SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Uluslararası Eğitim Programları ve Öğretim Çalışmaları Dergisi / 2025 / Volume: 15 Issue: 2

A Bibliometric Analysis of Research on Curriculum Literacy

Okan Dede(KARABÜK ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0002-2771-6522
Hüseyin Ataseven(KARABUK UNIVERSITY)0000-0001-9992-4518
Pages
—
Publication Date
2025-12-31
🏛️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 findings indicate a notable increase in academic output on this topic in recent years.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The aim of this study is to conduct a comprehensive bibliometric analysis of curriculum literacy literature through a holistic perspective.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The data were obtained from the Web of Science (WoS) database through an extensive search conducted using the keyword “curriculum literacy” on May 27, 2025.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The findings indicate a notable increase in academic output on this topic in recent years.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:2025 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Bibliometric analysis · Curriculum · Curriculum literacy

Abstract

The aim of this study is to conduct a comprehensive bibliometric analysis of curriculum literacy literature through a holistic perspective. Adopting a descriptive research design, the study utilizes the bibliometric analysis method. The data were obtained from the Web of Science (WoS) database through an extensive search conducted using the keyword “curriculum literacy” on May 27, 2025. The resulting dataset, consisting of 208 articles, was analyzed using Microsoft Excel, R software, and the Biblioshiny application. Covering publications between 1988 and 2025, this analysis reveals key trends in the field, prominent academic contributors, influential institutions, and the temporal evolution of research on curriculum literacy. The findings indicate a notable increase in academic output on this topic in recent years. Countries such as the United States, Australia, and the United Kingdom have emerged as leading actors shaping the field, both theoretically and practically. Higher education institutions, particularly in Australia and China, stand out due to their high levels of scholarly productivity and significant contributions to international research collaborations. Thematic analyses reveal that the concepts of “education,” “information,” and “curriculum” are among the most frequently addressed themes in the literature. In light of these findings, it is recommended that future research expand the scope of analysis by incorporating publications from additional databases to enable comparative assessments. Furthermore, enhancing international and interdisciplinary collaborations is likely to contribute to more comprehensive and impactful outcomes in the field of curriculum literacy.

🔖

Cite This Article

Dede, O., Ataseven, H. (2025). A Bibliometric Analysis of Research on Curriculum Literacy. Uluslararası Eğitim Programları ve Öğretim Çalışmaları Dergisi, Volume: 15 Issue: 2. https://doi.org/10.31704/ijocis.1790213

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (56)

