTighe, 2006). Therefore, the systematic, deliberative, and
productive use of a curriculum within the scope of PD (i.e., PAMC),
which is applied in the current study, requires the following stages: (1)
reading the curriculum and prioritizing goals, (2) assessing curriculum re­
sources and student understanding, and (3) if necessary, adapting the cur­
riculum productively (Fig. 1).
Fig. 1 demonstrates that the adventure of teachers in PAMC related
to curriculum adaptation begins with reading the curriculum goals and
content that they will teach. Moreover, this reading indicates priori­
tizing curriculum goals according to the types of goals in the first stage of
UbD. The process then proceeds with the analysis of curricular resources
(mainly textbooks) connected to the topic and assesses the ability of
these resources to meet the needs of a certain student group. At this
stage, teachers employ their skills in assessing the understanding of
students and determining evidence as well as material for understand­
ing. In the last stage, teachers who believe that curricular resources will
be insufficient for achieving the goal take the appropriate decision(s)
related to adaptation to support these resources. The stages of the PAMC
are not hierarchical, which is similar to the plan design for the UbD.
Arrows a and b in Fig. 1 depict that teachers may be flexible between
stages, that is, they can return to the first or second stage as necessary.
2.3. The Turkish educational context
Teacher-curriculum relationship seems to be different, especially in
centralized countries, such as Türkiye, since there are no meso or micro
curricula as in decentralized countries (Pepin et al., 2019). More spe­
cifically, in Türkiye, teachers write the subjects and learning outcomes
they teach on a daily basis in their class notebooks and vice principals
check them against the annual plans, joint exams are held between
classes to ensure that teachers follow the annual plans, all textbooks are
provided by MoNE, parents become a control mechanism by following
pupils in other classes, principals are given the authority to monitor and
control the teaching of all teachers (Bümen & Holmqvist, 2022; Kitchen
et al., 2019). This has been proven by some researchers (Canbolat, 2020;
Sarı, 2018; Çelik et al., 2017) as an indicator of teachers’ lack of au­
tonomy. Therefore, the study infers that teachers are left with the re­
sponsibility of adapting the centrally designed curriculum according to
Ü.Y. Nalbantoğlu and N.T. Bümen
Fig. 1. PAMC ( Productive Adaptation of the Math Curriculum).
local needs (Bümen et al., 2014).
Furthermore, teachers have been implementing one curriculum on
paper and a different one in practice (Bümen & Yazıcılar, 2020) as
Türkiye is characterized by an inspection culture that monitors teachers
only on paper (compulsory regulations) and does not provide any sup­
port mechanisms and/or national guidance for productive adaptations
according to the local context. Although, the policy paper of MoNE
(2018) states that “the curriculum framework is sufficient in a system
with well-trained teachers. A master teacher instantly reconstructs the
curriculum according to the students’ needs” (p.9), the adaptation of the
curriculum to the context/setting and their areas of authority and
freedom in this regard remain unclear. This ambiguity may be due to the
desire to protect the centralized structure of the education system
(Bümen, 2019) or the distrust/lack of faith in teacher competencies.
Although the expectation to adhere to the curriculum is considered
dominant, studies indicate that teachers make adaptations to the
curricula (e.g. Bümen & Yazıcılar, 2020; Tokgöz, 2013; Yazıcılar &
Bümen, 2019; Çeliker Ercan, 2019). Nevertheless, certain studies con­
ducted in Türkiye (Bümen et al., 2014; Yazıcılar & Bümen, 2019) reveal
that no such support is provided to teachers in terms of productively
adapting the centralized curriculum according to region, school, and
class differences. In summary, teachers require PD support to ensure that
implicit–covert and arbitrary adaptations do not persist due to the lack
of support for teachers in Türkiye in productively adapting to the cur­
riculum (Yazıcılar & Bümen, 2019).
3. Study context
3.1. Productive Adaptation of the Math Curriculum (PAMC)
3.1.1. General scope of PAMC
In the design of the framework of the PAMC, we examined the
characteristics of effective PD (Darling-Hammond et al., 2017; Dunst
et al., 2015; Sims & Fletcher Wood, 2021) and studies on PD that intend
to improve the curriculum use skills of teachers (Davis et al., 2011;
Penuel et al., 2009; Penuel & Gallagher, 2009; Roth McDuffie & Mather,
2009; Westwood Taylor, 2013). We designed two main activities in the
PAMC that include (1) workshops where teachers may acquire new
knowledge on how to map the curriculum using UbD and DI and what
type of adaptations are needed, and (2) follow-up supports by the
facilitator (first author).
The first three days were allocated for workshops, where theory and
practices based on collaborative group work were discussed. The main
focus of these workshops is on the systematic, deliberative, and pro­
ductive curriculum use of teachers and training on the instructional
design using UbD and DI was provided. Further workshops were pre­
sented to improve their skills in differentiating between teaching and
curriculum resources. Additionally, we informed the teachers on the
criteria for productivity in adaptation followed by group discussions on
productivity through examples of adaptation. In the last two days, we
4
Teaching and Teacher Education 137 (2024) 104386
created design groups and enabled teachers to design unit plans. During
the workshops, as PD designers and providers, our role was to support
the teachers to co-construct knowledge collaboratively with them. We
used the Educative Model (Parsons et al., 2016) to get teachers to reflect
on actual practices, encourage adaptability, and try out the techniques
discussed in the PD sessions. Since the educative model is long-term and
embedded in classrooms (Parsons et al., 2016), after the workshops, we
conducted follow-up support, which lasted for a total of 14 weeks.
Lesson observations, pre– and post-lesson facilitator supports (by the
first researcher), post-lesson reflections, providing feedback from the
facilitator, and monthly reflection meetings with colleagues and the
facilitator were also undertaken during these activities (see Fig. 2).
Although one of the objectives of follow-up studies is for researchers
(PD providers) to examine the development of the adaptation skills of
teachers, another aim is to provide contextualized support to constitute
the development. When teachers collaborate with an expert to discuss
curricular content, student needs, or the effective implementation of
teaching methods, they can generate their own ideas and initiate
knowledge exchange (Parsons et al., 2016). This process consequently
creates opportunities for teachers to expand their knowledge and skills.
In this context, we provided in-class support to teachers on their prac­
tices immediately after the observation and discussed their concerns
throughout the lesson and how to resolve them. In this manner, the
teachers were allowed to reflect on their adaptation based on the needs
of students or assessment of curriculum resources. Finally, not only the
facilitator–teacher interaction but also teacher-teacher interaction in the
PAMC was considered important. For this reason, four teachers who
participated in the (monthly) follow-up studies met to discuss the
adaptation process and to share their reflections after the implementa­
tion of each unit design, which was conducted by the first researcher as a
facilitator.
3.1.2. PAMC periods/implementation
We conducted two pilot studies before the actual implementation of
PAMC. We tested all activities, materials, and contents in PAMC with the
four teachers in the spring term of the academic year 2018–2019. Using
the results of the pilot studies, we revised all materials and processes
necessary for actual implementation. PAMC was held in the fall semester
of the academic year 2019–2020, where eight secondary school teachers
of mathematics attended the workshops. We continued the follow-up
studies with four teachers who satisfied the established criteria (see
section 4.1.). As part of the follow-up studies, the study first organized
the lesson observations of the teachers for each month (from September
to December). The first researcher created a calendar for this planning
and conveyed the dates and times of the lesson observations to the
teachers. Second, we scheduled reflection meetings to coincide with the
completion of unit designs. The enactment process of each teacher lasted
for an average of two months, and a total of two units were implemented
in the context of the follow-up studies. Thus, the study scheduled two
reflection meetings in November and December. Fig. 3 presents the
Ü.Y. Nalbantoğlu and N.T. Bümen
Fig. 2. PD Activities for PAMC
Fig. 3. Timeline of the PAMC
intervention, including reflection meetings, lesson observation periods,
and interviews with the teachers.
