A Longitudinal Document-based Analysis of the Turkish Reading Curricula Regarding Embedded Intellectual Demands

Introduction

Reading and comprehension are fundamental skills crucial for initiating learning and achieving academic success. These skills support content-area learning across all subjects (R. Smith et al., 2021), and students’ academic and career development hinge significantly on their reading abilities (Snow, 2002). The role of reading curricula is pivotal in guiding students toward attaining their reading goals (Crowe et al., 2009). In Türkiye, the curricula implemented before 2005 approached reading education primarily from a behaviorist standpoint, focusing on decoding and recognition skills. However, these earlier curricula lacked an analytical perspective essential for developing comprehensive reading skills. Consequently, a radical change was introduced in the Turkish curriculum in 2005, aimed at aligning with contemporary educational outcomes and ensuring students acquire proficient reading skills. This reform adopted a constructivist approach, and subsequent updates were made to the curriculum in 2006, 2015, and 2017. Despite these updates, it remains unclear to what extent the revised curricula over the years have integrated cognitive demands into reading instruction—a topic that has not been thoroughly explored in the literature.

One of the strongest predictors of reading achievement is the quality of reading curricula (Horning, 2007), as it establishes the framework within which students’ reading success is fostered. Despite the critical importance of reading skills, numerous studies indicate that students in Turkey, like their counterparts elsewhere, often fail to achieve desired proficiency levels (Elleman & Oslund, 2019; Irwin et al., 2022). For instance, results from the PISA exams since 2009 consistently show that fewer than 20% of Turkish students reach higher proficiency levels, consistently scoring below the OECD average (Bozkurt, 2016; Ministry of National Education [MoNE], 2019b, 2019c). Similarly, the ABIDE study conducted by MoNE in 2016 found that only 6.4% of eighth-grade students were categorized as advanced readers (MoNE, 2017b). These findings underscore the need for a critical examination of the role of the curriculum in shaping these outcomes and prompt a thorough evaluation of how reading is taught in Turkey.

Students’ cognitive performance is profoundly influenced by the instructional tasks teachers design, underscoring the importance of evaluating curriculum objectives and their impact on classroom practices. Exposing students to cognitively demanding tasks has the potential to enrich their cognitive engagement, highlighting the critical need to clearly define expectations and objectives. However, comprehensive studies exploring the intellectual demands of curriculum objectives in reading are notably lacking (Stevens et al., 2015).

Previous research on Turkish reading curricula (Büyükalan Filiz & Yıldırım, 2019; Çerçi, 2018; Erol & Kavruk, 2021) has been somewhat limited, often concentrating on individual curricula or comparing current and previous versions. Continuous comparative analyses are necessary to comprehend the evolving cognitive demands of curricula over time. This study aims to longitudinally examine Turkish reading curricula to track changes in their intellectual capacities, providing valuable insights for curriculum developers.

The purpose of this study is to assess whether the objectives of reading curricula enable teachers to create lessons that foster the development of enhanced cognitive capacities in students. This study is motivated by the understanding that the effectiveness of teaching methods and the intellectual rigor embedded within curriculum objectives profoundly influence students’ cognitive performance. Through an examination of the intellectual capacities embedded in the curricula, this study aims to ascertain the expectations set for students and evaluate the degree to which the curricula promote higher cognitive functions in reading.

Based on the above-mentioned justifications for the study, two research questions were addressed in this study:

Methods

The Determine the Embedded Intellectual Demands of the Curricular Objectives

The revised Bloom’s taxonomy (RBT), as revised by Anderson et al. (2001), was employed in this study to assess the potential intellectual demands embedded within the reading curricula across various years. RBT consists of two dimensions: knowledge and cognitive processes. This study specifically utilized the cognitive process dimension, which includes six higher-order categories: remembering, understanding, applying, analyzing, evaluating, and creating. These categories are hierarchically differentiated based on the cognitive tasks they require Anderson et al. (2001). Additionally, within these six main categories, there are nineteen subcategories defined by specific action verbs that describe the cognitive processes involved. These subcategories further delineate the cognitive demands associated with each category (Figure 1).

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 1.

The cognitive process dimension of the Revised Bloom's Taxonomy.

