The Search for an Effective Curricular Change Adoption in Foreign Language Education: A Meta-Synthesis

A Meta-Synthesis

  • Zehra Yedigöz Kara İzmir Provincial Directorate of National Education
  • Nilay T. Bümen Ege University
Keywords: curricular change adoption, Ecological System Theory, foreign language education, innovation study, meta-synthesis


There is a rich body of studies on the implementation problems of curricular changes comprising more student-centred methodologies in English as a foreign language education around the world. Focusing on these global-wide studies within the context of the Ecological System Theory, this meta-synthesis aims to identify the common factors that hinder the curricular change implementation and to reveal the final synthesis that will lead to effective curricular change adoption. Hence, 10 studies from seven country settings (Türkiye, Japan, Colombia, South Korea, China, Vietnam, and Bangladesh) were included in the sample of the study. The analyses uncovered similar factors such as teachers’ qualifications at the micro-level, lack of support and infrastructure at the meso-level, and lack of guidance or misalignment between curricular change and high-stakes testing policy at the macro-level for blocking the implementation. The synthesis indicated weaknesses between the systems from macro to micro, which resulted in the lack of interactions, as well as the coordination needed for the curricular change adoption. When they are improved, the connection between the systems will be built and all the needed contexts will be structured for the adoption. Consequently, the implications for the interaction improvement are provided.


Download data is not yet available.


Adamson, B., & Yin, A. T. S. (2008). Leadership and collaboration in implementing curriculum change in Hong Kong secondary schools. Asia Pacific Education Review, 9, 180-189.

Aguas, P. P. (2020). Key stakeholders’ lived experiences while implementing an aligned curriculum: A phenomenological study. The Qualitative Report, 25(10), 3459-3485.

Bondas, T., & Hall, E. O. C. (2007). Challenges in approaching metasynthesis research. Qualitative Health Research, 17(1), 113-121.

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Carles, D., & Harfitt, G. (2013). Innovation in secondary education: A case of curriculum reform in Hong Kong. In K. Hyland & L. L. C. Wong (Eds.), Innovation and change in English language education (pp. 172-185). London: Routledge.

Christensen, J. (2016). A critical reflection of Bronfenbrenner’s development ecology model. Problems of Education in the 21st Century, 69, 22-28. doi:10.33225/pec/16.69.22

Darling-Hammond, L. (2017). Teacher education around the world: What can we learn from international practice? European Journal of Education, 40(3), 291-309.

Darling-Hammond, L. (2005). Policy and change: Getting beyond bureaucracy. In A. Hargreaves (Ed), Extending education change (pp. 362-387). Dordrecht: Springer.

Dincer, A., & Koç, H. K. (2020). The implementation of an intensive English language program in the fifth grade in Türkiye: A qualitative evaluation. Journal of Theoretical Educational Sciences, 13(1), 25-43.

Education First [EF EPI]. (2020). EF English proficiency index: A ranking of 100 countries and regions by English skills. Retrieved from

Erwin, E. J., Brotherson, M. J., & Summers, J. A. (2011). Understanding qualitative metasynthesis: Issues and opportunities in early childhood intervention research. Journal of Early Intervention, 33(3), 186-200.

Fang, X. (2012). Teaching the new English curriculum: An ethnographic study in a Chinese high school. In T. Muller, S. Herder, J. Adamson & P. Brown (Eds.), Innovating EFL teaching in Asia (pp. 9-22). London: Palgrave Macmillan.

Fullan, M. (2007). The new meaning of educational change. New York: Teachers College Press

Glasgow, P. G. (2015). Teaching English in English, ‘in principle’: The national foreign language curriculum for Japanese senior high schools. International Journal of Pedagogies and Learning, 9(2), 152-161.

Gouëdard, P., Pont, B., Hyttinen, S., & Huang, P. (2020). Curriculum reform: A literature review to support effective implementation. OECD Education Working Papers, 239. Paris: OECD Publishing.

Hall, G. E., & Hord, S. M. (2015). Implementing change: Patterns, principles, and potholes. Boston: Pearson.

Härkönen, U. (2007, October). The Bronfenbrenner ecological systems theory of human development. Paper presented at the V. International Conference “Person. Color. Nature. Music”, Daugavpils University, Daugavpils, Latvia.