4. Method
4.1. Design and participants
This study, which examines the development of the curriculum
adaptation skills of four middle school mathematics teachers after their
engagement with PAMC, is a multiple case study (Yin, 2003). Our focus
was a long-term PD program that included facilitator support. Thus, this
study considered the development of the four teachers who participated
in the follow-up studies as a case, and their development of curriculum
adaptation skills was compared. The fact that only four teachers
participated in this study could be considered a limitation; however, we
attempted to overcome this limitation by constructing a chain of
5
Teaching and Teacher Education 137 (2024) 104386
evidence (Yin, 2003). Furthermore, previous studies have also examined
between two and four teachers (Drake & Sherin, 2006; Li & Harfitt,
2017; Troyer, 2019; Yazıcılar & Bümen, 2019).
The participants (cases) are four teachers that were selected from the
eight teachers who attended the workshops and were included in the
follow-up studies. In addition to the completion of the workshops, their
diligence, completion of the unit plan designs, and observed motivation
were also considered in the selection of the four teachers. In fact, the
extent to which the teachers implement their learning in the PD program
in-classroom practice is influenced by motivation, which is an internal
factor (Osman & Warner, 2020). Furthermore, selecting teachers
working with different grade levels (5th, 6th, and 7th grades), it was
ensured maximum diversity (Table 1).
Ü.Y. Nalbantoğlu and N.T. Bümen Teaching and Teacher Education 137 (2024) 104386

Table 1 4.2.3. Records on reflective meetings and forms for self-reflection

Information about the four teachers who participated in the follow-up studies. The two reflective meetings, in which four teachers discussed the use
Teacher* Grade Unit Design Topic PD Experiences and adaptation of the curriculum with each other and the first researcher
Level (as a facilitator), were audio-recorded. In these meetings, teachers dis­
Yeşim 7th Grade Integers She was a graduate of the cussed their adaptation decisions and their productivity. To manage
Rational Numbers Mathematics Teaching Master discussions, the first researcher prepared an agenda and sent it to the
Program and attended European teachers before the meetings. The agenda included a discussion of the
Union (EU) Projects Training. working and non-working aspects of the follow-up support, presenting
Mert 7th Grade Integers He attended EU Projects
Rational Numbers Training.
examples of the teacher adaptations, their productivity, and the next
Gamze 6th Grade Natural Numbers She was a master’s student in steps for ongoing plans. In addition, the teachers filled out the forms for
Clusters Curriculum and Instruction self-reflection during the meetings. The forms instructed the teachers to
Fractions Division. evaluate the support of the facilitator, share their thoughts on the
Deniz 5th Grade Naturel Numbers, She was among the teachers
frequent adaptations they made, and identify the areas requiring any
and 7th Algebraic who received the e-Twinning
Grade Expression, National-European Quality improvement.
Equality, and Labels award and participated in
Equations various professional 4.2.4. Teacher interviews
development programs to be Four individual semi-structured interviews were directly conducted
more active in EU projects.
after the follow-up studies to determine the perspectives/views of the
*All names are pseudonyms. teachers on PAMC and their awareness of the development of curricu­
*Yeşim and Mert are working in the same school. lum adaptation skills. One of the interviews was conducted face-to-face,
and the others were managed online (April 2020) due to the COVID-19
4.2. Data sources pandemic. The interviews which lasted for an average of 45–50 min,
were recorded and conducted by the first researcher.
Multiple measures (triangulation) were used to provide an extensive
overview of the curriculum adaptation of the teachers and their changes. 4.2.5. Documents
The subsequent sections will briefly discuss each source. The documents obtained from the participants included the plans
they designed during the PAMC workshops (with versions eventually
4.2.1. Lesson observation period revised), the annual plan templates supplied to the teachers by the
A total of 72 h of lesson observation on the teachers were conducted MoNE, the curriculum, and the resources (e.g., textbooks). All docu­
as part of the four-month follow-up. The first part of the observation ments were taken with the permission of the teachers.
period was before the first reflective meeting; the second part was
completed after the first reflective meeting (Fig. 3). Observations were 4.3. Data analysis
conducted in a non-participant style (Creswell, 2014), that is, all events
that transpired in the classroom were recorded during the observation to The first researcher transcribed and analyzed the qualitative data
identify the adaptation of the teacher, and a sample of all materials and and discussed and reviewed them together with the second researcher.
plans was also obtained. The first researcher conducted all the obser­ Data analysis was carried out in four phases:
vations systematically to examine the progress of the adaptations. To
ensure systematicity, we adopted a criterion such as making at least two 4.3.1. Phase 1: creating datasets with planning and teaching sections
observations per month for each teacher. Thus, teachers were observed The qualitative data analysis drew a comparison between the
18 times (for each) during the follow-up support. Furthermore, we designed plans and curriculum resources and the process of curriculum
focused on the planned adaptations and the actual implementation to enactment (planning and implementation). To begin this procedure for
detect any mismatch, or in-action adaptation and how well the adap­ comparison, datasets containing the planning and teaching segments of
tation matched the productivity criteria in the observations. All obser­ each teacher were created. Moreover, datasets of the planning segment
vations were conducted in the fall semester of the academic year consisted of unit plans designed by the teachers, annual plans, and the
2019–2020. curriculum of the MoNE. When the teachers stated that they adapted
their observed lesson in any manner before or after the observation, a
4.2.2. Field notes copy of the material for that adaptation was taken for the teaching
Field notes are those recorded during the informal interviews be­ segment. All materials collected from the teachers were then labeled,
tween the first researcher (as a facilitator) and a teacher before or after organized, and coded. At this stage, inspired by the analysis method of
the observation. Before each observation, the first researcher was Westwood Taylor (2013), each collected material was labeled to signify
informed in-depth about the lesson to be taught by the teacher and the teacher, type, intended day/date of use, and actual day/date of use.
recorded the adaptation in the field notes when detected during the This labeling rendered easy the identification of whether adaptation
observation. The consultation of the teachers with the researcher on any occurred during planning or teaching.
implementation to be conducted before the lesson was also included in
the field notes. After the observation, the first researcher conducted a 4.3.2. Phase 2: identifying adapted and unadapted materials
short interview with the teachers to give them feedback on their adap­ After labeling, each material label was coded as “unadapted” (U) and
tations. The post-observation interview consisted of three themes, “adapted” (A). The first researcher used this coding during the obser­
namely, (1) the extent to which the planned lesson has been enacted, as vations after reviewing and comparing all the observation notes and
well as any necessary or in-action adaptation, (2) feedback on the pro­ field notes of the teachers. In this review, the materials used by the
ductivity of the adaptation, and (3) the personal notes and reflections of teacher were categorized as U or A, where the frequency of adaptation or
the teacher for the next lesson. Examples of the questions related to these adherence was initially examined. The objective of quantizing in this
themes are: “While implementing the lesson you planned, were there context is to reveal the increase in curriculum adaptation made by the
any adaptations/changes that you did not consider when designing the teachers. As Sandelowski et al. (2009) stated, quantizing is used to lend
lesson, but made while teaching the lesson?” “Do you believe the ease to the discovery and revelation of meanings hidden in a certain
adaptation worked?” and “Did you take any notes for yourself to pattern in the analysis of small-sample qualitative data. This analysis
implement in your next lesson?” was particularly necessary to answer our first research question.