A person reaches a low cognitive demand, such as remembering, and then must try to process for attaining a high cognitive demand, such as analyzing or evaluating. To reach high-order cognitive demands, first, low intellectual demands must first be achieved. The tasks operated to success low cognitive demanding serve as a step to climb high order one. Therefore, an inner systematic was embedded in the RBT.

Remembering objectives focus on recalling factual information (e.g., answering basic questions from a passage). Understanding objectives require students to interpret, paraphrase, and represent information (through writing, speaking, or visuals). This level may also involve applying the content (e.g., giving examples, classifying, summarizing), making inferences, comparing concepts, or explaining cause-and-effect relationships. For instance, an objective might be: “… Students can infer the meaning of new vocabulary based on context clues in a passage …” This involves encountering an unfamiliar word, analyzing its relationship to the sentence, and then using context to guess its meaning.

Applying objectives require higher-order thinking. Students are expected to execute or apply processes, familiar or novel, to complete tasks. Teachers design activities that go beyond mere comprehension or recall. For example, an objective might be: “… Students can follow instructions to complete a multi-step task …” This involves understanding directions and executing them sequentially. Teachers can create lessons where students apply this by making instructional booklets (e.g., tool usage) or brochures outlining procedures (e.g., bicycle tire repair).

Analyzing objectives demand a high level of thinking. Students must deconstruct information, concepts, or ideas, identify their components, and understand their relationships within the whole structure. This includes distinguishing relevant from irrelevant details and identifying key points. For example, an objective like “… Students can identify contradictions in a text’s meaning …” requires analyzing relationships between parts of the text. Teachers can promote this by guiding students to understand the text’s meaning structure (word choice, fluency, coherence) to identify inconsistencies. This may involve separating contextually significant elements from irrelevant ones to build a cohesive understanding.

Evaluating objectives involve high-order thinking skills. Students make judgments based on criteria, evaluating, critiquing, or justifying concepts, arguments, or meaning-construction in written work. This includes assessing internal consistency (flaws within the text) and external consistency (alignment with external standards). For example, an objective like “… Students can assess how transitions contribute to a text’s meaning …” requires evaluating the effectiveness of transitions. Instruction can involve guiding students to analyze the text’s argument and supporting evidence, ensuring alignment and internal logic. This may involve both identifying inconsistencies and selecting appropriate evidence to justify their evaluation.

Creating objectives demand the highest cognitive level. Students generate new ideas or products, such as explanations, solutions, or hypotheses. Teachers can guide students to analyze information, identify problems, and propose evidence-based solutions. This goes beyond summarizing; students must create and justify original ideas. Furthermore, when students are engaged in a course built around a curricular objective at the level of creating, they may be required to create a cognitive product from a book they read. Students are required to establish an opinion essay when a teacher adopts a curricular target such as “… can evaluate the text in terms of content and design for improvement and reconsideration of the text based on its evaluation.” teaching process. For example, in one of the default teaching sequences, teachers might ask students to compose a critical and effective passage about the content of the text they read before and provide background reasons for why they composed such a passage. To do so, learners must develop a unique idea and define it. Students may need to use inductive and deductive reasoning to mentally create a critical and effective paragraph about the text’s subject. Creating a critical and effective passage about the content of the text is much more than composing a summary as a whole. Students must justify the passage’s required arrangement they create by attributing premises and inferences in inductive and deductive reasoning. As original critics, this may necessitate making connections between parts and wholes and from within and without the text while writing a section.

For some reason, the RBT was favored, including other evaluation tools. For example, Marzano and Kendall’s (2006) taxonomy was modified for maths by taking the rationality of Bloom’s taxonomy into account like G. Smith et al. (1996). Also, the Structure of the Observed Learning Outcome (SOLO) taxonomy (Biggs, 1995) was not maintained for this current research for some justifications. To begin with, the RBT is a widespread instrument because researchers use it to investigate various elements of mental processing or intellectual demand (e.g., Elmas et al., 2020; Toledo & Dubas, 2015). Second, teacher educators working in various inquiry sectors have a good understanding of the RBT. Third, RBT offers both a diagnostic and a bird’s eye picture of reading curricula’s intellectual potential.

