Participatory approaches to curriculum reform, in which teachers and other actors are involved, are becoming increasingly common (Kneen et al., 2023; Kontovourki et al., 2021). This development reflects an increasing recognition that teachers are essential actors in curriculum reform. Policymakers have come to recognize the challenge of creating change in schools without involving teachers in reform processes (Priestley et al., 2016). Thus, making use of teachers’ skills, knowledge, and experience has been identified as important (Alvunger et al., 2021). It has further been argued that teachers need ownership of the curriculum in order to implement it in their practices (Kirk & MacDonald, 2001), and that creating shared understandings of the curriculum among different actors is important when aiming for coherent, system-wide change (Soini et al., 2017). Therefore, rather than being considered only curriculum implementers, teachers are increasingly portrayed as curriculum developers, invited to participate in national curriculum-making and expected to take an active part in local curriculum work (Kneen et al., 2023).

This literature review is theoretically grounded in the work of Priestley et al. (2021), in which curriculum making and reform are understood as social practices involving a variety of activities and actors across the supra, macro, meso, micro, and nano sites of the education system. The study aims to collate and present current knowledge on teacher involvement in curriculum development and reform, focusing specifically on involvement at the supra, macro, and meso sites. These sites have been selected because they lie outside teachers’ day-to-day classroom work.

The study employed a scoping review design following the methodological framework proposed by Arksey and O’Malley (2005). The purpose was to map the breadth and nature of existing research, identify knowledge gaps, and clarify directions for future inquiry regarding teacher involvement in curriculum development and reform. Systematic searches were conducted in Google Scholar, ERIC, and Web of Science, complemented by targeted searches in leading journals and backward snowballing (Randolph, 2009). Included studies were peer-reviewed empirical research published in English before February 2026.

The review shows that little is known about teacher involvement in the supra site. In the macro and meso sites, teacher involvement in curriculum development and reform varies considerably between countries. Involvement may take the form of narrow consultation, for example through questionnaires (Humes, 2013), or large-scale systemic approaches in which teachers collaborate with other actors across sites (Soini et al., 2021). The purposes of involving teachers are often linked to strengthening teacher professionalism, fostering agency, and facilitating the introduction of new curricula into schools (Kneen et al., 2023; Kontovourki et al., 2021; Theodorou et al., 2017). However, some studies show that these purposes are not always achieved (Theodorou et al., 2017).

Moreover, few studies explicitly examine teachers’ influence in curriculum reform processes. While some research indirectly indicates that teachers may be overruled by other actors (Sivesind & Westbury, 2016; Theodorou et al., 2017), their influence has rarely been studied directly (Finnanger & Prøitz, 2024). The review also reveals that much of the research on teacher involvement at macro and meso sites comes from a small number of countries, notably Wales, Finland, and Cyprus. Since curriculum reform is embedded in national contexts, traditions, cultures, and forms of governance, there is a need for studies from a wider range of countries that explore how teachers are involved in reform efforts across system sites.

This study employed a scoping review design following the methodological framework proposed by Arksey and O’Malley (2005). Consistent with the purposes of scoping reviews, the approach was used to map the breadth and nature of existing research, identify knowledge gaps, and clarify directions for future inquiry regarding teacher involvement in curriculum development and reform. The review followed Arksey and O’Malley’s five-stage process. First, the primary research question guiding the review was defined as: How are teachers involved in curriculum development and reform? Second, relevant literature was identified through systematic searches in major international databases, including Google Scholar, ERIC, and Web of Science. Searches were conducted using key terms aligned with the research focus. Additional targeted searches were performed in leading journals in the field, including Journal of Curriculum Studies and The Curriculum Journal. Recognizing that database searches alone may not capture all relevant sources (Randolph, 2009), backward snowballing was used to identify further literature from reference lists of selected articles and book chapters. Only peer-reviewed journal articles and academic book chapters published in English before February 2026 were included. Third, studies were screened according to predefined inclusion criteria: (a) original empirical research published in peer-reviewed journals or academic books; (b) a focus on school-level curricula, excluding higher education and other educational contexts; and (c) attention to curriculum development processes at supra, macro, or meso sites (Priestley et al., 2021). Fourth, data charting and analysis involved an initial close reading of all included studies. Each study was categorized according to the curriculum sites framework described by Priestley et al. (2021). Key conceptual perspectives, methodological features, and principal empirical findings related to teacher involvement were extracted and documented. The synthesis aimed to capture dominant themes while also reflecting variation across contexts and studies. Finally, the results were collated, summarized, and reported to provide a comprehensive overview of the existing evidence base and to highlight patterns and gaps in the literature.