6
Ü.Y. Nalbantoğlu and N.T. Bümen
4.3.3. Phase 3: analysis of change in adaptation patterns
After determining all the resources that the teachers used for
adapting, the first researcher used the theoretical thematic analysis of
Braun and Clarke (2006) to uncover and identify the adaptation patterns
of these resources to answer the first research question. In the first round
of the theoretical thematic analysis, open coding (e.g., adding a goal and
creating an activity) was made over each adaptation made by the
teachers. The reason for open coding is that we wonder if there was a
previously unidentified adaptation underlying a certain context -or
culture-specific patterns of adaptation. Then, recoding was done ac­
cording to the adaptation patterns revealed in the previous studies and
both were compared. In the second round, repetitive codes were iden­
tified and categorized as expanding, omitting, and replacing/revising
after which the theme of the adaptation pattern was then created. As we
know from Cohen (1990) and Lefstein (2008), teachers might distort
curricular intentions even when they think that they are implementing
them with fidelity. In order to see the real thought of teachers under the
curriculum adaptation decisions, we cross-checked with teachers all
adaptation patterns we found during the data collection process.
Therefore, we ensured the evolution of conscious adaptation decisions
was examined. Then, we used quantizing of the patterns to see the
evolution of the adaptations and to reveal how the adaptation patterns
changed with the PAMC intervention. We analyzed separately according
to months (from September to December) within the follow-up support,
and the change in the adaptation that was evident throughout the pro­
cess was revealed.
4.3.4. Phase 4: productivity analysis of adaptation
To determine the productivity of adaptation for our second research
question, the study examined the reasons of the teachers for the adap­
tation and corresponding field notes. Then, thematic coding was con­
ducted using the criteria proposed by Debarger et al. (2013). According
to Troyer (2019, p. 25), to enable the productivity of adaptation, the
three criteria of productivity established by Debarger et al. must be met.
The adaptations that met all these criteria (coded as 1) were considered
productive, whereas adaptations that did not meet all three criteria were
coded as 0 in the analysis. Following the determination of productive
and unproductive adaptations, the ratio of productive adaptations by
month was calculated for each teacher, and the progress in this rate was
revealed. Productive and unproductive examples of the participants’
adaptations are given in Appendix-A.
4.4. Validity, trustworthiness, and role of researchers
To enhance validity and trustworthiness, the study used several
techniques by considering the framework of Lincoln and Guba (1985)
for prolonged engagement, in-depth data collection, triangulation, peer
debriefing, and member-checking. First, the prolonged engagement
between researchers and teachers was established through 14 weeks of
lesson observations. Apart from the lesson observations, the first
researcher spent time with the teachers in the teacher’s room or in the
garden and initiated conversations about how they learned or where
they struggled during the process. These conversations were recorded as
field notes. Second, the study employed data triangulation (lesson ob­
servations, field notes, self-evaluation questionnaires, reflective meeting
recordings, and individual interviews) to acquire in-depth data for each
research question. Third, to confirm the accuracy of the data, we
recorded each adaptation detected in the lesson observations and
confirmed this observation with the teachers. In addition, the first
researcher coded every document collected from the teachers during the
lesson observations as “adapted” or “unadapted” in real-time, which was
verified by the teacher. After the transcription of the interviews, each
teacher was given a copy for member-checking. Fourth, the second
author reviewed the analysis performed by the first author for peer
debriefing. All decisions at each step of the analysis were discussed with
and validated by the second author, who also checked the findings from
7
Teaching and Teacher Education 137 (2024) 104386
the interviews and lesson observations in terms of accuracy. To under­
line the reliability of the study, the interview results were illustrated
using representative quotes from the teachers. Finally, in line with the
view of Creswell and Plano Clark (2007), the current study established a
trusting environment, learned the culture of the context in which the
teachers were located, and prevented any misunderstandings, especially
during lesson observations and reflection meetings.
Awareness is widely acknowledged as the initial step in mitigating
bias, and the researchers in this study acted as the designers and pro­
viders of PD. As designers, we explored theories and approaches that
improve the curriculum use of teachers. As providers, we served as a
facilitator for the teachers and conducted the workshops and follow-up
support. To fulfill our roles as facilitators, we paid great attention to
creating an inviting atmosphere, a reflective dialogue, and responding to
the teachers’ needs. Since peer collaboration, discussion, and feedback
are necessary components of effective coaching in teacher learning in PD
(Zepeda, 2017), we provided PD activities such as reflective meetings or
pre-post interviews to establish a relationship of trust for an inviting
atmosphere. Secondly, through a reflective dialogue (Prenger et al.,
2021) with teachers, we did our best to motivate teachers to discuss their
adaptations and work together on how they can improve them. We
encouraged them to reflect on their adaptation in the lesson by asking
questions about how students reacted, and why and how they decided to
make such adaptations. Lastly, we discovered from various PD studies
(Louck-Horsley et al., 2009; McGee et al., 2013) that there may be issues
such as a lack of communication and a delay in reacting to teacher re­
quirements when the PD designers and facilitators are not the same
persons. Being the PAMC’s designer and facilitator at this phase allowed
us to quickly recognize the needs of the teachers, respond to them,
provide timely feedback, and address their concerns.
On the other hand, to ensure unbiased analysis due to our dual role in
the PD, we used some techniques. First, we clarified the main indicators
of adaptation patterns (see Appendix C) to create a clear and precise
definition of the concept under investigation to make systematic and
replicable observations (Bakeman, 2000; as cited in Cuyvers et al.,
2022). We also checked the adaptation patterns that we found with the
teachers to be sure of their awareness of adapting. This strategy helped
us to minimize the potential bias of our findings based on adaptations.
Second, as mentioned before in this section, we used multiple data
sources to cross-check our findings and validate our results (Creswell,
2014). Thus, we tried to prevent our interpretation of the data and not
be biased toward a single perspective. Third, we kept a research virtual
diary and voice records by using the Google Keep application
throughout PD so that each researcher followed the whole data collec­
tion process easily. This method helped us to track the evolution of our
thinking about change in teachers’ adaptation skills. Finally, we used a
peer-review strategy (Creswell, 2014) to ensure an unbiased interpre­
tation of the findings. Since the first researcher conducted the obser­
vations and facilitation, the second researcher acted as a peer to check
any missing parts as an external stakeholder who was not involved in the
data collection process. Thus, the second author helped to identify blind
spots and biases in the research. Moreover, two external reviewers (one
an expert in PD and one an expert in mathematics education) contrib­
uted to the peer-review process and the validity of the findings through
intermittent meetings during data collection and analysis. For instance,
one of the external researchers suggested adding a coding key list (see
Appendix C) to ensure avoiding our bias over time and the clarity of
adaptation patterns while discussing the analyzing steps. Additionally,
we engaged in regular discussions with external researchers about
research ethics and the importance of objectivity.
To begin this research, we thought that we intended to improve the
curriculum and pedagogical knowledge of the teachers. However, we
realized that teachers should also be supported in terms of teaching the
subject matter because they tend to each a dead end at certain points.
Moreover, we did not want this scenario to create a lack of motivation.