Furthermore, educational investigators can rummage into each curricular objective individually using an analytical approach. On the other hand, RBT takes a holistic method and depicts trends in cognitive demand incorporated into the curriculum objectives.

Results

Trajectory of Reading Curricula Over the Years

2005 Reading Curriculum

The 2005 reading curriculum included 279 objectives. The analysis revealed a strong emphasis on lower-level cognitive skills (remembering and understanding) in grades 1 to 3. Grade 4 maintained a similar distribution but showed an increase in analytical objectives. Grades 4 and 5 displayed a balanced distribution with understanding still dominant, but also opportunities for applying and analyzing skills (around 25% each). However, higher-order thinking skills such as evaluation and creation were absent. Over 87% of all objectives were categorized as “remember” and “understand,” while only 12% supported higher cognitive demands (“apply” and “analyze”). There were no objectives that facilitated “evaluate” or “create” skills (see Table 1 and Figure 2).

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 1.

The Accumulation of the Objectives in the 2005 Curriculum Regarding Intellectual Demand.

Intellectual demand category	Demand	First grade	Second grade	Third grade	Fourth grade	Fifth grade	WA*
Perception	Remember	55.88	46.94	39.34	34.33	29.42	41.182
	Understand	32.36	40.82	49.18	52.24	57.35	46.39
Conception	Apply	5.88	6.12	4.92	4.48	4.41	5.162
	Analyze	5.88	6.12	6.56	9.95	8.82	7.266
Abstraction	Evaluate	0	0	0	0	0	0
	Create	0	0	0	0	0	0
Total		100	100	100	100	100	100

*Weighted averages.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 2.

Presumable cognitive levels of the reading objectives observed in the 2005 curriculum.

2006 Reading Curriculum

The 2006 curriculum for grades 6 to 8 showed a similar trend, with 75% of objectives dedicated to lower-level skills (remembering and understanding). Although there was a slight presence of applying (10%) and analyzing (10%) skills, the curriculum still lacked objectives promoting creating skills, with only 4% of objectives involving evaluation (see Table 2 and Figure 3).

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 2.

The Accumulation of the Objectives in the 2006 Curriculum Regarding Intellectual Demand.

Intellectual demand category	Demand	Sixth grade	Seventh grade	Eighth grade	WA*
Perception	Remember	29.42	29.42	29.42	29.42
	Understand	45.1	45.1	45.1	45.1
Conception	Apply	11.76	11.76	11.76	11.76
	Analyze	9.8	9.8	9.8	9.8
Abstraction	Evaluate	3.92	3.92	3.92	3.92
	Create	0	0	0	0
Total		100	100	100	100

*Weighted averages.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 3.

Presumable cognitive levels of the reading objectives observed in the 2006 curriculum.

2015 Reading Curriculum

The 2015 curriculum (195 objectives) continued to focus on lower-level cognitive skills in grades 1 to 4. In these grades, perception objectives (remembering and understanding) dominated at around 90%. A slight shift was observed in grades 5 and 6, where “analyze” objectives appeared (9% in fifth grade, 19% in sixth grade). However, “apply” and “create” objectives were still rare. Grades 7 and 8 showed a reduction in higher-order thinking skills, with a decrease in “analyze” objectives and continued absence of “apply” and “create” objectives (see Table 3 and Figure 4).

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 3.

The Accumulation of the Objectives in the 2015 Curriculum Regarding Intellectual Demands.

Intellectual demand category	Demand	First grade	Second grade	Third grade	Fourth grade	Fifth grade	Sixth grade	Seventh grade	Eighth grade	WA*
Perception	Remember	61.1	38.89	39.13	42.86	36.36	11.1	17.86	22.58	33.735
	Understand	27.78	38.89	52.17	50	40.91	55.56	64.29	54.84	48.055
Conception	Apply	5.56	11.11	4.35	3.57	4.55	7.41	0	0	4.56875
	Analyze	5.56	11.11	0	3.57	9.09	18.52	7.14	16.13	8.89
Abstraction	Evaluate	0	0	4.35	0	9.09	7.41	10.71	6.45	4.75125
	Create	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Total		100	100	100	100	100	100	100	100	100

*Weighted averages.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 4.

