SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Ahi Evran Üniversitesi Kırşehir Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi / 2026 / Cilt: 27 Sayı: 3

Theoretical Convergences, Practical Divergences: A Comparative Analysis of Visual Arts Curricula

Teorik Ortaklıklar, Pratik Ayrışmalar: Görsel Sanatlar Öğretim Programlarının Karşılaştırmalı İncelemesi

Serkan Padem(DUZCE UNIVERSITY)0000-0003-1414-8236
Esra Kaya(TC MİLLİ EĞİTİM BAKANLIĞI- DÜZCE)0009-0000-0567-0407
Pages
1485–1508
Publication Date
2026-09-30
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

The research findings reveal that all countries studied exhibit a strong "theoretical commonality" at the level of objectives for visual arts education; creativity, aesthetic awareness, and holistic development are adopted as universal goals.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This research aims to comparatively examine the visual arts curricula at the middle school level in Japan, Singapore, South Korea, and Finland within the context of the historical and contemporary evolution of art education, and to evaluate the current Visual Arts Curriculum in Turkey in light of this global perspective.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The digital transformation brought about by the 21st century, the dominance of visual culture, and changing competency paradigms are challenging the traditional boundaries of art education, moving it from a purely technical skill area to a point of intersection for critical thinking, aesthetic sensitivity, and digital literacy.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The research findings reveal that all countries studied exhibit a strong "theoretical commonality" at the level of objectives for visual arts education; creativity, aesthetic awareness, and holistic development are adopted as universal goals.
🔬Design:Review & Systematic Survey
📍Scope:2017 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Görsel sanatlar eğitimi · Karşılaştırmalı eğitim · Öğretim programı

Abstract

This research aims to comparatively examine the visual arts curricula at the middle school level in Japan, Singapore, South Korea, and Finland within the context of the historical and contemporary evolution of art education, and to evaluate the current Visual Arts Curriculum in Turkey in light of this global perspective. The digital transformation brought about by the 21st century, the dominance of visual culture, and changing competency paradigms are challenging the traditional boundaries of art education, moving it from a purely technical skill area to a point of intersection for critical thinking, aesthetic sensitivity, and digital literacy. This study, structured using descriptive and comparative document analysis, a qualitative research method, utilizes the most up-to-date official curriculum documents published by the ministries of education of these countries as data sources (Japan 2017 Curriculum, Singapore 2024 Art Curriculum, South Korea 2022 Revised National Curriculum, Finland 2014 National Basic Education Program, and Turkey 2018 Program and Maarif Model). Data analysis was performed through a systematic coding process based on Miles and Huberman's (1994) interactive model and Bowen's (2009) document review protocols; validity and reliability were ensured through data triangulation and expert review. The research findings reveal that all countries studied exhibit a strong "theoretical commonality" at the level of objectives for visual arts education; creativity, aesthetic awareness, and holistic development are adopted as universal goals. However, significant "practical divergences" were identified in the implementation of these goals. While Singapore and Finland offer a systematic structure regarding digital media integration and process-oriented assessment (rubrics, portfolios), South Korea has centrally and legally secured the status of art instruction through the competency of "aesthetic sensitivity." Japan, on the other hand, exhibits a unique model synthesizing traditional "Kansei" (sensitivity) education with modern active learning approaches. In the case of Turkey, it was concluded that the theoretical framework of the program is compatible with contemporary approaches, but there are structural gaps in terms of implementation assurance, measurement and evaluation standards, and digital infrastructure. The study concludes by presenting structural reform proposals to increase the effectiveness of art education in Turkey.