Hence, the first researcher supported them in terms of pedagogical
Ü.Y. Nalbantoğlu and N.T. Bümen
content knowledge. At this point, we also realized that working in
mathematics, which was the field of the first researcher, was the right
decision. If we worked with teachers from different disciplines, then the
researchers may have encountered more challenges, which may jeop­
ardize the validity of the research.
5. Results
5.1. Quantitative change in patterns of adaptation: from adherence to
adaptation
To address our first research question, we examined changes in
teachers’ adaptation patterns by comparing their curriculum adherence
and adaptation. We found that the level of adherence (unadapted) to the
curriculum or resources of the four teachers who participated in the
follow-up studies (which lasted for four months) of the PAMC decreased
gradually from September to December, whereas adaptation increased.
When examining the time-dependent change in adaptation within each
pattern, the study found that the extension of each teacher increased
from September to December, such that extension was the most
frequently used pattern by the teachers. In addition, the teachers began
using omission more frequently over time, although it was less adopted
than the other patterns. Lastly, the replacement was another pattern
used most frequently after extension (Graph 1).
Graph 1. Change graphs of the adaptation patterns of the teachers.
8
Teaching and Teacher Education 137 (2024) 104386
When individually examining differences in the adaptation patterns
of the teachers, the study observed that Yeşim did not make any omis­
sion in her lessons, but her extensions gradually increased. However,
Yeşim stated that she occasionally omitted, although a little, during the
interview. Yeşim’s adaptations are revealed in all categories, from
planning to in-class tasks and from assessment to assignments.
Conversely, although Mert was initially more devoted to curriculum
resources, the increase in his adaptation, especially in November and
December, was remarkable. Although this increase was mainly viewed
as an extension and replacement/revision, he mentioned his need to
conduct omission in December as follows: “I didn’t like some of the
question styles in the textbook, I preferred to spare time for the questions
that would come up in the exam [in the high school entrance exam]
instead of wasting time with them.” Gamze, however, who initially
adhered to textbooks and the explanations of the learning outcomes in
the curriculum more than other teachers, learned to assess the materials
she used overtime to meet the needs of the students and make the
necessary adaptation, which increased her adaptation. Although the
most common adaptation of Gamze was the extension, her omission
gradually increased as she stated:
I think the adaptation I made the most was the extending, I added
worksheets and activities profusely … I can eliminate some of the
teaching strategies [recommended in the book], or I don’t implement
Ü.Y. Nalbantoğlu and N.T. Bümen
every piece of information given there down to the last detail. Before
this, I felt really worried when I missed implementing what was
prescribed there, but now I omit it according to the class and the
student. (Gamze, individual interview recording, 11.03.2020)
Finally, the changes in adaptation patterns of Deniz according to
months revealed that she is the teacher with the most tendency to adapt
compared with the other teachers. Lesson observations also demon­
strated that Deniz’s extension and replacement have gradually
increased. Deniz, the teacher who made the most adaptations in the use
of textbooks compared to others, was the only one who created new
mathematical problems. Another common extension she preferred was
in planning. The study observed that she added goals on basic concepts
for each unit in her plans, which would help students activate prior
knowledge. Based on these added goals, she created worksheets and
included them in her teaching.
5.2. Qualitative change in adaptation patterns: from haphazard to
productive adaptation
In response to our second research question, we examined changes in
the productivity of teacher adaptations. We found that the level of
productive adaptation of teachers increased during the follow-up studies
(from September to December). Graph 2 was obtained by dividing the
overall number of adaptations detected for each month by the number of
productive adaptations made by the teachers. The result indicated that
the highest and lowest rates in September were calculated for Yeşim
(33%) and Gamze (11%), respectively. In December, the highest and
lowest rates were identified for Deniz (82%) and Mert (63%), respec­
tively. Graph 2 suggests that Gamze was the teacher that displayed the
most improvement in terms of making productive adaptations out of the
four teachers.
The findings revealed that the unproductive adaptations made by the
four teachers were mainly extensions and omissions. Conversely, the
study found that no unproductive replacement/revision occurred.
Furthermore, the findings indicated that the reasons behind the unpro­
ductive adaptations were the inability to clearly identify the needs of the
students and the limitations of the material, to combine a productive adap­
tation decision with a good teaching strategy, and to set the target aimed by
the specialists for curriculum development. When we examined all unpro­
ductive adaptations, we observed deviations from the curriculum goals
or the changes made without considering the curriculum goal. Teachers
who were unable to determine the real needs of the students, met with
the reaction of the students when they opted to adhere to what was
offered in the textbooks. For example, although Mert was solving ex­
amples of operations linked to addition and subtraction in integers
(which measures only the skill of performing operations) in the text­
book, he omitted this section in the textbook after realizing the reactions
of the students, such as “It’s been always the same thing, we get it!” This
Graph 2. Change graph of productive adaptation of the teachers per month.
9
Teaching and Teacher Education 137 (2024) 104386
example reaction in Mert’s lesson implies that he was unable to assess
the material according to the needs of the students before teaching.
Although Mert conducted omission during the lesson, he did not replace
the exercises in the textbook with any task or activity that was complex
enough for students to learn. Therefore, this adaptation was unproduc­
tive. Alternatively, certain adaptation decisions taken by the teachers
seemed to be productive during planning; however, such decisions
resulted in an unproductive adaptation due to the use of inappropriate
teaching strategies for implementation/enaction. For instance, Deniz’s
presentation of replacement and extension of the questions in the text­
book, which were below the proficiency level of the students in a
competitive instructional context, interfered with her assessment of
student understanding. Deniz conducted an assessment based on
whether the students could calculate the correct answer quickly instead
of evaluating the solutions.
Moreover, the study found that the systematic and deliberative use of
the curriculum was effective in the development of the adaptation of the
teachers from unproductivity to productivity. The teachers learned to
use the curriculum more systematically and deliberatively due to feed­
back from the facilitator, post-observation reflection, and reflection with
colleagues during the follow-up studies. The more they systematically
and deliberately used the curriculum, the more accurately they assessed
the affordances or constraints of the materials concerning the needs of
their students. Thus, more productive adaptations emerged. For
example, the teachers examined the outcome statements in the curric­
ulum and transcribed these statements into observable and measurable
knowledge skills and goals to better comprehend the intention of cur­
riculum design experts. Thus, they decided on the adaptations that
would best meet the needs of the students without disrupting the cur­
riculum. In addition, the teachers added understanding and transferred
goals within the UbD framework; in other words, they revised an
existing activity or created a new activity to match the level of under­
standing of the students concerning activities in the textbook. State­
ments from Deniz best exemplify the change in her adaptation from
haphazard to systematic ones.