Presumable cognitive levels of the reading objectives observed in the 2015 curriculum.

2017 Reading Curriculum

The 2017 curriculum followed a similar pattern, with lower-level skills (remembering and understanding) dominating in grades 1 to 4. In grades 5 and 6, there was a slight decrease in perception objectives and a rise in analyzing and evaluating objectives (around 20% combined). However, opportunities for applying and creating skills remained limited across all grades (see Table 4 and Figure 5).

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 4.

The Accumulation of the Objectives in the 2017 Curriculum Regarding Intellectual Demands.

Intellectual demand category	Demand	First grade	Second grade	Third grade	Fourth grade	Fifth grade	Sixth grade	Seventh grade	Eighth grade	WA*
Perception	Remember	47.37	31.58	21.43	21.62	17.65	17.14	15.79	11.43	23.0013
	Understand	47.37	57.9	64.29	62.16	58.82	57.14	55.27	57.15	57.5125
Conception	Apply	5.26	5.26	3.57	5.41	2.94	5.71	5.26	5.71	4.89
	Analyze	0	5.26	10.71	8.11	14.71	11.44	18.42	20	11.0762
Abstraction	Evaluate	0	0	0	2.7	5.88	8.57	5.26	5.71	3.52
	Create	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Total		100	100	100	100	100	100	100	100	100

*Weighted averages.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 5.

Presumable cognitive levels of the reading objectives observed in the 2017 curriculum.

Vertical Interpretations Across Years

Across all years, a consistent trend was observed where lower-level cognitive skills were emphasized, especially in early grades. There was a gradual introduction of analytical skills in upper grades, but higher-order skills like evaluation and creation remained significantly underrepresented. This trajectory indicates a persistent gap in the curricula’s ability to develop advanced cognitive skills required for challenging in-class activities.

Horizontal Interpretations Across Years

When comparing the horizontal distribution of cognitive demands across different years, a noticeable trend is the persistent dominance of lower-level skills. The “remember” objectives showed a decrease from grades 1 to 5, while “understand” objectives increased. However, the progression was not systematic. The “apply” and “analyze” categories showed fluctuations, with no clear pattern emerging across different curricula. The “evaluate” objectives increased slightly in the later grades, but the absence of “create” objectives was consistent across all curricula, indicating a lack of support for the highest cognitive demands.

Results Related to the RQ2

Figure 6 provides an overview of the accumulation of cognitive capacities in the reading curricula. Analyzing 1,542 reading objectives, it was found that objectives at the “understand” level dominated (49%) the teaching of reading from primary to middle school. Approximately one-third of the objectives were at the “remember” level, indicating a low overall cognitive demand. Only 9% of the objectives supported higher-order cognitive processes (“analyze” level), and 7% could be used for “evaluate” level intellectual demand. No objectives supported the “create” level.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 6.

Dispersion of potential intellectual demands across the explored curricula.

Vertical and Horizontal Accumulations

Figure 7 illustrates the trendlines of curricular objectives’ cognitive demands over the years. The domination of lower-level cognitive skills (“remember” and “understand”) remained steady. Higher-order cognitive demands (“analyze” and “evaluate”) showed inconsistencies, suggesting that curriculum developers did not systematically consider these distributions when revising the curricula. The lack of objectives supporting the “create” level across all years further highlights this gap.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 7.

The reading curricula s estimated intellectual demands over years.

Discussion

The analysis in this study reveals that since 2005, the reading curriculum has been dominated by objectives focused on perception, specifically remembering and understanding. The 2005 curriculum primarily emphasized these lower-level cognitive skills, resulting in limited opportunities for students to develop higher-level mental processing abilities. Subsequent curricula maintained this focus, with objectives in the perception category continuing to dominate. Studies by Kara and Ulutaş (2018) and Çerçi (2018) confirm that the 2018 Turkish curriculum largely targets the understanding level, while Aslan and Atik (2018) observed that objectives for first to fourth grades in the 2015 and 2017 curricula also primarily aim at remembering and understanding. Additionally, textbooks and workbooks for second to fourth grades lack cognitively challenging tasks (Ulum & Taşkaya, 2019). This trend indicates a curriculum that prioritizes lower-level cognitive skills, potentially impeding the development of critical thinking and higher-order abilities essential for success in the 21st century. Therefore, a curriculum revision to encompass a broader range of cognitive demands is necessary to enhance student engagement and learning outcomes.

