Course curriculum is intimately connected to daily life of teachers. It specifies what and how to teach, and guides teachers’ planning and enactment of lessons (Ball & Cohen, 1996). Teachers are active agents in transforming written curriculum into thought curriculum which then results in enacted curriculum in schools. In this process, curriculum plays an active role in enabling or constraining teachers’ curricular and instructional decision making processes (Davis & Krajcik, 2005). Thus, not only does the curriculum shape teachers’ planning practice and implementation, but teachers also simultaneously re-shape the curriculum as they read and adapt it in ways that address their own understanding and of the characteristics of the students they teach (Brown, 2009; Yıldırım, 2003). In summary, classroom practices are influenced by teachers’ understanding of the curriculum, beliefs about what is important, and the ideas about the roles of teachers and students (Ball & Cohen, 1996). 

Despite reform endeavors in curriculum, role of the government in educational development and use of centralized curriculum have remained strong in Turkey. Teachers are expected to make use of the centralized curriculum and related materials (e.g., textbooks, teachers guide books, student activity books) in their planning and delivery of instruction in a standard way.  Ministry of Education plays a major role in this process by developing curriculum for all courses centrally, and then demanding it to be implemented in nation’s schools regardless of being public or private. Waves of globalization and efforts to integrate with European educational systems have had little impact on this centralized process of curriculum development and implementation. 

However, how the centralized curriculum is transformed into practice is not clear.  The curriculum change in Turkey in 2005 was based on “constructivist educational philosophy,” and teachers were expected to embrace this change since it aimed to make students more active in learning.  However, research in schools has shown that teachers still continue with traditional teacher-centered practices (Kırkgöz, 2008; Korkmaz, 2008; Helvaci, 2009).  Then centralized curriculum is not transformed into practice as intended. This gap indicates that teachers’ understanding and implementation of curriculum could be different from official curriculum.  Why is there a gap?  What happens between teachers’ reading of curriculum and implementation in classroom?  This process is a black-box.  Understanding this process is significant since reform in curriculum requires an effective implementation along with application of contemporary approaches and process.  In addition, centralization and decentralization issues are high on the agenda of many European countries (Daun, 2006, p.75-96; Turner, 2004), and this study is expected to shed light onto this discussion by bringing perspectives from a centralized educational system.  With these points in mind, this study aims to answer the following research questions:

1. How do primary school teachers perceive Social Sciences curriculum?
2.  How do primary school teachers use Social Studies curriculum in short and long term planning of instruction?
3. How is Social Studies curriculum transformed into teaching and learning processes?

Ball, D. L.. & Cohen, D. K. (1996). Reform by the book: What is – or might be – the role of curriculum materials in teacher learning and instructional reform? Educational Researcher, 25, 6-8, 14. Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (2007). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theories and methods. (5th ed.) Needham Heights, Mass.: Allyn & Bacon. 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, NY: Routledge. Daun,H. (2006). Privatisation, decentralisation and governance in education in the Czech Republic, England, France, Germany, and Sweden. In J. Zajda (Ed.), Decentralisation and privatisation in education: the role of the state (pp.75-96). Dordrecht: Springer. Davis, E. A. & Krajcik, J. S. (2005). Designing educative curriculum materials to promote teacher learning. Educational Researcher, 34(3), 3–14. Helvacı, M.A. (2009). An evaluation of changes in the curriculum in elementary school level in Turkey. Education. 130( 2), 308-322. Kırkgöz, Y. (2008). Curriculum innovation in Turkish primary education. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education 36( 4), 309–322 Korkmaz, I. (2008), Evaluation of teachers for restructured elementary curriculum (grades 1 to 5). Education 129(2), 250-258 Meyer, J., Boli, J., Thomas, G., & Ramirez, F. (1997).World society and the nation-state. American Journal of Sociology, 103(1), 144–181. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Turner, D. (2004). Privatisation, decentralisation and education in the United Kingdom: the role of the state, International Review of Education 50(4), 347–357. Yıldırım, A. (2003). Instructional planning in a centralized school system: lessons of a study among primary school teachers in Turkey. International Review of Education, 49(5), 525-543.