I was a very spontaneous teacher. Especially during the lesson … Some­
times I could not even foresee what I would do in the lesson. This PD
taught me that I need to consider a bit more before the lesson, it provided
me with that opportunity. In other words, what will I do today, what
activities will I do for which goal, how will I determine the easy-hard-
medium [student] group, and how will I choose the questions? It pro­
vided me with the opportunity to think about all these issues beforehand. It
taught me the importance of it. (Deniz’s individual interview recording,
26.03.2020)
Similarly, in her discussion with colleagues at the reflection meeting,
Yeşim underlined her comprehension of the necessity of the assessment
of materials in deciding on the adaptation:
OK then, we need to assess the resources we will use. I need to assess
[them] and select which questions I will use and which ones I will
adapt by creating more compelling questions (Yeşim’s recording of
the first reflection meeting, 01/11/2020)
Yeşim’s statement in the self-assessment form, “I need to improve
myself on assessing the textbook better and supporting its constraints,”
also confirmed the discussion with colleagues. Conversely, Mert
underlined the contribution of utilizing the curriculum more deliber­
ately and discussing the transformation process of adaptation from
unproductivity to productivity as follows:
At first, I mostly followed the textbook without considering if it was
appropriate for my goals or my students, and I realized that. So, yeah, I
decided what I wanted for the unit, but I always skipped the assessment of
the book. I became aware of it. There was a question you asked at the
reflection meeting, “What do you add just because it’s in the book and it
fits in the book?” It was an aha moment for me because, after that
Ü.Y. Nalbantoğlu and N.T. Bümen Teaching and Teacher Education 137 (2024) 104386

question, I understood that I needed to consider my tasks. I considered my curriculum.

tasks after that; I thought about the questions that I would create or add. The study used PD support to enable the teachers to formulate
(Mert, Individual interview recording, 24/03/2020) adaptation decisions by undergoing certain stages of thought (e.g., pri­
oritization of goals, assessment of curriculum resources, and assessment
In summary, data from various sources proved that when teachers
of the level of understanding of students), which rendered the resultant
learned to adapt the curriculum more systematically and deliberately,
adaptation more systematic and deliberative. It also enabled teachers to
their adaptation became more productive. Appendixes A and B provide
use the curriculum more proficiently, which also is consistent with
more elaborated examples of productive and unproductive adaptation
Penuel and Gallagher (2009) and Westwood Taylor (2013). Accord­
with the different types that the teachers have employed, including an
ingly, the teachers could provide a better quality of teaching if adapta­
analysis of teachers’ pedagogical reasoning.
tions occur in certain stages. Furthermore, following specific steps in the
PAMC has fostered not only an increase in the adaptation of the teachers
6. Discussion
but also growth in reasoning skills to justify their adaptation through
further questions and assessments on the curriculum and materials. As
This case study examined how the PAMC can be used to support the
proposed by Westwood Taylor (2013), adaptation can clearly change
adaptation skills of secondary school mathematics teachers. The find­
from haphazard to systematic as a result of PD support. However, by
ings indicated that from September to December, the level of teachers’
expanding the knowledge base on changes in the adaptation of teachers,
adherence to curriculum resources gradually decreased, whereas their
this study proved that the productivity of adaptation emerges when the
adaptation increased. This change is consistent with those observed by
systematic adaptation skills of teachers are improved. This result may be
Westwood Taylor (2013) and Roth McDuffie and Mather (2009). In
attributed to the development of PDC (Brown, 2009), which is defined as
contrast to the other two studies, however, the current study investi­
the art of the curriculum use of teachers and also as an influencer on
gated the changes in the curriculum adaptation patterns as well as
curriculum adaptation (McCartney & Woodard, 2018; Westwood Tay­
changes in the curriculum use types of teachers. The order of frequency
lor, 2016). This result confirms those of previous studies (Leshota &
of the teachers’ use of the adaptation patterns was extension, replace­
Adler, 2018; Jukić Matić, 2019a) and indicates that the decision of
ment, and omission. Lastly, the frequency of making all adaptation
teachers to understand and adapt curriculum resources as a measure of
patterns steadily increased from September to December.
PDC and that these adaptation decisions can be productive when com­
The finding on the fact that teachers preferred extension mainly
bined with the appropriate strategy for student learning. Based on these
implies that the curriculum and resources in Türkiye also require an
findings, the productivity of the adaptation made by the teachers
extension. Tokgöz and Bümen (2021), Yazıcılar and Bümen (2019), and
increased through PD support. Although previous studies examined the
Çeliker Ercan (2019) revealed that teachers in Türkiye find textbooks
productivity of adaptations (Choppin, 2011; Debarger et al., 2013;
insufficient; thus, they make additions due to the lack of activity suitable
Troyer, 2019), they failed to reveal any change in productivity over
for the interests and levels of the students. Similarly, the current study
time. Therefore, previous studies revealed a descriptive result on pro­
identified the dominant preference of teachers for the extension for
ductivity; however, the current study emphasized the four-month
similar reasons, which confirms that resources also require support in
developmental contribution of PD to the productivity of the adapta­
the form of extension. Alternatively, the rate of omission by the teachers
tion patterns of teachers.
gradually increased from September to December; moreover, they
Moreover, in the argument on adaptation productivity within the
developed an awareness of the omission. This result is considered
context of the adaptation patterns, this study demonstrates that the
valuable given the centralized education system in Türkiye, in which
unproductive adaptations of the teachers were mostly in extension and
teachers are excluded from the design process of the national curricula.
omission, which expanded the knowledge based on productivity
Türkiye is one of the countries where teachers have the least voice in
(Choppin, 2011; Troyer, 2019). According to Troyer (2019) and Chop­
selecting and deciding curriculum materials. Moreover, their autonomy
pin (2011), two-third of the adaptation of teachers were unproductive;
in this regard has significantly decreased from 2006 to 2015 (UNES­
nevertheless, they failed in revealing which adaptation patterns were
CO-GEM, 2017). Hence, this study presents a quote by Gamze: “Previ­
unproductive ones. Conversely, the absence of unproductive adaptation
ously, I felt really worried when I didn’t implement what was prescribed
in the replacement pattern in the study may indicate that replacemen­
there [what is stated in the textbook], but now I am omitting depending
t/revision is a less risky type of adaptation compared with extension and
on the situation of the class and the student circumstance.” This state­
omission. Similarly, Tokgöz and Bümen (2021) explain that teachers
ment suggests that before the PAMC, teachers experienced prejudice and
with low levels of autonomy tend to increase their reorganization due to
fear about omitting or neglecting any content in the curriculum. How­
their unwillingness to take risks. Although the researchers stated that
ever, the “fear of teachers for omission has been reduced due to the
extension and omission require high levels of autonomy; they also
PAMC; thus, their belief in omitting contents from the curriculum based
emphasized that these patterns are more risky. The argument put for­
on the level, interest, and needs of the students have changed. Moreover,
ward in this study is that extension and omission require high levels of
they developed an awareness of omission.
PDC from teachers because teachers make focused and deliberate ad­
The change in the attitudes of the teachers toward omission and the
ditions, instead of haphazard ones, with the increase in their PDC
increase in their preference for omission can also be explained by the
(Forbes & Davis, 2010). In addition, Leshota and Adler (2018) underline
association between perceived autonomy and adaptation patterns. Ac­
the relationship between high levels of PDC and productive adaptation
cording to Tokgöz and Bümen (2021), teachers with low levels of au­
by claiming that teachers with high levels of PDC make robust injections
tonomy are against omission to adhere to the curriculum or are
and critical omissions that better support the understanding of students.
unwilling to conduct omission. The increase in the omission rates of the
In this context, the study infers that a high level of PDC is required for
current participants from September to December may be an indicator
teachers to make more productive extensions and omissions.
that the PAMC promotes the instructional autonomy of teachers.
