Globalism in Social Studies Programs
Abstract : Termination of bipolar world has facilitated and accelerated entrance of the globalization concept to all fields of life. Educational institutions, especially course of Social Studies course has been affected from such developments.
Because, the Social Science course which has been started to be thought first in Turkey in 1968 has a characteristic of history, geography and citizenship information courses with an interdisciplinary approach. The Social Studies program has been exposed to two major changes as in 1998 and 2005 after 1968, and tried to be developed for needs of today as a basis. In current 2005 Social Studies program, global aspect has been considered by inspiring from foreign samples and structured around an individual learning field. However, it is considered that to detect the development of globalization in
Social Studies course is possible to examine historical process. Therefore, comparatively examination of 1968, 1998 and
2005 Social Studies programs in terms of globalization aspect is aimed in this study. Within the frame of this general purpose, similarities and differences between 1968, 1998 and 2005 Social Studies programs in terms of its place and dealing form in purpose, content and educational status factors. Furthermore, such programs will be compared vertically to determine the change on class level in terms of globalization. Following the literature study which will be performed through the purpose of the research, purpose, content and educational status will be examined. As there are tools which materialize the program within this frame, available course books which were prepared for each program will be compared.
Keywords: Globalism, Social Studies programs .
Introduction
Since 20 th century, the world is in a change that looks over than following rate. This change has been mentioned frequently with globalism concept in last quarter. However, in today’s world, it generally has been defined as a period that refers both reason and result of the change.
It has been thought that the globalism that concerns with every aspect of the life has power to change current understandings, habits and thus life styles. The globalism that has been accepted to reach mentioned power through information and technology has been read and coherent over determined concepts . The concepts of which resource and originality is discussed and that induce, sustain and/or accelerate globalism affect the society primarily politics and economy. It cannot be thought that the education institutions and accordingly teaching programs within the comprehended period won’t be imposed by mentioned affection. From this point of view, Social Studies have been appeared in this study in the frame of globalism in their programs and it has been aimed to determine concepts that gained new meanings. The following questions have been tried to be replied in accordance with this purpose:
1.
Which prominent concepts included in 1968, 1998 and 2005 Social Studies programs, within globalism period has been presented?

2.
Regarding to giving place to concepts belongs to globalism period, what kind of similarities and differences among Social Studies programs are there?
The educational programs give shape to a society in a certain extent by undertaking the task of forming basic formal cultural levels after the age of Enlightment. The programs have the characteristic of evolving-being evolved or determining-being determined. When considered from this point of view, this study points out to the evolution and to the new form of society with reference to the concepts of globalization. This study also has a vital importance with respect to the way of handling globalization or how it is perceived in our country. However, as much as used initiative by country educationists within preparing program period, it is possible to mention about this point.
Qualitative Research Approach has been adopted in the study that objected to determine the concepts about globalism in 1968, 1998 and 2005 Social Studies programs.
Document analyzing method has been used to gather data; descriptive analysis method has been used to analyze data.
First of all, the literature about the subject has been scanned and the concepts that occurred in the frame of globalism or that gain new meanings in this period have been determined. The above mentioned concepts are handled within the categories of politics, economy, cultural/social Studies, individual education, ethic, modernization, international affairs, technology and environment (See Table 1).
Table 1. Global Concepts Category
Politics: Democracy, right / human rights, attendance, freedom, secularity, equity, peace, indigenization, civil society.
Economy: Economy, productivity, producing, consuming, competition, entrepreneurship
Cultur / society: Universalism, Multiculturality/ multiculturalism, empathy, communication, tolerance, changing/ forwarding, cooperation.
I I n d i i v i i d u a l l: Individual, individual development.
Education / teaching: Knowledge / science, learning, learning for lifelong/ learning to learn, thinking abilities, information technologies, informatics skills, individual differences, total quality.
Modernization
International relations
Ethic
Technology
Environment
Programs have been examined regarding to determined concepts and obtained data has been tabulated. In this phase, purpose, content and education situations that are basic elements of the program have been considered. In the tables, the expressions belong to concepts have generally been narrated as they are, but arrangement has been applied to make easy understanding in some expressions. Only, at the cases where the programs include bilateral commonality in the similarities column, the programs (regarding to year) have been stated. The programs and expressions have been given together in the