Hewitt, T. W. (2006). Understanding and shaping curriculum: What we teach and why. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

Howell-Major, C. H., & Savin-Baden, M. (2010). Qualitative research synthesis: The scholarship of integration in practice. In M. Savin-Baden & C. Howell-Major (Eds.), New approaches to qualitative research: Wisdom and uncertainty (pp.108-118). New York: Routledge.

Johannisson, B. (1987). Beyond process and structures: Social exchange networks. International Studies of Management & Organization, 17(1), 3-23.

Kaplan, R. B., Baldauf Jr. R. B., & Kamwangamalu, N. (2011). Why educational language plans sometimes fail. Current Issues in Language Planning, 12(2), 105-124.

Kazakbaeva, R. (2021). From the language of the enemy to language of opportunity: Understanding teacher resistance to curriculum change in English language teaching and learning in Kyrgyzstan. Journal of Educational Change.

Keeley, B. (2007). Human capital: How what you know shapes your life. Paris: OECD Publishing. Retrieved from

Kennedy, C. (2011). Challenges for language policy, language and development. In H. Coleman (Ed.), Dreams and realities: Developing countries and the English language (pp. 2-15). London: British Council.

Liu, W., & Wang, Q. (2019). Walking with bound feet: Teachers’ lived experiences in China’s English curriculum change. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 1-16.

Mwanza, C., & Mkandawire, S. B. (2020). From curriculum guide to classroom practice: Teachers’ of English language narratives of the 2013 revised curriculum implementation in Zambia. Multidisciplinary Journal of Language and Social Sciences Education, 3(2), 193-215.

Nguyen, H. T. M., & Bui, T. (2016). Teachers’ agency and enactment of educational reform in Vietnam. Current Issues in Language Planning, 17(1), 88-105.

Rahman, M. M., Pandian, A., & Kaur, M. (2018). Factors affecting teachers’ implementation of the communicative language teaching curriculum in secondary schools in Bangladesh. The Qualitative Report, 23(5), 1104-1126.

Richards, J. C. (2006). Communicative language teaching today. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Summers, J. A., Brotherson, M. J., Naig, L., Ethridge, B., Singer, G. H., Kruse, A., & Wang, W. (2008, March). A preliminary synthesis of qualitative research: Gaining emotional well-being from other parents. Paper presented at the Beach Center on Disability State of the Science Conference, Washington, DC.

Taguma, M., & Fernandez-Barrera, M. (2019). OECD future of education and skills 2030: Curriculum analysis. Paris: OECD.

The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (2019). OECD future of education and skills 2030: OECD learning compass 2030. Paris: OECD.

The World Bank. (2003). Life learning in the global knowledge economy: challenges for developing countries. A World Bank Report. Washington: The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development.

Thorne, S. E. (2008). Meta-synthesis. In L.M. Given (Ed.), The SAGE encyclopedia of qualitative research methods (pp. 511-513). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publication.

Trent, J. (2014). Innovation as identity construction in language teaching and learning: Case studies from Hong Kong. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 8(1), 56-78.

Underwood, P. R. (2012). Teacher beliefs and intentions regarding the instruction of English grammar under national curriculum reforms: A theory of planned behaviour perspective. Teaching and Teacher Education, 28, 911-925.

United Nations (2020). World economic situation and prospects 2020. New York. Retrieved, from

Westbrook, J., Durrani, N., Brown, R., Orr, D., Pryor, J., Boddy, J., & Salvi, F. (2013). Pedagogy, curriculum, teaching practices and teacher education in developing countries. Final Report. Education Rigorious Literature Review. Department for International Development. The University of Sussex. Retrieved from

Yan, C. (2015). ‘We can’t change much unless the exams change’: Teachers’ dilemmas in the curriculum reform in China. Improving Schools, 18(1), 5-19.

Yeni-Palabıyık, P., & Daloğlu, A. (2016). English language teachers’ implementation of the curriculum with the action-oriented approach in Turkish primary education classrooms. I-manager’s Journal on English Language Teaching, 6(2), 45-57.

Zare, P., & Sarab, M. R. A. (2020). Language teachers’ perception of an ELT program: The case of Iranian English reform developed for secondary schools. Journal of Language Horizons, 4(2), 101-122.
How to Cite
Yedigöz Kara, Z., & T. Bümen, N. (2022). The Search for an Effective Curricular Change Adoption in Foreign Language Education: A Meta-Synthesis. Uluslararası Eğitim Programları Ve Öğretim Çalışmaları Dergisi, 12(2), 337-366.