Discussing the role of the underlying approaches in the PD process
Alternatively, according to Erss and Kalmus (2018), autonomy among
and the development of the adaptation skills of teachers through PD is
teachers is restricted when they regard the textbook as the curriculum
critical. In contrast to the backward design and lesson study used in
itself instead of a resource in practice. Taking this point of view, the
previous studies (Roth McDuffie & Mather, 2009; Westwood Taylor,
awareness of the teachers in assessing the curriculum and curriculum
2013), the current study is based on the UbD approach. The similarity of
resources may have increased perhaps due to the PAMC. Therefore, they
UbD with the two other approaches can be considered to improve the
may have realized that by omitting an activity or a task from the text­
instructional design skills of teachers. Therefore, arguing that acquiring
book that does not meet the needs of the students, they do not harm the
the designer perspective is required for teachers to acquire curriculum

10
Ü.Y. Nalbantoğlu and N.T. Bümen
adaptation skills is conceivable. Alternatively, the UbD enables teachers
to adapt it deliberately because it “provided a planning process and
framework to guide curricular assessment and teaching” (McTighe &
Wiggins, 2011, p. 4). In fact, in the backward design approach in UbD,
the designer teacher identifies the desired results (goals) of the unit,
determines the assessment of the evidence of the learning of students
about the desired results, and plans learning experience and instruction
that align with goals and evidence of assessment. These stages enable
teachers to interact with and systematically adapt the curriculum. In
addition to Westwood Taylor (2013), the emphasis on “enduring un­
derstanding” which was stressed in UbD, allows teachers to constantly
consider the needs and performance of their students as well as the
adaptation that teachers make to identify the best adaptation for student
learning. In this context, the study assumes that the teachers have
become more productive because the types of adaptation exceeded the
level of complexity specified in the curriculum (Debarger et al., 2013).
Based on the result, the study proposes designing instruction using the
UbD approach would be beneficial for teachers, such that they can make
the productive adaptation.
7. Conclusions
The strength of this research is that it demonstrates that teachers can
adapt a centralized curriculum and resources in a systematic, deliberate,
and productive manner through PD support likewise decentralized
countries. The present study revealed several contributions of PD sup­
port to the ability of teachers to use and adapt the curricula. The first of
these contributions is the change in the manner in which teachers use
the curriculum, that is, from adherence to adaptation. This change in­
dicates that teachers obtained a better understanding of the needs of
their students and can make appropriate decisions for adaptation based
on such needs by conducting an assessment of resources. Second, we
found that the teachers increasingly adapted the curriculum, such that
adaptation was made more systematically and deliberately instead of
haphazardly through the PAMC. Although these findings are similar to
those of studies in Western countries, we have extended them by
investigating teacher development in terms of patterns of adaptation.
Our third result showed that teachers who resist the omission of any
content in the curriculum lose this prejudice as a result of PD support;
thus, they begin omitting tasks/activities that they deem unimportant,
particularly in textbooks, which is the main curriculum resource.
Fourth, we infer that it is also the first to explore the association between
the productivity of adaptation and PD support. The findings indicate
that the productivity of adaptation gradually increases through the
guidance given to teachers from September to December. Finally,
extension and omission were found to be risky in terms of productivity.
In other words, teachers find productive extension and omission diffi­
cult. The replacement/revision pattern, conversely, provides less risk in
terms of productivity compared with those of extension and omission.
Therefore, considering the support mechanisms particular to the pat­
terns of adaptation beforehand is critical for PD for teachers.
8. Limitations and further studies
Despite employing a powerful qualitative design and producing
meaningful results, this study has some limitations. Firstly, this study
focused only on teachers and not on PD elements. In other words, less is
known about which building blocks of PD support (e.g., facilitator
support, reflection meetings, and workshops) can effectively promote
such development or change because it is not the focus of this study.
Second, although we believe that the increase in PDC can likely foster
the productive adaptation of teachers, this study was unable to address
this aspect. Therefore, future studies should examine the relationship
between the PDC development and curriculum adaptation skills of
teachers in detail; furthermore, we suggest that research should be
conducted to identify PD activities that should be implemented and the
11
Teaching and Teacher Education 137 (2024) 104386
development of PDC with each adaptation pattern. Third, this study is
limited to a small group of mathematics teachers. Studies can be con­
ducted with a large sample of teachers at different grade levels and
across disciplines. Moreover, the scale (Curriculum Adaptation Patterns
Scale) developed by Yazıcılar Nalbantoglu et al. (2021) can be used to
determine the patterns that teachers generally prefer to use in their
lessons; as such, PD support that is pattern-specific can be designed.
Another limitation can be considered within the context of the obser­
vations. The observations in this study are limited to only one observer
(only one facilitator), so, feedback diversity or the effects of the facili­
tators can be studied or compared in further studies. Finally, although
the literature provided certain criteria for determining the productivity
of adaptation, the current study suggests the development of a mea­
surement tool or rubric using the criteria for a productive adaptation so
that further generalizable measures can be obtained.
Funding
This research did not receive any specific grant from funding
agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
Declaration of competing interest
No potential competing interest was reported by the authors.
Data availability
Data will be made available on request.
Acknowledgement
We are very grateful to all teachers who participated in the study. We
are also grateful to Ege University, Türkiye, Planning and Monitoring
Coordination of Organizational Development, and Directorate of Library
and Documentation for their support in editing and proofreading service
of this study.
Appendix A, B, and C. Supplementary data
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.tate.2023.104386.
References
Bakeman, R. (2000). Behavioral observation and coaching. In H. T. Reis, & C. M. Judd
(Eds.), Handbook of research methods in social and personality psychology (pp.
138–159). Cambridge University Press.
Bernard, A. M. (2017). Curriculum decisions and reasoning of middle school teachers. Provo,
USA: Brigham Young University. Unpublished master’s thesis http://scholarsarchi
ve.byu.edu/etd/6488.
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative
Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
Brown, M. W. (2009). The teacher-tool relationship: Theorizing the design and use of
curriculum materials. In J. T. Remillard, B. A. Herbel-Eisenmann, & G. M. Lloyd
(Eds.), Mathematics teachers at work: Connecting curriculum materials and classroom
instruction (pp. 17–36). New York: Routledge.
Brown, M., & Edelson, D. C. (2003). Teaching as design: Can we better understand how
teachers use materials so we can better design materials to support their changes in
practice? LeTUS report series. Available from: http://inquirium.info/people/matt
/teaching_as_design-Final.pdf.
Bümen, N. T. (2019). Türkiye’de merkeziyetçiliğe karşı özerklik kıskacında eğitim
programları: Sorunlar ve öneriler [Curriculum in the claws of autonomy against
centralism in Turkey: Issues and Suggestions]. Kastamonu Education Journal, 27(1),
175–185. https://doi.org/10.24106/kefdergi.2450
Bümen, N. T., Çakar, E., & Yıldız, D. G. (2014). Curriculum fidelity and factors affecting
fidelity in the Turkish context [Türkiye’de öğretim programına bağlılık ve bağlılığı
etkileyen etkenler]. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 14(1), 203–228. https://
doi.org/10.12738/estp.2014.1.2020
Bümen, N. T., & Holmqvist, M. (2022). Teachers’ sense-making and adapting of the
national curriculum: A multiple case study in Turkish and Swedish contexts. Journal
of Curriculum Studies, 54(6), 832–851. https://doi.org/10.1080/
00220272.2022.2121178
Ü.Y. Nalbantoğlu and N.T. Bümen
Bümen, N. T., & Yazıcılar, Ü. (2020). Öğretmenlerin öğretim programı uyarlamaları
üzerine bir durum çalışması: Devlet ve özel lise farklılıkları [A case study on the
teachers’ curriculum adaptations: Differences in state and private high school]. Gazi
University Journal of Gazi Education Faculty, 40(1), 183–224. https://doi.org/
10.17152/gefad.595058
Burkhauser, M. A., & Lesaux, N. K. (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. https://doi.org/
10.1080/00220272.2015.1088065
Canbolat, Y. (2020). Professional autonomy of high school teachers in Türkiye: A
retrospective and prospective policy analysis. Education and Science, 45(202),
141–171. https://doi.org/10.15390/EB.2020.7833
Çeliker Ercan, G. (2019). Ortaokul ingilizce öğretmenlerinin program uygulama
yaklaşımlarının öğrencilerin motivasyonlarına ve akademik başarılarına etkisi [the effect
of secondary school English teachers’ curriculum implementation approaches on students’
motivation and academic success]. Eskişehir: Unpublished Master of Arts, Eskisehir
Osmangazi University.