differences column. Then, the teaching programs regarding to each concept have been tried to be evaluated for similarity and difference without dividing into program elements.
1. What is Globalism?
The globalism derives from “global” concept in English, having approximately 400 years history (Featherstone, 2002: 489). This concept was begun to be used merely in economical meaning in 1960’s, in media and cultural dimensions in 1964, in sociology in
1980’s (Waters, 1995: 2, as cited in Featherstone, 2002: 489; Touraine, 20002: 265;
Kızılçelik, 2002: 14-15). Since 1990’s, it has been considered within “multi causalitydimensionality” (Gündüz, 2002: 35).
The globalism is a concept on which cannot be agreed regarding to its structure.
According to Kutluer, mentioned discussions became intense whether the globalism is a fact or an ideology (2006: 16). The party that expresses that the globalism is a fact think that the globalism is a social reality that has affect in the world wide; the party that defends that globalism is an ideology emphasizes that the world is being tried to be shaped through globalism but this arrangement is not ethic because it causes inequity, injustice (Kutluer,
2006: 16).
When the globalism that is considered as “reality”, the globalism is “some common or settled values and institutional structures become expanding in the worlds wide through passing over local and national values in economic, political, social and cultural fields”
(Devlet Planlama Teşkilatı [DPT], 2000: 3; Saraçoğlu, 1999: 225, as cited in
Müftüoğlugil, 2006: 7). In another description, globalism is defined again in this frame but as economy oriented as “enlarging of the market in the world scale, being expand to national limits and world’s being a unique market” (Şaylan, 1999: 14, as cited in Türkasya
Stratejik Araştırmaları Merkezi [TASAM], 2006: 4).
From the point of mentioned expanding, Woods states that the globalism is being defined “sometimes transnationalization or mutually dependency” (2000: 119, as cited in
Müftüoğlugil, 2006: 7). Likewise, every kind of traffic (goods-service-human) increases through loosing affection of borders among the countries and so everybody knows what others does.
Robertson who used the concept in the sociology for the first time in 1985 considers globalism as a concept that refers strengthening of being consciousness of the world beside being smaller of the world (1999: 21).
Regarding to its general features and created situation, Giddens defines ‘globalism period’ as a period that includes paradoxically “earners and losers opportunities and

disadvantageous” (2000: 17). In fact, the expressions such as “losers” and “earners” in the description, point out one of justification points of critical description and explanations that are included in an ideological ground against to view points including descriptions to general and approval up to now.
Likewise, the critical group defends that the development level that was thought reached referring to ideological relation established between globalism and capitalism, liberalism and modernism won’t be valid for entire of the world. Hence Boyer and Drache define globalism as “an ideological and cultural period that is fed with neo-liberal
(capitalist) values” (1996, as cited in Kızılçelik, 2002: 14). Again, according to people who emphasize mentioned connection, globalism is “pure capitalism” or “restoration of wild capitalism” (Touraine, 2002: 270; Bourdieu, 1998, as cited in Ben-Rafael and
Strenberg, 2002: 9). Kızılçelik also thinks globalism together with capitalist and modernism on the contrary to Robertson who states that globalism is different from modernization and even it considers it as “new name of capitalism” (Robertson, 1999: 21;
Kızılçelik, 2002: 19).
Again, in this context, the globalism is considered as a determined project more than a natural period. Hence Sönmez considers globalism as “an effort to rearrange the life”, according to Chomsky who states this situation more clearly, “it is designed perfectly, it şs a way that protects interests of private forces that become continuously intense. It is a period that is produced physical interests of a few strong countries that interconnected and mega company” (Sönmez, 2002: 10; Duran and Şanlıer, 2000: 9).
As it is seen, the definitions that vary based to justifications that determine content and direction of globalism point out two basic view point’s existence such as negative and positive. The first one, the view point that accepts and approve globalism as a phase of developing where the world access; other one is view point of which root based to historical economic and political ideologies and considered as a way of world dominance.
All of those different viewpoints are like evidence of whole “undetermined situation” of globalism (Keyman, 1997: 40).
2. Concepts of Globalism Period
A new concept chain is produced through special concepts , needs and objectives of every period or new meanings are loaded to current concepts . The concept world that develops in the frame of mentality of the period are the most important formulas that provide being understood of current features of period or new situations that are aimed to

be reached. In this point, cognitive formulas that are effective in different dimensions of life and tell today of globalism period can be mentioned.
But understanding the basic concepts of globalism period depends on considering and understanding of more far-reaching concepts network including globalism. Because globalism has relation with other periods and concepts that is Western Thought. This relation is natural and obligatory regarding to commonality in respect of civilization and historical continuity. Nitekim Kızılçelik states that globalism has same meaning more than being in the same network together with concepts such as postmodernism, neo-liberalism, localization, multiplism, multi-culturalism (2003: 4).
When it is acted from this point, some concepts such as democracy, right/human rights, equity, secularism, individual independency, economy, producing, rivalry, entrepreneurship, universality, science and modernization gains some nuances also it can be said easily that it is valid for globalism period (Uçak, 2006). Sönmez also considered some concepts belong to globalism period within it historical period. Namely Sönmez states that globalism that he considers as a new expression of capitalism took the individualism and world citizenship concepts from Stao; liberal state understanding from
Hegel; beneficiary from pragmatic philosophy, relativity of knowledge, democratic life, individual independency and entrepreneurship, changing, re-establishing and world citizenship thoughts, localization, sub-culture, value, suspicion from knowledge, not to be subject to only one method thoughts from Feyerabend (Sönmez, 2002: 2-10).
Regarding to its beginning and processing, globalism is an economy weighted period so is mentioned together with concepts in this field. First of all, economic producing style has been changed in globalism period (TASAM, 2006: 5). In another mean, it has been prepared possibility “for goods and service producing facilities getting over country borders ” through investments over borders and established multi-national companies and producing became “stateless” (TASAM, 2006: 5). In this ambient, productivity concept as one of the most important factors to increase competition power has been prominent together with producing and consuming concepts (Uçkan, 1998).
Although economical emphasize of globalism period; its political, cultural affection has sharpener affect to shape life style. Especially objective and activities of multi national companies, international institutions and non-governmental organizations created discussions about existence and responsibilities of national state (Bauman 2010: 76-80;
Tekinalp, 2005: 80). In this frame, beside abovementioned concepts and values, such as participation, peace and localization has been became considered through being carried