Durukan and Demir (2017) discovered that the cognitive demands of activities in sixth, seventh, and eighth-grade student workbooks predominantly fall within the perception category. Their findings suggest that curriculum-based objectives, especially those related to reading skills, may not effectively translate into cognitively demanding tasks, activities, or instructional processes. Consequently, reading curricula developed since 2005 may not adequately support teachers in designing instruction that challenges students cognitively. This limitation significantly impacts the quality of the reading instruction process (Tekkumru-Kisa et al., 2015). These insights highlight the critical need for a comprehensive review of curricula, emphasizing the incorporation of higher-order thinking skills. Such a review should also focus on equipping teachers with the necessary resources and support to effectively implement these objectives and create engaging and intellectually challenging learning experiences for students.

Given the findings of this study, it appears that the cognitive demands outlined in reading curricula may adversely affect students’ higher-level cognitive functions, such as organizing, planning, judging, monitoring, self-regulating, making connections, questioning, summarizing, and inferring (Bereiter & Scardamalia, 1987) during their reading process. Analysis, evaluation, and creation categories, considered higher levels of cognitive processing, are notably underrepresented in the distribution of curricular objectives over the years. This current scenario appears inconsistent with the Turkish Qualifications Framework (TCF), integrated into the curriculum since 2017. The framework’s first domain emphasizes mother tongue communication, encompassing expressive and interpretive skills across various contexts (MoNE, 2017a, 2018, 2019a), which are integral to the current reading curriculum. Mastery of these skills requires the acquisition of complex abilities, yet the study reveals that the curriculum inadequately guides teachers in designing instructional tasks that foster high cognitive demands necessary for effective reading-to-learn practices.

The distribution of “apply” level objectives in reading curricula shows a declining trend, especially noticeable after the 2006 curriculum release. The 2017 curriculum reveals a significant decrease in objectives requiring this level of cognitive demand. However, reading skills necessitate cognitive processes such as applying reading strategies, analyzing texts, synthesizing information, and understanding text structures. It would therefore be expected that more objectives at the “apply” level would be included in reading curricula.

Aslan and Atik (2018) noted numerous “apply” level objectives in primary school Turkish lesson curricula from 2015 and 2017. Büyükalan Filiz and Yıldırım (2019) found a substantial presence (34.20%) of “apply” level objectives in the 2018 middle school Turkish course curriculum. Similarly, Çerçi (2018) discussed that 28.42% of the 2018 curriculum objectives were at the application level, across different learning areas. However, inconsistencies in these findings may reflect discrepancies between curriculum developers or evaluators.

A detailed examination of reading curriculum objectives reveals that certain verbs or sentence structures may mislead researchers in assessing cognitive demands. For example, a fourth-grade objective in the 2017 curriculum states “… reads with attention to emphasis, intonation, and pronunciation.” While this may imply an application-level cognitive demand, a closer analysis according to Bloom’s Revised Taxonomy indicates it primarily requires remembering rules of stress and intonation.

This decline in “apply” level objectives within reading curricula raises concerns. While some argue for their inclusion due to inherent cognitive demands in reading comprehension, current wording may overstate the actual cognitive challenge. Aligning objective language with Bloom’s Revised Taxonomy is essential to ensure clarity and promote the development of critical “apply” level skills in students.