  1. Apple, M. W. (2004). Ideology and curriculum. Routledge.
  2. Aria, M., & Cuccurullo, C. (2017). Bibliometrix: An R-tool for comprehensive science mapping analysis. Journal of Informetrics, 11(4), 959–975. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2017.08.007
  3. Ariav, T. (1991). Growth in teachers' curriculum knowledge through the process of curriculum analysis. Journal of Curriculum and Supervision, 6(3), 183-200. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED299234
  4. Aslan, S. (2018). Ortaokul öğretmenlerinin program okuryazarlık düzeyleri (The curriculum literacy level of secondary school teachers). (Thesis No: 516831) [Master Dissertation, Hacettepe University]. Turkish Council of Higher Education Theses Center.
  5. Aslan, S. (2019). An analysis of prospective teachers' curriculum literacy levels in terms of reading and writing. Universal Journal of Educational Research, 7(4), 973–979. https://doi.org/10.13189/ujer.2019.070408
  6. Au, W. (2011). Teaching under the new Taylorism: High‐stakes testing and the standardization of the 21st century curriculum. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 43(1), 25-45. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220272.2010.521261
  7. Aygün, H. E. (2019). The prediction of the teaching readiness level of pre-service teachers in terms of curriculum literacy. International Journal of Curriculum and Instructional Studies, 9(2), 203-220. https://doi.org/10.31704/ijocis.2019.009
  8. Aykaç, N., & Ulubey, Ö. (2012). Pre-service teachers’ opinions about the application level of elementary school program. Ankara University Journal of Faculty of Educational Sciences, 45(1), 63-82. https://doi.org/10.1501/Egifak_0000001236
  9. Barrett, A. M., Crossley, M., & Dachi, H. A. (2011). International collaboration and research capacity building: Learning from the EdQual experience. Comparative Education, 47(1), 25-43. https://doi.org/10.1080/03050068.2011.541674
  10. Beck, J. (2013). Powerful knowledge, esoteric knowledge, curriculum knowledge. Cambridge Journal of Education, 43(2), 177-193. https://doi.org/10.1080/0305764X.2013.767880
  11. Ben-Peretz, M. (1990). The teacher-curriculum encounter: Freeing teachers from the tyranny of texts. State University of New York Press.
  12. Birkle, C., Pendlebury, D. A., Schnell, J., & Adams, J. (2020). Web of Science as a data source for research on scientific and scholarly activity. Quantitative Science Studies, 1(1), 363-376. https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00018
  13. Bolat, Y. (2017). Eğitim programı okuryazarlığı kavramı ve eğitim programı okuryazarlığı ölçeği [Concept of curriculum literacy and curriculum literacy scale]. International Periodical for the Languages, Literature and History of Turkish or Turkic, 12(18), 121-138. http://dx.doi.org/10.7827/TurkishStudies.12103
  14. Bümen, N. T., Çakar, E., & Yıldız, D. G. (2014). Türkiye’de öğretim programına bağlılık ve bağlılığı etkileyen etkenler [Curriculum fidelity and factors affecting fidelity in the Turkish context]. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Bilimleri: 14(1), 203-228. https://doi.org/10.12738/estp.2014.1.2020
  15. Büyükkaragöz, S. (1997). Program geliştirme – kaynak ve metinler. Kuzucalar Ofset.
  16. Bybee, R., & McCrae, B. (2011). Scientific literacy and student attitudes: Perspectives from PISA 2006 science. International Journal of Science Education, 33(1), 7-26. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2010.518644
  17. Cervantes-Soon, C. G., Dorner, L., Palmer, D., Heiman, D., Schwerdtfeger, R., & Choi, J. (2017). Combating inequalities in two-way language immersion programs: Toward critical consciousness in bilingual education spaces. Review of Research in Education, 41(1), 403-427. https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X17690120
  18. Çobanoğlu, R. (2011). Teacher self-efficacy and teaching beliefs as predictors of curriculum implementation in early childhood education (Thesis No: 300702) [Master Dissertation, Middle East Technical University]. Turkish Council of Higher Education Theses Center.
  19. Deng, Z. (2018). Pedagogical content knowledge reconceived: Bringing curriculum thinking into the conversation on teachers' content knowledge. Teaching and Teacher Education, 72, 155-164. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2017.11.021
  20. Donthu, N., Kumar, S., Mukherjee, D., Pandey, N., & Lim, W. M. (2021). How to conduct a bibliometric analysis: An overview and guidelines. Journal of Business Research, 133, 285-296. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.04.070
  21. Fellowes, J., & Oakley, G. (2020). Language, literacy and early childhood education. Oxford University Press.
  22. Freire, P., & Macedo, D. (2005). Literacy: Reading the word and the world. Routledge.
  23. Freshwater, D., Sherwood, G., & Drury, V. (2006). International research collaboration: Issues, benefits and challenges of the global network. Journal of Research in Nursing, 11(4), 295-303. https://doi.org/10.1177/1744987106066304
  24. Gibbons, P. (2003). Mediating language learning: Teacher interactions with ESL students in a content‐based classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 37(2), 247-273. https://doi.org/10.2307/3588504
  25. Goodson, I. F. (2014). Curriculum, personal narrative and the social future. Routledge.
  26. Giroux, H. A. (2007). Border crossings: Cultural workers and the politics of education. Routledge.
  27. Gümüş, S., Bellibaş, M. S., Gümüş, E. & Hallinger, P. (2019). Science mapping research on educational leadership and management in Turkey: A bibliometric review of international publications. School Leadership & Management, 40(1), 23–44. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632434.2019.1578737