over to national dimension and borders and also “a conclusion about being efficiency of private and individual” has been occurred further more “conclusion about being inefficient of public domain and even being marginalization” has been composed (Brown, 1986: 101, as cited in TASAM, 2006: 4).
It is mentioned to be alive of localization concept through sharing of management rights and responsibilities of the states by distributing their central management responsibilities to local departments. So, globalism that “infuses a standard living habits to the people, at the same time includes “a localization at where ethnic, religious, linguistic etc. differences are prominent” and multicultural understandings (İnce, 2009: 263). İnce explains global-local relation that seems contradiction to each other as follows from Zizek
(Zizek, 2008: 32-33, as cited in İnce, 2009: 270): “Global capitalist setting induces localization and produces itself over local… In fact, there is no any contradiction between globalism of economy and localization of culture”.
Despite the fact that, values universality emphasize becomes stronger from this point of view, acceptance of the world becomes unique; at the same time, globalism period is defined as a identities age and it is expressed with multiculturality/multiculturalism concept beside multi identity, localization. According to Erkal, Mentioned concepts that are considered as descent from postmodernism composes base of globalism (2005: 64).
Multiculturality/multiculturalism has a content that requires some values and skills such as empathy, communication, cooperation and tolerance regarding to cultural view (Gay, 1994, as cited in Cırık, 2008: 33; Aydın, 2006: 39). Another mentioned concept in the frame of multiculturality/multiculturalism is moral regarding to cultural, education and policy fields
(Gökçe, 2005: 212; Calder, 2000, as cited in Özkan, 2006: 33).
Multiculturality/multiculturalism concept is considered directly related with generally solved collective identities and atomized individual/individualism. Koçdemir emphasizes that “it is impossible to determine a concrete identity within pluralism presented by modern society” (2002: 282). Globalism, includes economical qualified entrepreneur and competitive features of individual developing with modernism also includes individual development (Hirtt, 2005: 77-78; European Council, 2000, 2009; Çeken, 2006: 21).
Evolvement in the information and technology field has a determinative role to develop globalism period (Çalık and Sezgin, 2005: 58). So, information that is produced, spread and used rapidly with participation of information technologies has been one of the most important elements. Information, science, informatics technologies and accordingly learning concepts have been set forth a new society (information society) through new

needs, individual and teaching/learning understanding. In this frame, learning to learn, lifelong learning, thinking and informatics skills, individual differences and total quality concepts at the schools that are considered as an enterprise have been agreed as a part of mentioned understanding (European Council, 2000, 2006; European Comission, 2001;
Çeken, 2006).
Today, international relations concepts that have already a global qualification regarding to environment and its structure that attract interest of wide public masses have been examined as evidence concepts of validity of globalism in the frame of global scaled problems such as nuclear wastes, aside rains, ozone layer depletion (TASAM, 2006: 4).
Consequently, it can be said that the globalism is being understood and told with a chaotic concepts chart including together “contradiction, conflict, coherence, integration and dividend” (Gündüz, 2002: 35). Some of those concepts that have conflict qualification against to each others are descended from previous periods and they have been imposed to some changes regarding to meaning and function.
3.
Social Studies Programs Regarding to Global Concepts
Prominent concepts within globalism period and concepts that represent this period affect education institutions and teaching programs such as other fields of the life.
Especially due to its interdisciplinary feature and its content that is developed around the center of society, culture and politic subjects, Social Studies Programs are being imposed to directly to mentioned affection and within too wide dimension.
In 1968, 1998 and 2005 three different Social Studies Course programs have been applied in Turkey. Social Studies Course has been included in draft primary education program under the title of “Society and Country Analysis” for the first time in 1962. In
1968, the title of course has been changed as “Social Studies Course” and it has been begun to be applied and approximately 30 years it has been lectured in primary education institutions (Millî Eğitim Bakanlığı [MEB], 1968). In 1998, the aims have been reconstructed through behavioral approach and some content changes have been applied
(MEB, 1998). The most significant feature of this program is placing Kemalism subjects in details in the program. 2005 dated Social Studies program has been prepared with constructive approach considering change period of Turkey and world (MEB, 2005).
From this point of view that acceptance of teaching programs are a living organism, it can be thought that mentioned globalism period since 1980’s affected only 1998 and