When the distribution of the objectives, which are considered to be at the analyze level, according to years, is examined, it is seen that there is an incremental tendency, albeit partial. While the rate of objectives at this cognitive demand level was 7.26% in the program published in 2005, this figure increased to 11.07% in the curriculum published in 2017. In the curricula published since 2005, it has been determined that the limited number of objectives at the cognitive demand evaluate level show a decremental tendency. The incidence of both the analyze and the evaluate cognitive demand level shows that the intellectual demands of the objectives included in the reading curricula are heterogeneously distributed. This study assumes that a more homogeneous distribution of cognitive demand levels of objectives throughout the reading curriculum should be provided by program developers (Peterson & Taylor, 2012). Thus, it is envisaged to detect an incremental tendency in the objectives observed at the analyze and evaluate levels to implement more homogeneous curricula. However, as stated above, the number of objectives with high cognitive demands seems to have decreased gradually, and it has been determined that intellectual demands show a heterogeneous distribution. This finding is inconsistent with directing students to “research, discover, interpret, evaluate, analyze and mentally construct knowledge through reading and writing” (p. 12), expressed in the 2017, 2018, and 2019 curricula. Kara and Ulutaş (2018), Erol and Kavruk (2021), and Çerçi (2018) found in their studies that the 2018 Turkish language curriculum objectives are heterogeneously distributed in terms of cognitive demand. Similarly, Aslan and Atik (2018) concluded a few objectives with high-level intellectual demands in the 2015 and 2017 Turkish language curricula. Various studies (Durukan & Demir, 2017; Karakaş Yıldırım, 2020; Ulum & Taşkaya, 2019) show that official textbooks published in Türkiye were filled with lower demanding activities. Therefore, the studies carried out in the literature confirm the heterogeneity thesis of the current study.

This uneven distribution of cognitive demands across analyze and evaluate levels within the reading curricula is concerning. While a slight increase in analyze-level objectives is observed, the overall trend remains inconsistent with the stated curriculum goals of fostering higher-order thinking skills. This disconnects between stated intentions and the actual cognitive demands placed on students necessitates a curriculum redesign that prioritizes a balanced distribution of objectives across Bloom’s Revised Taxonomy, ensuring students develop the critical thinking skills necessary for deeper comprehension and knowledge construction.

Similar results have been reached in research conducted in countries outside of Türkiye. In their study, Rahpeyma and Khoshnood (2015) examined the learning objectives of Iranian junior high school English textbooks according to Bloom’s taxonomy and found that there were very few objectives with higher-level intellectual demands. Researchers (Muhayimana et al., 2022) who analyzed the cognitive demands of questions assessing reading comprehension in the native language on exams conducted with primary school students in Rwanda, according to Bloom’s taxonomy, also discovered that no questions were posed to students in the analysis, evaluation, and creation categories. Similarly, Dalkılıç and Büyükahıska (2021), who examined the Secondary School English Curriculum in Türkiye, discussed that all reading skill acquisitions were located in the remember and understand categories.

Studies on reading and comprehension emphasize the need for cognitive activities like detecting inconsistencies and evaluating the author’s language (Cooper et al., 2015; Serravallo, 2015). However, the current study reveals a theory-practice gap in the curriculum’s ability to develop these skills. Objectives at the evaluate and create levels are particularly scarce, undermining the development of crucial higher-order skills.

No objectives were observed at the create level in the reading curriculum. It is understood that some objectives that will be at the create level in curricula are replaced with low cognitively demanding objectives (e.g., remember, understand). Studies examining the cognitive demands of activities and questions in Turkish textbooks (e.g., Durukan & Demir, 2017; Karakaş Yıldırım, 2020; Ulum & Taşkaya, 2019) reached similar results and found that there were very few in-class activities or questions recommended to teachers at the create level. This trend is also evident in reading curricula. These findings suggest that in the national context when moving from one reading syllabus to the next, the former did not undergo critical evaluation for the development of intellectual capacity. Turkish reading curriculum developers or evaluators might also be quite aware of the above-mentioned cloning process. The complete absence of “create” level objectives in the reading curriculum is particularly alarming. This not only hinders the development of crucial creative thinking skills but also suggests a lack of critical evaluation during curriculum revisions. A shift toward objectives that encourage students to generate new ideas, solve problems, and construct knowledge is essential to foster deeper learning and prepare students for the demands of the 21st century.

The study mentioned above’s findings could significantly impact reading instruction. The results of national and international studies (MoNE, 2019b, 2019c; OECD, 2014, 2016, 2019) show that Turkish students’ reading comprehension achievement levels are not at the expected level, they do not have the qualities of “good readers,” they do not spare time to read books other than the time they spend at school, and they remain indifferent to reading. The 2016 and 2018 reports (MoNE, 2017b, 2019b, 2019c) of the ABIDE project, in which the academic achievements of students studying at the fourth and eighth-grade levels are monitored and evaluated, revealed that approximately 7% of Turkish students exhibit high-level reading skills. PISA results also support the finding. In the evaluation carried out in 2015, it was determined that 6.30% of Turkish students had high-level reading skills, and this rate increased to 16.80% in 2018.