  28. Gündoğan, G. (2019). Öğretmenlerin program okuryazarlıkları hakkında nitel bir değerlendirme (A qualitative evaluation on teachers' curriculum literacy). (Thesis No: 579025) [Master Dissertation, Kahramanmaraş Sütçü İmam University]. Turkish Council of Higher Education Theses Center.
  29. Horton, F. W. (2008). Understanding information literacy: a primer. UNESCO.
  30. Jansen, J., & Taylor, N. (2003). Educational change in South Africa 1994-2003: Case studies in large-scale education reform. World Bank.
  31. Kahramanoğlu, R. (2019). Öğretmenlerin öğretim programı okuryazarlığına yönelik yeterlik düzeyleri üzerine bir inceleme. [A study on teachers' levels of curriculum literacy]. Uluslararası Sosyal Araştırmalar Dergisi, 12(65), 827-840. http://dx.doi.org/10.17719/jisr.2019.3495
  32. Karaman, P., & Bakaç, E. (2018). Investigating the teachers’ curriculum orientations in terms of various variables. Abant İzzet Baysal Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 18(1), 304-320. https://doi.org/10.17240/aibuefd.2018.-364651
  33. Karseth, B., & Sivesind, K. (2010). Conceptualising curriculum knowledge within and beyond the national context. European Journal of Education, 45(1), 103-120. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1465-3435.2009.01418.x
  34. Keskin, A., & Korkmaz, H. (2021). Öğretmenlerin öğretim programı okuryazarlığı algı ölçeği’nin geliştirilmesi [Development of teachers’ curriculum literacy perception scale]. Türk Eğitim Bilimleri Dergisi, 19(2), 857-884. https://doi.org/10.37217/tebd.917130
  35. Kress, G. (2003). Literacy in the new media age. Routledge.
  36. Kurudayıoğlu, M., & Tüzel, S. (2010). 21. yüzyıl okuryazarlık türleri, değişen metin algısı ve Türkçe eğitimi [The types of literacy of the 21st century, changing text comprehension and Turkish teaching]. Türklük Bilimi Araştırmaları, 28, 283-298. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/download/article-file/157039
  37. Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., & Altman, D. G. (2009). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement., PLoS Medicine 6(7), 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097
  38. Mongeon, P., Paul-Hus, A. (2016). The journal coverage of Web of Science and Scopus: A comparative analysis. Scientometrics, 106, 213–228. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-015-1765-5
  39. O’Connor, K. (2022). Constructivism, curriculum and the knowledge question: tensions and challenges for higher education. Studies in Higher Education, 47(2), 412-422. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2020.1750585
  40. The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2000). Literacy in the information age: Final report of the international adult literacy survey. OECD Publishing.
  41. Ogar, O. E., & Awhen, F. (2015). Teachers perceived problems of curriculum implementation in tertiary institutions in cross river state of Nigeria. Journal of Education and Practice, 6(19), 145-151. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1079530.pdf
  42. Oreck, B. (2004). The artistic and professional development of teachers: A study of teachers’ attitudes toward and use of the arts in teaching. Journal of Teacher Education, 55(1), 55-69. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487103260072
  43. Özkan, H. H. (2016). An analysis of teachers’ opinions about their knowledge of curriculum terms awareness. Universal Journal of Educational Research, 4(7), 1601-1613. https://doi.org/10.13189/ujer.2016.040713
  44. Pinar, W. F. (2012). What is curriculum theory? (2nd ed.). Routledge.
  45. Pinar, W. F., Reynolds, W. M., Slattery, P., & Taubman, P. M. (1995). Understanding curriculum: An introduction to the study of historical and contemporary curriculum discourses. Peter Lang.
  46. Pranckutė, R. (2021). Web of Science (WoS) and Scopus: The titans of bibliographic information in today’s academic world. Publications, 9(1), 12. https://doi.org/10.3390/publications9010012
  47. Priestley, M., Biesta, G., & Robinson, S. (2015). Teacher agency: An ecological approach. Bloomsbury Academic. https://doi.org/10.5040/9781474219426
  48. Schwab, J. J. (1969). The practical: A language for curriculum. The School Review, 78(1), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1086/442881
  49. Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.57.1.j463w79r56455411
  50. Stenhouse, L. (1975). An introduction to curriculum research and development. Heinemann.
  51. Sünbül, A. M. (1996). Öğretmen niteliği ve öğretimdeki rolleri. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Yönetimi, (8), 597-607. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/download/article-file/108646
  52. Wiles, J., & Bondi, J. (2007). Curriculum development: a guide to practice. Pearson.
  53. Yoshida, M. (2012). Mathematics lesson study in the United States: Current status and ideas for conducting high quality and effective lesson study. International Journal for Lesson and Learning Studies, 1(2), 140-152. https://doi.org/10.1108/20468251211224181
  54. Young, M. (2013). Powerful knowledge: An analytically useful concept or just a ‘sexy sounding term’? A response to John Beck’s ‘Powerful knowledge, esoteric knowledge, curriculum knowledge’. Cambridge Journal of Education, 43(2), 195-198. https://doi.org/10.1080/0305764X.2013.776356
  55. Zupic, I., & Čater, T. (2015). Bibliometric methods in management and organization. Organizational Research Methods, 18(3), 429-472. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428114562629
  56. Karaman, P., & Bakaç, E. (2018). Investigating the teachers’ curriculum orientations in terms of various variables. Abant İzzet Baysal Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 18(1), 304-320. https://doi.org/10.17240/aibuefd.2018.-364651