2005 Social Studies programs. But, some of globalism period concepts related with previous periods are included in 1968 program.
The charts and explanations stating concern findings and placing globalism period concepts that are considered within ten categories and in three programs have been given as follows:
Table 2. Politics
Democracy
Right /
Human
Rights
Similarities
One of the qualification of state is
Arranging the life according to democratic living rules;
Adaptation and developing of values and principles of democracy
The tasks and liabilities;
Composing democratic life in school;
Domination of democratic life from family to nation;
View of Ataturk about the matter (1998, 2005).
The qualification of state is;
The women who know and use their rights
(2005);
Mutual right and responsibilities (1968, 1998).
To respect against to human rights (1998, 2005);
Human Rights Week.
Attending to facilities in the school;
Attending to out school – organization facilities
(1968, 2005).
Differences
1968-Turkish democracy
1998- Pluralist democracy
2005-Historical development of democracy
concept and its affecting Turkey;
Comprehendig democratic methods to
affect the management.
1998- Women rights;
Habitable environment is included in
human rights;
2005- Child Rights, personal rights;
Interim discipline.
Attendance
Freedom
Free Thought.
Secularity
Equity
Peace
Indigenization
The qualification of state is to adopting, making live secularism values and national sovereignty, national unity, modernization, republic, democracy, mind and science, religion and freedom of conscience, exploiting the religion and fanaticism concepts in the scope of
Kemalism subjects (1998, 2005).
Equity in the presence of law;
Equity based to nationalism and populism principles (1998, 2005).
“Peace at home, peace in the world”;
Nationalism principle gives importance to peace
(1998, 2005).
Through mean of “close area” content (1968,
1998) and facilities (2005) can be changed;
Materializing of Turkish history from point of near environment (1968, 1998).
2005- Attending to social services and official
facilities;
Efficient participation to world and social
participation ability
1968- Child independences should be respected;
Liberty of conscious, religion, belief and
conviction;
1998-Gaining independent and scientific
thinking power;
Atatürk’s giving importance to freedom
and independency;
Ataturk’s principles and revolutions are
based to freedom;
2005- Knowing and using self independency of
child;
It has been determined as value but was
not
Given directly.
-
-
1998- Associating with state’s power;
2005- Value but it isn’t included among values
That will be given directly.
2005From domestic to national, from national
to universal;
Rrecognizing features of living
environment and geographical features of
the world;
The world is common heritage;

Cultural similarities and differences in
the county;
The relation of domestic management.
Civil society
The groups where knowledge will be obtained
(1968, 1998).
1968- The associate institutions to social affairs
and state organization
1998- TEMA and working area
2005- How they affect and control the
individuals and culture.
Political concepts included in three programs are generally considered as socialist in 1968, national and statist in 1998 and individual, local and global frame in 2005. For example; non-governmental organizations were sub-organizations in 1968 but they are one of the effective and controller basic units that undertake some of official responsibility and duties in 2005. It has been determined that local information bounded to national one in
1968 and 1998. In 2005, similarities and differences in the country, local managements, features of near environment and world geography have been emphasized. But in the frame of those points, it has been seen that relation with similarities and national qualification, local managements and central management and general features of country geography were not emphasized. Peace concept has been considered as state central in 1998.
Freedom is a concept that child will understand on others in 1968. In 2005, mentioned concept has been presented regarding to individual freedoms of child.
Table 3. Economy
Economy
Productivity
Producing
Consuming
Competition
Similarities
Reconstruction, national development, national economy (1998, 2005);
Welfare (1968, 1998);
Tourism;
International economical relations (1968,
2005);
Importance of revolutions.
Differences
1968- Economy is a national bound;
International relations is oriented to
knowing country economy;
1998-National economy- Statism and populism
principles;
It includes domestic and national
resources concept ;
It states explanation of results for
removing capitulations;
It doesn’t include international relations,
2005-The place of activities in the region in
country economy;
International economic.
1998- Scheduled Working To be productive citizen and person;
Protection of economical resources;
To perform profession in the best way
(1968,1998;.
Investment – private enterprise-participation into producing;
Having profession,
İmportance of working (1968, 2005);
Good manufacturer, quality at manufacturing
(1968, 2005).
Thriftiness (1968, 1998), thrift (2005);
Consumer (1968, 2005).
Competition concept was not seen.
1998- Statism Principle.
1968-Saving money;
1998-It doesn’t include consuming in the
content;
2005-Conscious consumer.
-

Entrepreneurship
Giving value to personal attempting (1968,
1998);
Whose attempting ability has been developed
(1968); entrepreneur (1998).
1998-Supporting private corporation in
statism principle;
2005-It has been determined as ability but
was not given directly;
It is interim discipline.
Except competition concept (in 2005, it is information, supreme tool), concepts about economy have been presented within three programs but in different frame. Hence, while in 1968 and 1998, local and national economy and resources are emphasized, in
2005, economical activities in local and international qualification have been emphasized.
Consuming and international relations concepts that were not included in 1998 have been considered regarding to thriftiness and national economy in 1968; conscious consumer in
2005, local and international economic facilities. Also on the contrary to 1968 program, in
2005, country economy was not mentioned separately and in integrity. All of three programs included producing but consuming concept (conscious consumer) has been emphasized more weightily in 2005.
Table 4. Cultur/Society
Universalism
Multiculturality/
Multiculturalism
/
Empathy /
Communication
/
Tolerance
Changing/
Forwarding
Cooperation
Similarities
Today civilization is the work of a long past
(1968, 1998);
Turkish nation has been serviced to civilization;
Turkish nation has humanistic values (1968,
1998);
Turkish nation has universal duty (1968,
1998);
Turkish elders who serviced to humanity
(1968, 1998);
Turkish nation played role in the past of humanity;
Passing from national one to universal one.
Multiculturality/multiculturalism concepts was not seen (1968, 1998);
Respect and tolerance against to views, belief and thoughts of people;
Tolerance in family life (1968, 1998).
Tolerance is included in Turkish nation’s features.
The life changes(1968) and develops (1998,
2005) in time
Technologic change affects life.
To perform cooperation
Differences
1968-To develop humanity supreme values of
Turkish nation;
To make benefit to humanity;
Binding Turkey to the world over world
history and geography;
Affection of French Revolution;
Science and technology is universal;
1998-Ataturk’s thought on universalism and
nationalism;
2005-Accessing to universalism beginning from
Domestic;
The individual as a part of humanity is
sensible against to problems concerning
his country and world;
World common culture heritage, common
days, international sportive activities;
Scientists.
1968-Empathy and communication concept
were not seen;
1998-Tolerance is personal feature of Ataturk;
Sensitivity for listening different thoughts
and problems of disables;
2005-Presency of different cultures in the country
and world and their common features;
Empathy against to historical personalities
and different people in the world;
Interaction periods should be sensed;
Family was not included in tolerance point.
1968-Today’s case is product of previous
generations’ working product for hundreds
of years ;
1998-Ataturk has followed change;
2005-Individuals must follow change;
Cultural elements are changing.
1968-To compose cooperation spirit at the
citizens;
1998- National union and solidarity;