Özet

Bu araştırma, Japonya, Singapur, Güney Kore ve Finlandiya'nın ortaokul düzeyindeki görsel sanatlar öğretim programlarını, sanat eğitiminin tarihsel ve güncel evrimi bağlamında karşılaştırmalı olarak incelemeyi ve Türkiye'deki mevcut Görsel Sanatlar Dersi Öğretim Programı'nı bu küresel perspektif ışığında değerlendirmeyi amaçlamaktadır. 21. yüzyılın getirdiği dijital dönüşüm, görsel kültürün hakimiyeti ve değişen yetkinlik paradigmaları, sanat eğitiminin geleneksel sınırlarını zorlamakta ve onu teknik bir beceri alanı olmaktan çıkarıp, eleştirel düşünme, estetik duyarlılık ve dijital okuryazarlığın kesişim noktasına taşımaktadır. Nitel araştırma yöntemlerinden betimsel ve karşılaştırmalı doküman analizi deseninde kurgulanan bu çalışmada, veri kaynakları olarak ülkelerin eğitim bakanlıkları tarafından yayımlanan en güncel resmi müfredat belgeleri (Japonya 2017 Öğretim Programı, Singapur 2024 Sanat Müfredatı, Güney Kore 2022 Revize Ulusal Müfredat, Finlandiya 2014 Ulusal Temel Eğitim Programı ve Türkiye 2018 Programı ile Maarif Modeli) kullanılmıştır. Verilerin analizi, Miles ve Huberman'ın (1994) etkileşimli modeline ve Bowen'ın (2009) doküman inceleme protokollerine dayalı sistematik bir kodlama süreciyle gerçekleştirilmiş; geçerlik ve güvenirlik, veri çeşitlemesi ve uzman incelemesi yoluyla sağlanmıştır. Araştırma bulguları, incelenen tüm ülkelerin görsel sanatlar eğitiminin amaçları düzeyinde güçlü bir "teorik ortaklık" sergilediğini; yaratıcılık, estetik bilinç ve bütüncül gelişimin evrensel hedefler olarak benimsendiğini ortaya koymaktadır. Ancak bu hedeflerin hayata geçirilmesinde ciddi "pratik ayrışmalar" tespit edilmiştir. Singapur ve Finlandiya, dijital medya entegrasyonu ve süreç odaklı değerlendirme (rubrikler, portfolyolar) konularında sistematik bir yapı sunarken; Güney Kore, sanat dersinin statüsünü "estetik duyarlılık" yetkinliği üzerinden merkezi düzeyde ve yasal olarak güvence altına almıştır. Japonya ise geleneksel "Kansei" (duyarlık) eğitimi ile modern aktif öğrenme yaklaşımlarını sentezleyen özgün bir model sergilemektedir. Türkiye örneğinde ise programın teorik çerçevesinin çağdaş yaklaşımlarla uyumlu olduğu, ancak uygulama güvencesi, ölçme-değerlendirme standartları ve dijital altyapı konularında yapısal boşluklar bulunduğu sonucuna ulaşılmıştır. Çalışma, Türkiye'de sanat eğitiminin etkililiğini artırmak adına yapısal reform önerileri sunarak sona ermektedir.

🔖

Cite This Article

Padem, S., Kaya, E. (2026). Theoretical Convergences, Practical Divergences: A Comparative Analysis of Visual Arts Curricula. Ahi Evran Üniversitesi Kırşehir Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, Cilt: 27 Sayı: 3, 1485–1508. https://doi.org/10.29299/kefad.1908052

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (34)