The literature review has shown that teacher involvement in curriculum development and reform vary based on context. They can take the form of narrow consultations, where teachers are asked to give their opinions through questionnaires (Humes, 2013), or they can be large-scale systemic approaches, with teachers and other actors working collaboratively across sites to develop curricula (Soini et al., 2021). The literature outlines several purposes for involving teachers in reforms. The purpose of involving teachers is often related to developing teacher professionalism, for example, by creating teacher agency and dissolving power differentials among actors in the education system, or to making the introduction of new curricula into schools easier (Kneen et al., 2023; Kontovourki et al., 2021; Theodorou et al., 2017). However, some studies have found that these purposes are not achieved (Theodorou et al., 2017). Moreover, there are few studies that focus on teachers’ influence. Some studies indirectly show how teachers are overruled by other actors (Sivesind & Westbury, 2016; Theodorou et al., 2017), but their influence has rarely been studied explicitly. This review has revealed that much of the literature on teacher involvement in macro and meso curriculum reform work comes from a small number of countries that have undertaken such work in recent years, notably Wales, Finland, and Cyprus. Since reforms are embedded in national contexts, traditions, cultures and forms of governing impact how reforms play out; thus, there is a need for studies from more countries that explore how teachers are involved in reform efforts across sites.

Alvunger, D., Soini, T., Philippou, S., & Priestley, M. (2021). Conclusions: Patterns and trends in curriculum making in Europe. In M. Priestley, D. Alvunger, S. Philippou, & T. Soini (Eds.), Curriculum Making in Europe: Policy and Practice Within and Across Diverse Contexts (pp. 273-293). Emerald Publishing Limited. Arksey, H., & O'Malley, L. (2005). Scoping studies: Towards a methodological framework. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 8(1), 19-32. https://doi.org/10.1080/1364557032000119616 Finnanger, T. S., & Prøitz, T. S. (2024). Teachers as national curriculum makers: does involvement equal influence? Journal of Curriculum Studies, 56(2), 220-234. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220272.2024.2307450 Humes, W. (2013). The Origins and Development of Curriculum for Excellence: Discourse, Politics and Control. In M. Priestley & G. Biesta (Eds.), Reinventing the Curriculum - New Trends in Curriculum Policy and Practice (pp. 20-35). Bloomsbury. Kirk, D., & MacDonald, D. (2001). Teacher voice and ownership of curriculum change. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 33(5), 551-567. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220270010016874 Kneen, J., Breeze, T., Thayer, E., John, V., & Davies-Barnes, S. (2023). Pioneer teachers: How far can individual teachers achieve agency within curriculum development? Journal of Educational Change, 24(2), 243-264. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-021- 09441-3 Kontovourki, S., Theodorou, E., & Philippou, S. (2021). 'Sites' of curriculum making in Cyprus: Tracing the emergence and transformation of expert teacher-subjects. In M. Priestley, D. Alvunger, S. Philippou, & T. Soini (Eds.), Curriculum Making in Europe - Policy and Practice Within and Across Diverse Contexts (pp. 53-76). Emerald. Priestley, M., Biesta, G., Philippou, S., & Robinson, S. (2016). The Teacher and the Curriculum: Exploring Teacher Agency. In D. Wyse, L. Hayward, & J. Pandya (Eds.), The SAGE Handbook of Curriculum, Pedagogy and Assessment (pp. 187-201). SAGE. Priestley, M., Philippou, S., Alvunger, D., & Soini, T. (2021). Curriculum Making: a conceptual framework. In Curriculum Making in Europe: Policy and Practice Within and Across Diverse Contexts (pp. 1-28). Emerald Publishing Limited. Randolph, J. (2009). A Guide to Writing the Dissertation Review. Practical Assessment, Research, and Evaluation, 14(1). https://doi.org/10.7275/b0az-8t74