School family cooperation;
2005- It has been considered as correlated civil
society foundations.
Universality has been considered within all three programs regarding to features of
Turkish nation and its contributions to the history and as an advance phase that will be reached. Passing from national one to universal one has been emphasized at all of programs but in 2005, from local to global one not universal one was mentioned. The multiculturality/ the multiculturalism concept that was not included in the first two programs, but in 2005 it has been emphasized with refers to cultural differences in the country and in the world. Also current changes and differences have been legalized through stating that cultural elements have been changed in 2005 and change should be followed by individuals and cultural sustainability has been expressed less than change.
Again in 1968 (citizen) and in 1998 cooperation concept that was presented over
(national) identities have been considered in general mean without emphasizing identity in
2005.
Table 5. Individual
Individual
Individual
Development
Good citizen, good human (1968, 1998), citizen (2005);
Its body, mental is balanced and healthy;
It has owner of personality and character
(1968-1998);
Social entity.
Similarities
Progressing concern, ability and qualifications;
Gaining required knowledge, ability, habits and behaviors (1968, 1998).
1968-Perfect person;
Differences
Valuable entity;
He is happy as far as establishing positive bond;
1998-National character;
Devoted to Turkish revolutionary;
It has national objective and trust;
2005-It is special for self;
He is realizing and recognizing himself;
He commits, composes, uses and arranges
modern information, participant, efficient
citizen who use scientific methods;
He carries trust about being a part of society
and world.
2005-Providing recognizing himself of a child-
physical, emotional recognizing its
differentiations, knowing personal and social
adequateness;
Completing needs.
Individual’s special and global aspect that is considered within integrity in three programs has been prominent in 2005. Hence, in the frame of common objective, growing the student as “citizen”, the individual will be coherent to the society in 1968, will have
“national character, national objective and safe” in 1998. In 2005, the individual has been considered individual features and his/her connection to the society and world.
Table 6. Education / Teaching
Similarities
Knowledge provides professional and economical success (1968), and reconstruction
Differences
1998-Knowledgeable person;
Ataturk’s rationalism and being scientific;

Knowledge /
Science
Learning
Learning for
Lifelong/
Learning
Learn
Thinking
Abilities to
(1998);
Science and technology affects social life
(1968, 2005).
Through doing (1968), active learning (1998,
2005).
Using Turkish (1968, 2005);
Gaining information, ability (1968), sense, thinking and behavior required by practical
(1968),
Reading ; democratic life (1998), qualification of enlightening future;
Liveliness at education (1968, 1998);
Obtaining information from resources. in
2005-Knowledge is superiority, the people who
produces, issues and uses knowledge are
superior;
Knowledge is valuable.
2005-The student structures the knowledge and
establishes the meaning;
While learning the knowledge is tool;
Student -activity centered.
1968-Having learning and developing wish;
Listening well;
1998-To prepare for life;
Researching ;
2005-The individuals who are learning for
lifelong, having equipping that will
actualize information and ability;
The methods and techniques that provide
this equipment;
Social participation ability, adopting to the
society;
Learning to learn through developing
knowledge, concept , value and abilities is
at the forefront;
Learning abilities;
Using knowledge in various suitable and
suitable types and arranging abilities.
Making Turkish nation a creative partner of modern world (1968, 1998);
Judgment ability, critical thinking, right ordering, problem solving, using scientific
2005-Thinking abilities have been determined,
some of them have been included directly;
Reflective thinking, divergent thinking,
evidence analyzing, realizing that the method;
Decision making (1998, 2005).
history may have different comments,
sensing the change and permanence ability.
Using science and technologies (1998, 2005). 1968- Information technologies were not seen. Information
Technologies
Informatics
Skills
Individual
Differences
Total Quality
It was not seen (1968, 1998).
Progressing its concern, capability and abilities (1968, 1998), taking into consideration (2005).
It was not seen (1968, 2005).
2005- Using Information technology ability.
1968-Selecting profession and job pursuant to
its abilities;
2005-Each student is unique as individuals
.
The method and techniques should vary
through considering their special
differences;
The child, himself knows and agree his
differences.
1968-His included conditions should always be
rehabilitated.
It has been seen that the concepts such as information/science, learning, thinking skills, individual differences, life long learning /learning to learn (as only content in 1968 and 1998) has been included in the programs commonly. Informatics skills and digital information technologies’ including situation in the programs is coherent to technological level of the period. The attractive point in this category is emphasizing to be aware of self freedom of child itself in 2005in this category. Another point, information/science and thinking skills have been considered in 1968 and 1998 regarding to supply national benefits; has been expressed as supreme tool in 2005.
Table 7. Modernization
Similarities Differences
To make Turkish nation a constituent, 1968- Ideal to access modern civilization level;