  1. Andrade, H., & Valtcheva, A. (2009). Promoting learning and achievement through self-assessment. Theory Into Practice, 48(1), 12-19. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405840802577544
  2. Boughton, D. (2004). Assessing art learning in changing contexts. In E. W. Eisner & M. D. Day (Eds.), Handbook of research and policy in art education (pp. 585-599). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781410609939
  3. Bowen, G. A. (2009). Document analysis as a qualitative research method. Qualitative Research Journal, 9(2), 27-40. https://doi.org/10.3316/QRJ0902027
  4. Bray, M., Adamson, B., & Mason, M. (2014). Comparative education research: Approaches and methods (2nd ed.). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-05594-7
  5. Bray, M., & Thomas, R. M. (1995). Levels of comparison in educational studies. Harvard Educational Review, 65(3), 472-490. Retrieved October 17, 2025, from https://web.edu.hku.hk/f/staff/376/Bray-Thomas-Comparison-1995.pdf
  6. Brookhart, S. M. (2013). How to create and use rubrics for formative assessment and grading. ASCD.
  7. Buyurgan, S., & Buyurgan, U. (2012). Sanat eğitimi ve öğretimi [Art education and teaching]. Pegem Akademi. Retrieved October 10, 2025, from https://depo.pegem.net/9786050370270.pdf
  8. Creswell, J. W. (2013). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. Sage.
  9. Demirel, Ö. (2020). Eğitimde program geliştirme: Kuramdan uygulamaya [Curriculum development in education: From theory to practice] (27th ed.). Pegem Akademi.
  10. Duncum, P. (2009). Visual culture in art education, circa 2009. Visual Arts Research, 35(1), 64-75. https://doi.org/10.2307/20715488
  11. Eisner, E. W. (2002). The arts and the creation of mind. Yale University Press.
  12. Finnish National Agency for Education. (2014). National core curriculum for basic education. Retrieved October 4, 2025, from https://www.oph.fi/en/statistics-and-publications/publications/national-core-curriculum-basic-education-2014
  13. Freedman, K. (2003). Teaching visual culture: Curriculum, aesthetics, and the social life of art. Teachers College Press.
  14. Kırışoğlu, O. T. (2015). Sanat kültürü ve yaratıcılık [Art culture and creativity]. Pegem Akademi.
  15. Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Sage.
  16. Merriam, S. B. (2013). Nitel araştırma: Desen ve uygulama için bir rehber [Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation] (S. Turan, Trans.). Nobel Akademik Yayıncılık.
  17. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. Sage.
  18. Millî Eğitim Bakanlığı. (2018). Görsel sanatlar dersi öğretim programı (ortaokul 5-8. sınıflar) [Visual arts curriculum (secondary school, grades 5-8)]. Retrieved October 22, 2025, from http://mufredat.meb.gov.tr/ProgramDetay.aspx?ID=341
  19. Millî Eğitim Bakanlığı. (2023). Türkiye Yüzyılı Maarif Modeli öğretim programları çerçeve metni [Türkiye Century Maarif Model curriculum framework text]. Retrieved October 21, 2025, from https://yuzyilmaarifmodeli.meb.gov.tr/
  20. Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology. (2017). Lower secondary school course of study: Art. Retrieved October 30, 2025, from https://www.mext.go.jp/en/policy/education/else/1304327.htm
  21. Ministry of Education, Republic of Korea. (2015). National curriculum for primary and secondary schools: Arts. Retrieved October 14, 2025, from https://english.moe.go.kr
  22. Ministry of Education, Republic of Korea. (2022). 2022 revised national curriculum for primary, secondary, and special schools. Retrieved October 14, 2025, from https://english.moe.go.kr
  23. Ministry of Education Singapore. (2024). Lower secondary art syllabus. Retrieved October 7, 2025, from https://www.moe.gov.sg/primary/curriculum/syllabus
  24. OECD. (2019). Future of education and skills 2030. OECD Publishing. Retrieved October 31, 2025, from https://www.oecd.org/education/2030-project/
  25. Paris, G., & Hay, P. (2020). 5x5x5=Creativity: Art as a transformative practice. International Journal of Art & Design Education, 39(1), 3-16. https://doi.org/10.1111/jade.12229
  26. Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research & evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Sage.
  27. Peppler, K. A., & Kafai, Y. B. (2007). From SuperGoo to Scratch: Exploring creative digital media production in informal learning. Learning, Media and Technology, 32(2), 149-166. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439880701343337
  28. Phillips, D., & Schweisfurth, M. (2014). Comparative and international education: An introduction to theory, method, and practice (2nd ed.). Bloomsbury.
  29. San, İ. (2010). Sanat eğitimi kuramları [Theories of art education]. Ütopya Yayınları.
  30. Tavin, K. M., & Anderson, D. (2003). Teaching (popular) visual culture: Deconstructing Disney in the elementary art classroom. Art Education, 56(3), 21-35. https://doi.org/10.1080/00043125.2003.11653498
  31. Trilling, B., & Fadel, C. (2009). 21st century skills: Learning for life in our times. Jossey-Bass.
  32. Ültanır, Y. G. (2000). Karşılaştırmalı eğitim bilimi kuramı ve teknikleri [Theory and techniques of comparative educational science]. Eylül Büro Yayınları.
  33. Yıldırım, A., & Şimşek, H. (2021). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri [Qualitative research methods in the social sciences] (12th ed.). Seçkin Yayıncılık.
  34. Yin, R. K. (2018). Case study research and applications: Design and methods (6th ed.). Sage.