Although there is an increase in the rate of students displaying high-level reading skills, the rate of students who exhibit basic skills in reading or fall below this cognitive demand is striking. It was determined that 72.60% of Turkish students in the 2015 PISA report and 56.30% in the 2018 PISA report were at this level. In other words, most Turkish students either exhibit basic skills or have difficulties understanding what they read. Although there are other possible reasons for the emergence of this picture, it is thought that the tasks of the curriculum that do not require high cognitive demand are also effective. Considering all these, it can be said that the present study also produces a sharper depiction of reading instruction in the national context.

Although the cognitive demands of the objectives in the curricula show a heterogeneous distribution, it has been observed that there are partial increases in the curriculum objectives with high cognitive demands. Still, there is no break, and the trends do not differ sharply. In other words, it can be said that curriculum developers perceive the curriculum development process as a cloning activity in updating and developing the curriculum. Learner competencies determined at national and international levels emphasized the importance of verbal and written communication in the mother tongue (MoNE, 2017a, 2018, 2019a; Queensland Curriculum and Assessment Authority, 2022). However, the current study shows that the reading curricula published since 2005 are not a qualified instrument for teachers to upskill oral and written communication competence in the mother tongue to their students. It is also known that Turkish teachers have little knowledge about the content of the curriculum, how to use it effectively, or how the objectives should be evaluated (Yıldırım et al., 2017). Therefore, it is estimated that teachers most likely implement their latent reading curriculum in their classrooms. However, this is not just a curricular problem. Updating the curriculum and incorporating more cognitively demanding objectives alone is not enough. Both curriculum developers and teacher educators need to provide teachers with professional-pedagogical development on designing high-level reading tasks and choosing the best way to implement them.

The study also addresses the lack of methodologically sound research focusing on the intellectual demands of reading curricula (Kaldirim & Tavsanli, 2023; Tavsanli et al., 2023). Previous evaluations of curricula have been limited in scope and lacked a comparative analysis over time (Çerçi, 2018; Durukan & Demir, 2017; Ulum & Taşkaya, 2019). The study aimed to provide a holistic understanding of the curricula’s intellectual capacity by conducting a longitudinal examination of a pool of curricula and the current study concludes that the reading curricula fail to provide teachers with intellectually challenging tasks for teaching higher-order reading skills. It strongly recommends conducting a needs analysis and intentionally including intellectually demanding curriculum objectives.

Conclusions and Educational Implications

This study concludes that the current reading curriculum does not effectively support teachers in creating intellectually challenging tasks that promote critical thinking, hypothesizing, self-evaluation, identifying key points, evaluating language, and detecting inconsistencies—skills requiring high-level mental processing. There is a pressing need for a thorough needs analysis and intentional integration of intellectually demanding objectives into future curricula revisions. Curriculum development and evaluation must be research-based to provide insights for Turkish curriculum developers, educational researchers, and teacher educators. Immediate action is required to ensure that curricular objectives explicitly align with classroom practices that foster higher-order reading skills. A prioritized task is to re-examine all curriculum objectives from a design-based and objective-oriented perspective to ensure they adequately reflect the cognitive demands expected and facilitate structured course sequences.

Teachers are the first implementers of the curricular objectives. It is highly recommended that teachers do not become isolated members of the curriculum development and evaluation society. Teachers should be trained as reflective practitioners of the curricula (Schön, 1987). Thus, teachers should be able to critically read, interpret and analyze curriculum objectives to create more effective learning designs for students within the scope of curriculum goals. Teachers should be expected to be recognized as critical analysts, just like researchers, and to be able to identify and interpret the cognitive demands of a reading curriculum. However, we are also very aware that curriculum-based teacher noticing (Sherin & Jacobs, 2011) would be more attainable by engaging teachers in longitudinal professional development programs. Thus, teachers altered into inspectors, adjudicators, critiquers, and legitimators of the reading curriculum.