Modernization creative, elegant partner of Modern civilization;
Willing to live modern values (1998,
2005).
1998- Making devotion conscious in the way of
modernization;
Ataturk’s ideal to get over modern civilization
level;
According to Ataturk everything that is good,
new and nice is modern ; modernization is not
imitation.
All of those three program included thought and objective to increase Turkish
Nation to participate national civilization (in 1968 “reaching”, in 1998 “getting over”).
Table 8. International Relations
International
Relations
Similarities
“Peace at home, peace in the world”,
Information on relations with neighbor and other world countries;
Communication and transportation technologies made familiar the nations
(1968, 2005);
United Nations Day (1968, 2005).
Differences
1968-Turkish State is a honor and constituent member
of World Nations Family with its unitary integrity;
International institutions that were established for
peace, tools and studies,
NATO Day;
1998-Importance of Turkey’s place on the world;
Information on Turks living in overseas;
Independence and equity principles of Ataturk in
foreign policy;
Turkish Armed Forces protect our country against
to exterior dangers;
Some states try to weak Turkey for their interest;
2005-Historical development of concepts (democracy,
secularity, human rights) and their affection Turkey;
International political, social, cultural, economic
interaction;
The affection of economical relations, tourism and
transportation technologies at international relations.
International relations concept has been included in all three programs (in 1998 it was not stated as a concept ). In 1968, international institutions, in 2005 weightily international economic activities has been included in the programs. International relations concept has been considered as Turkey centered and in the frame of political relations with other countries in 1968 and 1998. Hence, “Turks living in overseas”, “foreign policy”, foreign danger” concepts in 1998 point out national and political view points, internal and external countercyclical structure of the period. In 2005, it is seen that the concepts itself, alone has been again emphasized together with similar points. In 2005, mentioning about historical development of democracy, secularism and human rights concepts and their affection to Turkey is in a referring qualification for effective power of cultural and political dimension.
Table 9. Ethic
Ethic
Similarities
Features of Turkish nation (1968, 1998);
It adopts, makes live moral values of Turkish nation (1968, 1998);
Love, respect and trust (1968, 1998), appreciating sense (2005) against to people who provided service to Turkish nation flag, army
Differences
1968-It performs facilities in the scope of moral rules
and value senses that are adopted by society;
Different senses and views that doesn’t spoil
integrity of society is cultural richness;
Work and profession ethic;
1998-Sayings of Ataturk for the entrusting sense

and homeland;
Devotion against to national, social objectives and benefits (1968, 1998).
“Turkish nation! Praise, work and trust” and
“How happy is he who says I’m a Turk!”;
Ataturk’s personal features;
2005-The values has been determined, some of them
has been given directly;
Safe emotion resourcing from society and world.
Moral and value concept that is generally thought with it have been included in all programs and some values (nation, flag, military force, hero, love, respect and trust) have been emphasized. Features of Turkish Nation, adopting of moral values and especially emphasizing in national and social devotion as a whole have been emphasized in the first two programs. Another attractive point is emphasizing on a trust emotion based to society and world belonging in 2005. Again in 2005, value education was not given to teachers’ initiative and teaching some values has been directly related with earnings.
Table 10. Technology
Similarities
Technology
Technology affects (1968, 1998), and makes easy (2005) human life, social life.
Differences
1968-Our nation should be a partner of modern civilization
regarding to technical aspect;
It provides professional and economical success;
2005-Modern life is impossible without technology and
science;
Technology using ability accesses to knowledge;
Some technological products are harmful for nature;
It analyses change and permanency from point of
affection of technologic products’ affection;
Sayings of Ataturk about technology.
Technology concept has been included positively in all programs. Only in 2005, both its damages have been stated and it was assimilated with modern life.
Table 11. Environment
It knows, environment;
Similarities loves and protect the
It glamorizes environment (1968, 1998);
Environment Natural diseases (1968), protection (1998,
2005);
Human-environment interaction (1998,
2005).
Differences
1968- It interests in and admires nature beauties;
1998- habitable environment;
Using water sufficiently;
His and state’s tasks and liabilities to solve
environment problem;
2005- It knows his living environment and world;
Human affection at natural diseases;
Affection of natural disasters on society;
The love of nature/ nature awareness has been
determined as a value.
Environment has been presented in all three programs as a concept that should be known, protected and loved. Environment concept that was determined as a separate value in 2005 has been reached to global width as it is understood from the expression “iy knows the world”.

Result
We can say that examined programs generally affected from educational, cultural, political and economical developments in the world. Especially, following Enlightenment and French Revolution, considered concepts have been placed in determined rates at the
Social Studies Programs.
But it is highly possible to observe affection of country countries in 1968 and 1998 programs.
Hence, considering basic global concepts in 1968 program has been determined together with political cyclical structure and periodical qualification of globalism in both country condition and in the world.When it is observed from those aspects, it can be said that mentioned period’s global concepts have been given place significantly regarding to more socialist and national aspect in 1968 program.
1998 program considers Kemalism and indirectly national sensitivities through especially internal problems and needs of Turkey. But it has been seen that basic elements and priorities have been kept at the center so some concepts such as habitable environment, empathy have been included in the program.
In 2005 Social Studies Program, the affection of Western culture has been increased in the scope of globalism concept and style of considering mentioned concepts has been tried to increase to acceptance level in the world. It can be stated that aforementioned program has significantly suitable qualification to globalism period. Such that, possibly the nature of globalism is thought in the program, it can be said that general qualifications that can be applied in anywhere of the world more than special social, political, economical and cultural obligatory/sensitivities of any country are given importance.
Mentioned obligations have been tried to be shaped through a global logic and processing.
Thusly, by force of globalism, it is being passed from domestic to nearly global one directly in the program. It has been concluded that natural dimension and step mentioned in general objectives section, was not given place strongly through binding domestic and global one.
Also, an active individual based to domestic and global belonging and responsibility and a teaching/learning understanding that takes this individual to center has been emphasized. From this point of view, it can be concluded that 2005 program affirms