Çelik, Z., Gümüş, S., & Gür, B. S. (2017). Moving beyond a monotype education in
Türkiye: Major reforms in the last decade and challenges ahead. In Multicultural
education in glocal perspectives (pp. 103–119). Singapore: Springer. https://doi.org/
10.1007/978-981-10-2222-7_8.
Choppin, J. (2011). Learned adaptations: Teachers’ understanding and use of curriculum
resources. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 14, 331–353. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s10857-011-9170-3
Cohen, D. K. (1990). A revolution in one classroom: The case of Mrs. Oublier. Educational
Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 12(3), 311–329.
Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design, qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approach. London: SAGE Publications.
Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2007). Designing and conducting mixed methods
research (1st ed.). Sage.
Cuyvers, K., Van den Bossche, P., & Donche, V. (2022). Longitudinal case study research
to study self-regulation of professional learning: Combining observations and
stimulated recall interviews throughout everyday work. In Methods for researching
professional learning and development: Challenges, applications and empirical illustrations
(pp. 579–600). Cham: Springer International Publishing.
Darling-Hammond, L., Hyler, M. E., & Gardner, M. (2017). Effective teacher professional
development. Palo Alto, CA: Learning Policy Institute.
Davis, E. A., Beyer, C., Forbes, C. T., & Stevens, S. (2011). Understanding pedagogical
design capacity through teachers’ narratives. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27(4),
797–810. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2011.01.005
Debarger, A. H., Choppin, J., Beauvineau, Y., & Moorthy, S. (2013). Designing for
productive adaptations of curriculum interventions. Teachers College Record, 115
(14), 298–319.
Debarger, A. H., Penuel, W. R., Moorthy, S., Beauvineau, Y., Kennedy, C. A., &
Boscardin, C. K. (2017). Investigating purposeful science curriculum adaptation as a
strategy to improve teaching and learning. Science Education, 101(1), 66–98.
Drake, C., & Sherin, M. G. (2006). Practicing change: Curriculum adaptation and teacher
narrative in the context of mathematics education reform. Curriculum Inquiry, 36(2),
153–187. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-873X.2006.00351.x
Dunst, C. J., Bruder, M. B., & Hamby, D. W. (2015). Metasynthesis of in-service
professional development research: Features associated with positive educator and
student outcomes. Educational Research and Reviews, 10(12), 1731–1744. https://doi.
org/10.5897/ERR2015.23069
Errs, M., & Kalmus, V. (2018). Discourses of teacher autonomy and the role of teachers in
Estonian, Finnish and Bavarian teachers’ newspapers in 1991-2010. Teaching and
Teacher Education, 76, 95–105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2018.08.003
Fernandes, P., Leite, C., Mouraz, A., & Figueiredo, C. (2013). Curricular
contextualization: Tracking the meanings of a concept. The Asia-Pacific Education
Researcher, 22(4), 417–425. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-012-0041-1
Fogleman, J., McNeill, K. L., & Krajcik, J. (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. https://doi.org/
10.1002/tea.20399
Forbes, C. T., & Davis, E. A. (2010). Curriculum design for inquiry: Preservice elementary
teachers’ mobilization and adaptation of science curriculum materials. Journal of
research in science teaching, 47(7), 820–839.
Hong, W. P., & Youngs, P. (2016). Why are teachers afraid of curricular autonomy?
Contradictory effects of the new national curriculum in South Korea. Asia Pacific
Journal of Education, 36(1), 20–33. https://doi.org/10.1080/
02188791.2014.959471
Jukić Matić, L. (2019a). The pedagogical design capacity of a lower secondary
mathematics teacher and her interaction with curriculum resources. Journal for
Research in Mathematics Education, 8(1), 53–75. https://doi.org/10.4471/
redimat.2019.2396
Jukić Matić, L. (2019b). The teacher as a lesson designer. Center for Educational Policy
Studies Journal, 9(2), 139–160. https://doi.org/10.26529/cepsj.722
Kim, J. S., Burkhauser, M. A., Quinn, D. M., Guryan, J., Kingston, H. C., & Aleman, K.
(2017). Effectiveness of structured teacher adaptations to an evidence-based summer
literacy program. Reading Research Quarterly, 52(4), 443–467. https://doi.org/
10.1002/rrq.178
Kitchen, H., et al. (2019). OECD Reviews of evaluation and assessment in education: Student
assessment in Turkey. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/5edc0abe-en
Lefstein, A. (2008). Changing classroom practice through the English national literacy
strategy: A micro-interactional perspective. American Educational Research Journal,
45(3), 701–737.
12
Teaching and Teacher Education 137 (2024) 104386
Leite, C., Fernandes, P., & Figueiredo, C. (2020). National curriculum vs curricular
contextualisation: Teachers’ perspectives. Educational Studies, 46(3), 259–272.
https://doi.org/10.1080/03055698.2019.1570083
Leshota, M., & Adler, J. (2018). Disaggregating a mathematics teacher’s pedagogical
design capacity. In L. Fan, L. Trouche, C. Qi, S. Rezat, & J. Visnovska (Eds.), Research
on mathematics textbooks and teachers’ resources: Advances and issues (pp. 89–117).
Cham, Switzerland: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-73253-4_5.
Li, Z. (2021). Disentangling teachers’ enactment of materials: A case study of two language
teachers in higher education in China. Pedagogy, Culture & Society. https://doi.org/
10.1080/14681366.2020.1750050
Li, Z., & Harfitt, G. J. (2017). An examination of language teachers’ enactment of
curriculum materials in the context of a centralised curriculum. Pedagogy, Culture &
Society, 25(3), 403–416. https://doi.org/10.1080/14681366.2016.1270987
Li, Z., & Harfitt, G. (2018). Understanding language teachers’ enactment of content
through the use of centralized curriculum materials. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher
Education, 46(5), 461–477. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359866X.2017.1351918
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry (1st ed.). ABD: Sage Publications.
Loucks-Horsley, S., Stiles, K. E., Mundry, S., Love, N., & Hewson, P. W. (2009). Designing
professional development for teachers of science and mathematics. Corwin press-a.
https://doi.org/10.4135/9781452219103
McCarthey, S. J., & Woodard, R. (2018). Faithfully following, adapting, or rejecting
mandated curriculum: Teachers’ curricular enactments in elementary writing
instruction. Pedagogies: International Journal, 13(1), 56–80. https://doi.org/10.1080/
1554480X.2017.1376672
McGee, J. R., Wang, C., & Polly, D. (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 &
Mathematics, 113(1), 16–28. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1949-8594.2012.00172.x
McTighe, J., & Wiggins, G. (2011). The understanding by design guide to creating high-
quality units. Alexandria: ASCD. 1703 North Beauregard Street, 22311-1714.