globalism period and concern concepts and indigenization, economy and individual weighted in any case even it idealized.
Consequently, global affect that can be considered natural at the one point of view, can be accepted meaningful and obligatory as much as having response in social life.
Because, if it cannot be filtered in such way, it is possible and fateful that global affect may lead cultural/social and political conflicts.
Following two basic problems can be emphasized in the frame of result of the research:
1. How much of general acceptances for globalism was/is being put into practice or being planned to be put into practice in other countries?
2. What rate country realities considering concepts representing globalism can
/should/ be affected?
Finally, it can be suggested to examine comparatively the programs of various countries to find out answers to above questions.
References
Bauman, Z. (2010). Küreselleşme . (A. Yılmaz, Çev.). (Third Edition). İstanbul: Ayrıntı.
Ben-Rafael, E. and Sternberg, Y. (2002). Analyzing Our Time: A Sociological
Problématique. In E. Ben-Rafael and Y. Sternberg (Eds.), Identity, Culture and
Globalization, (pp.3-17). Boston, 2002. Retrieved April, 2012, from http://books. google.com.tr/books
Duran, R. and Şanlıer, İ. (Haziran 2000). Naom Chomsky ile Medya, Küreselleşme ve
Şiddet Üzerine. Virgül
, Haziran, (31), 6-13.
Cırık, İ. (2008). Çok Kültürlü Eğitim ve Yansımaları. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim
Fakültesi Dergisi (H. U. Journal Of Education),
(34), 27-40. Retrieved April, 2012, from http://www.efdergi.hacettepe.edu.tr/200834YLKER%20CIRIK.pdf
Çalık, T. ve Sezgin, F. (2005). Küreselleşme, Bilgi Toplumu ve Eğitim. Kastamonu Eğitim
Dergisi, Mart 2005, 13 (1), 55-66. Retrieved April, 2012, from http://scholar.goog leusercontent.com/scholar?q=cache:95Ol__ASzrYJ:scholar.google.com/+%C3%87 al%C4%B1k,+T.+ve+Sezgin,+F&hl=tr&as_sdt=0,5
Çeken, Y. D. (2006). Küreselleşme ve Türkiye’de Eğitim Politikaları: Yeni İlköğretim
Müfredatı Sosyal Bilgiler Programı Üzerine Bir İnceleme
. Yüksek lisans tezi, Ege
Üniversitesi, İzmir.

Devlet Planlama Teşkilatı. (2000). Küreselleşme, Devlet Planlama Teşkilatı 8. Beş Yıllık
Kalkınma Planı Özel İhtisas Komisyonu Raporu (Rapor No: DPT: 2544- ÖİK:
560). Ankara: Devlet Planlama Teşkilatı. Retrieved April, 2012, from http://ekutup. dpt.gov.tr/dunya/oik560.pdf
Erkal, M. (2005).
Küreselleşme, Etniklik, Çokkültürlülük
. İstanbul: Derin.
European Commission. (2001).
The Concrete Future Objectıves of Educatıon Systems,
COM (2001) 59. Brüksel. Retrieved April, 2012, from http://eur-lex.europa.eu/Lex
UriServ/ LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2001:0059:FIN:EN:PDF
European Council. (2000).
Lısbon European Councıl 23 And 24 March 2000
. Retrieved
April, 2012, from http://www.europarl.europa.eu/summits/lis1_en.htm
European Council. (2006). Establishing an Action Programme in the Field of Lifelong
Learning. Official Journal of the European Union. (Decision No: 1720/2006)
Retrieved April, 2012, from http://eur-lex.europa.eu/lex/LexUriServ/LexUriServ. do? uri=OJ:L:2006:327:0045:0068:EN:PDF
European Council. (2009). Council Conclusions Of 12 May 2009 On A Strategic
Framework For European Cooperation İn Education And Training (‘ET 2020’).
Official Journal of the European Union (2009/C 119/2-10). Retrieved April, 2012, from http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:2009:119:0002:
0010: EN :PDF
Featherstone, M. (2002). Postnational Flows, Identity Formation and Cultural Space. In E.
Ben-Rafael and Y.Sternberg (Eds.), Identity, Culture and Globalization, (pp. 483-
526). Boston, 2002. Retrieved April, 2012, from http://books.google.com.tr/books
Aydın, H.(2006). Eleştirel Aklın Işığında Postmodernizm, Temel Dayanakları ve Eğitim
Felsefesi.
Eğitimde Politika Analizleri ve Stratejik Araştırmalar Dergisi
, 1 (1), 27-
48. From http://www.inased.org/epasad/c1s1/EPASADc1s1.pdf
Giddens, A. (2000). Elimizden Kaçıp Giden Dünya . (O. Akınhay, Çev.). İstanbul: Alfa
Gökçe, F. (2005). Değişme Sürecinde Devlet ve Eğitim . (Third Edition). Ankara: Tekağaç.
Gündüz, M. (2002). Küreselleşen “Sanki” Dünyanın Sosyal Devlete Saldırı. Eğitim
Araştırmalar
, Ocak 2002 (6), 34-43.
Hirtt, N. (2005). Brüksel’den Lizbon’a: Avrupa Yuvarlak Masası’nın (ERT) Avrupa
Komisyonu Tarafından Yürürlüğe Konulan Eğitim Programı. (D. Yıldırım, Çev.,
M. Aksarı, Düz.). Eğitim Bilim Toplum
, 3 (10), 74-85. Retrieved April, 2012, from http://www.egitimbilimtoplum.com.tr/index.php/ebt/article/view/86/pdf