MoNE [Ministry of Education]. (2018). 2023 Education vision document. Retrieved from
https://www.gmka.gov.tr/dokumanlar/yayinlar/2023_E%C4%9Fitim%20Vizyonu.
pdf. (Accessed 6 April 2022).
Osman, D., & Warner, J. R. (2020). Measuring teacher motivation: The missing link
between professional development and practice. Teaching and Teacher Education, 92,
Article 103064. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2020.103064
Parsons, A. W., Ankrum, J. W., & Morewood, A. (2016). Professional development to
promote teacher adaptability. Theory Into Practice, 55(3), 250–258. https://doi.org/
10.1080/00405841.2016.1173995
Penuel, W. R., & Gallagher, L. P. (2009). Comparing three approaches to preparing
teachers to teach for deep understanding in Earth science: Short-term impacts on
teachers and teaching practice. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 18(4), 461–508.
Penuel, W. R., McWilliams, H., McAuliffe, C., Benbow, A. E., Mably, C., & 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(5), 415–436.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-008-9120-9
Pepin, B., Artigue, M., Gitirana, V., Miyakawa, T., Ruthven, K., & Xu, B. (2019).
Mathematics teachers as curriculum designers: An international perspective to
develop a deeper understanding of the concept. In L. Trouche, G. Gueudet, &
B. Pepin (Eds.), The ’resource’ approach to mathematics education. Advances in
mathematics education. Cham: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-20393-
1_6.
Pepin, B., Gueudet, G., & Trouche, L. (2013). Investigating textbooks as crucial interfaces
between culture, policy and teacher curricular practice: Two contrasted case studies
in France and Norway. ZDM, 45, 685–698.
Prenger, R., Poortman, C. L., & Handelzalts, A. (2021). Professional learning networks:
From teacher learning to school improvement? Journal of Educational Change, 22(1),
13–52. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-020-09383-2
Remillard, J. T. (2019). Teachers’ use of mathematics resources: A look across cultural
boundaries. In The ’resource’ approach to mathematics education (pp. 173–194). Cham:
Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-20393-1_8.
Remillard, J. T., & Bryans, M. B. (2004). Teachers’ orientations toward mathematics
curriculum materials: Implications for teacher learning. Journal for Research in
Mathematics Education, 35(5), 352–388. https://www.jstor.org/stable/30034820.
Remillard, J. T., & Heck, D. J. (2014). Conceptualizing the curriculum enactment process
in mathematics education. Zdm, 46(5), 705–718. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-
014-0600-4
Roth McDuffie, A., Choppin, J., Drake, C., Davis, J. D., & Brown, J. (2018). Middle school
teachers’ differing perceptions and use of curriculum materials and the common
core. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 21, 545–577.
Roth McDuffie, A., & Mather, M. (2009). Middle school mathematics teachers’ use of
curricular reasoning in a collaborative professional development project. In
J. T. Remillard, B. A. Herbel-Eisenmann, & G. M. Lloyd (Eds.), Mathematics teachers
at work: Connecting curriculum materials and classroom instruction (pp. 302–320). New
York: Routledge.
Rudduck, D. (1987). Can school-based curriculum development be other than
conservative? In N. Sabar, J. Rudduck, & W. Reids (Eds.), Partnership and autonomy in
school-based curriculum development (pp. 80–83). Sheffield: University of Sheffield.
Sandelowski, M., Voils, C. I., & Knafl, G. (2009). On quantizing. Journal of Mixed Methods
Research, 3(3), 208–222. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689809334210
Sarı, M. (2018). A critical view on teacher guidebooks as an agent in teacher deskilling
process. International Journal of Progressive Education, 14(1), 56–74. https://doi.org/
10.29329/ijpe.2018.129.5
Schipper, T. M., Van der Lans, R. M., De Vries, S., Goei, S. L., & Van Veen, K. (2020).
Becoming a more adaptive teacher through collaborating in lesson study? Examining
Ü.Y. Nalbantoğlu and N.T. Bümen
the influence of lesson study on teachers’ adaptive teaching practices in mainstream
secondary education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 88, 1–13. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.tate.2019.102961
Sherin, M. G., & Drake, C. (2009). Curriculum strategy framework: Investigating patterns
in teachers’ use of a reform-based elementary mathematics curriculum. Journal of
Curriculum Studies, 41(4), 467–500. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220270802696115
Sims, S., & Fletcher-Wood, H. (2021). Identifying the characteristics of effective teacher
professional development: A critical review. School Effectiveness and School
Improvement, 32(1), 47–63. https://doi.org/10.1080/09243453.2020.1772841
Tokgöz, Ö. (2013). Transformation of centralized curriculum into teaching and learning
processes: Teachers’ journey of thought curriculum into enacted one. Ankara, ODTÜ:
Unpublished doctoral dissertation.
Tokgöz, M., & Bümen, N. T. (2021). Turkish teachers’ autonomy in using and adapting
curriculum: A mixed methods study. Issues in Educational Research, 31(4),
1270–1292.
Tomlinson, C. A., & McTighe, J. (2006). Integrating differentiated instruction &
understanding by design: Connecting content and kids. ASCD.
Troyer, M. (2019). “And then my creativity took over”: Productivity of teacher
adaptations to an adolescent literacy curriculum. The Elementary School Journal, 119
(3), 351–385. https://doi.org/10.1086/701719
UNESCO-GEM. (2017). Global education monitoring report 2017-2018: Accountability in
education. France: United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Publishing. Retrieved from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0025/002595/2595
93e.pdf. (Accessed 20 January 2017).
Viirpalu, P., Krull, E., & Mikser, R. (2014). Investigating Estonian teachers’ expectations
for the general education curriculum. Journal of Teacher Education for Sustainability,
16(2), 54–70. https://doi.org/10.2478/jtes-2014-0011
13
Teaching and Teacher Education 137 (2024) 104386
Wadheefa, A., & Tee, M. Y. (2020). Teacher tool relationship of Maldivian esl teachers: A
multiple case study. Journal of International and Comparative Education, 9(1), 1–13.
https://doi.org/10.14425/jice.2020.9.1.0704
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. https://doi.org/10.1080/
00220272.2012.710253
Westwood Taylor, M. (2016). From effective curricula toward effective curriculum use.
Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 47(5), 440–453. https://www.jstor.
org/stable/10.5951/jresematheduc.47.5.0440.
Yazıcılar Nalbantoğlu, Ü., Bümen, N. T., & Uslu, Ö. (2021). Teachers’ curriculum
adaptation patterns: A scale development study. Teacher Development. https://doi.org/
10.1080/13664530.2021.1996452
Wiggins, G. P., & McTighe, J. (2011). The understanding by design guide to creating high-
quality units. ASCD.
Yazıcılar, Ü., & Bümen, N. T. (2019). Crossing over the brick wall: Adapting the
curriculum as a way out. Issues in Educational Research, 29(2), 583–609. http://www.
iier.org.au/iier29/yazicilar.pd.
Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Yun-peng, M., Chi-chung, L., & Ngai-ying, W. (2006). Chinese primary school
mathematics teachers working in a centralised curriculum system: A case study of
two primary schools in north-east China. Compare: A Journal of Comparative and
International Education, 36(2), 197–212. https://doi.org/10.1080/
03057920600741206
Zepeda, S. J. (2017). Instructional supervision: Applying tools and concepts. NY: Routledge,
Taylor & Francis Group. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315625874