İlhan, H.İ. (2009). Küreselleşmenin Eğitime Yansımaları . Yüksek lisans tezi, Gazi
Üniversitesi, Ankara.
İnce, M. (2009). Küreselleşme ve Yerelleşme: Bir Çelişki mi? Gazi Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi,
11 (1), 259-275.
Keyman, E. F. (1997). Globalleşme ve Türkiye: Radikal Demokrasi Olasılığı. In E.F.
Keyman and A. Y. Sarıbay (Eds.), Küreselleşme, Sivil Toplum ve İslam,
(pp. 34-
55). Ankara: Vadi.
Kızılçelik, S. (2002). Kapitalizmin Diasporası Olarak Küreselleşme. Eğitim Araştırmaları
,
Ocak 2002 (6), 12-33.
Kızılçelik, S. (2003). Küreselleşme ve Sosyal Bilimler . (Second Edition). Ankara: Anı.
Koçdemir, K. (2002). Küreselleşme
:
Koordinatları Okumak
. İstanbul: Ötüken.
Kutluer, İ. (2006). Küreselleşme Mahiyeti ve Boyutları. In Y. Mehmedoğlu and A.U.
Mehmedoğlu (Eds.), Küreselleşme Ahlâk ve Değerler
(pp. 15-50). İstanbul: Litera.
Millî Eğitim Bakanlığı. (1968). İlkokul Programı . İstanbul: Millî Eğitim Bakanlığı.
Millî Eğitim Bakanlığı. (1998). İlköğretim Okul Sosyal Bilgiler Dersi Programı. Tebliğler
Dergisi
, Nisan 1998, 61 (2487). İstanbul: Millî Eğim Bakanlığı.
Millî Eğitim Bakanlığı. (2005). Sosyal Bilgiler Dersi (4-5. Sınıflar) Öğretim Programı ve
Kılavuzu . Retrieved April, 2012, from http://ttkb.meb.gov.tr/
Müftüoğlugil, Ö. (2006). Küresel Şiddet . Yüksek lisans tezi, Mustafa Kemal Üniversitesi,
Hatay.
Özkan, T. (2006). İlköğretim Öğretmenlerinin Küresel Eğitime Yönelik Görüşlerinin
Değerlendirilmesi
. Yüksek lisans tezi, Çukurova Üniversitesi, Adana.
Robertson, R. (1999).
Küreselleşme-Toplum Kuramı ve Küresel Kültür . (Ü. H. Yolsal,
Çev.). Ankara: Bilim ve Sanat.
Sönmez, V. (2002). Küreselleşmenin Felsefi Temelleri, Eğitim Araştırmaları
, Ocak 2002
(6), 1-11.
Türkasya Stratejik Araştırmaları Merkezi. (2006).
Küreselleşme Sürecinin Medya ve
Kültür Üzerindeki Etkileri
(Stratejik Rapor No: 15). A.Özkan (Haz.). Retrieved
April, 2012, from http://www.tasam.org/tr-TR/Icerik/4160/kuresellesme _surecinin
_medya_ve_kul tur_ uzerine_etkileri
Tekinalp, Ş. (2005). Küreselleşen Dünyanın Bunalımı: Çokkültürlülük. Journal of İstanbul
Kültür University,
2005, (1), 75-87. Retrieved April, 2012, from http://www.iku. edu.tr /TR/iku_gunce/C3S1Sosyal/75.pdf

Touraine, A. (2002). The New Capitalist Society. In E. Ben-Rafael and Y.Sternberg (Eds.),
Identity, Culture and Globalization, (pp. 265-276). Boston, 2002. Retrieved April,
2012, from http://books.google.com.tr/books
Uçak, S. (2006). Millî Devletler, Küreselleşme ve Avrupa Birliği. Kaygı/ Uludağ
Üniversitesi Felsefe Dergisi,
2006, (6), 59-70. Retrieved April, 2012, from http://uvt.ulakbim.gov.tr/uvt/index.php?cwid=9&vtadi=TPRJ%2CTTAR%2CTTIP
%2CTMUH%2CTSOS%2CTHUK&c=google&ano=66997_9fa63681c3ecc73f9d5
883aadeb53b09
Uçkan, B. (1998). Küreselleşme ve Devletin İş Piyasasındaki Rolü. Çimento İşveren
Dergisi, Mart 1998, 12 (2), 4-15. Retrieved April, 2012, from http://www.ceis.org.
tr/dergi Docs /1mak982.htm