Microsoft Word - Tochon_Eng_Dec2010.doc


 

 

 

TO CITE THIS ARTICLE PLEASE INCLUDE ALL OF THE FOLLOWING DETAILS:  
Tochon, Francois Victor and Okten, Celile E., (2010). Curriculum mapping and instructional affordances:  
Sources of transformation for student teachers. Transnational Curriculum Inquiry 7 (1) 
http://nitinat.library.ubc.ca/ojs/index.php/tci <access date> 

 

 

Curriculum mapping and instructional affordances:  
Sources of transformation for student teachers 

 
Francois Victor Tochon 

University of Wisconsin-Madison, USA 
Celile E. Okten 

Yildiz Technical University, Turkey 
 
Introduction 
Semiotics is the study of semiosis or sign action; it can describe any process that includes the 
production of meaning, whether linguistic or not.  Thus semiosis defines the process of 
making meaning as mediated by signs and the interpretation of those signs. Significantly, 
teachers’ awareness of semiosis generates metasemiosis, as their engagement in such deep 
reflection stimulates conceptual reframing, which can be qualified itself as a trans-semiotic 
process. From intuiting to perceiving to wording, stages of clarification operate that Charles 
S. Peirce (1877a) has deciphered and theorized as being inherent to the process of belief 
confirmation that characterizes scientific inquiry. In a similar manner, intuiting, perceiving 
and wording curriculum interpretations involves a subtle belief formation that this article 
aims to explore through hierarchizing and mapping curriculum concepts in teacher education. 
We are using a Peircean analysis in part due to his work with existential diagrams, making 
his theories a natural match for concept maps. The next section reinvests these concepts into 
theorizing the curriculum building process. It will highlight why curriculum mapping can 
stimulate semiotic inquiry and student teachers’ transformation of knowledge. 
 
Curriculum mapping as ontological design 
Conceptual mapping requires a support for communication, such as an economic organigram, 
planning rubric, literary genealogy, geographic representation, anthropological card, systems 
representation, linguistic tree, semantic structure, cognitive frame, mental  
model, sociological tree of knowledge. Such visual maps constitute ontologies or conceptual 
structures that model ‘what is’. When designing such models of reality, then, students are 
involved in an epistemic process, a way of conceptualizing disciplinary priorities. Therefore 
conceptual maps are sometimes named epistemic maps. Several excellent and thorough 
reviews have been published on concept mapping (Brown, 2002; Daley et al., 1999; Danesi, 
2002; Gómez et al., 2000; Goodyear et al., 2005; Novak, 1995; Tochon, 1990ab). In this 
article we explore the semiotic basis for a specific form of educational inquiry based on 
curriculum mapping, which can stimulate metasemiosis (Urban, 2006) and make the process 
transformative. The concept of metasemiosis was alluded to by Thomas Sebeok (2001), John 
Deely, Susan Petrilli and Augusto Ponzio (1998) and other semiotic scholars who referred to 
the human as the only ‘metasemiotic animal’, able to generate meaning-making on meaning-
making. We want to show that, as a semiotic tool, curriculum concept mapping can initiate a 
transformative semiosis of semiosis, a process we name trans-semiosis. We define trans-
semiosis as the transformation of knowledge that results from the reframing process of 
metasemiosis. Since trans-semiosis is so closely related with the dialogical understanding of 



Tochon & Okten: Curriculum mapping and instructional affordances 

 

 
Transnational Curriculum Inquiry 7 (1) 2010 http://nitinat.library.ubc.ca/ojs/index.php/tci 

 

4 

self and the other  – and knowledge is not distinct from the semiosis process  – it results that 
trans-semiosis is an identity process. 

When a student maps her curriculum, she has to organize her intuitive assumptions about 
what is hierarchically important and visualize it. In a similar way, the reader of a curriculum 
map must let hypotheses and assumptions emerge from the visuals. Then through induction 
the construction of assumptions takes place (Kankkunnen, 2004). Finally, through deduction 
the meanings of such assumptions are interpreted and knowledge is dynamically designed. 
Concept mapping has often been interpreted within a classical cognitive framework, a 
framework that fixes semantic meanings instead of situating the pragmatics of the 
interpretive flow that characterizes learning trans-semiosis.  

Peirce had been alerted early about the merits of diagrammatic mapping as a way to 
support and enhance logical reasoning and represent the Mind (CP 4.582). His ‘existential 
graphs’, published in 1906 (CP 4.618) had been invented in 1897, as he mentioned, and 
probably even earlier. Peirce created rules for reasoning with diagrams as a means of helping 
experiment with thought and investigate the logical relationships between concepts. Peirce 
tried to improve his system of concept mapping for more than 20 years and was not really 
satisfied with his logical, ‘gamma graphs’ at the end of his life. Nonetheless he considered 
that ‘all necessary reasoning is diagrammatic’ (Draft C, 90-102) that is, any conceptualizing 
is a mapping process.  His purpose was ‘to illustrate the general course of thought: (…) a 
system of diagrammatization by means of which any course of thought can be represented 
with exactitude’ (CP 4.530). Each ‘phemic sheet’ would represent a universe of discourse as 
‘icons of intelligible relations’ (CP 4.531). Øhrstrom (1997) indicates that diagrammatical 
reasoning is semiotically very powerful, yet as any representation it can’t be perfect or 
complete: it provides a viewpoint. Practical reasoning might not follow the rules of 
mathematical logic or might embody another mathematical field (Menand, 1997): the logic of 
‘moving pictures of thought’ (CP 4.8). 

Since Peirce proposed his existential graphs, much work has been done to develop 
logical maps that provide precise representations of ways of reasoning and fields of 
knowledge. Students’ revisiting of their own concept maps makes them aware of differences 
between their concepts. Their progress is measured by the degree of relevance of the logical 
links they established between concepts. Each time they achieve some degree of relevance 
between concepts, it contributes to their conceptual progress. Conceptual differentiation 
initiates in the students a process of integration that allows them to achieve a holistic vision 
of the scientific field studied (Novak & Cañas, 2006). Such structures make students 
ascertain what they know about their educational experience. The learner’s structure of 
understanding becomes precise and clear, which indicates their role in the essentializing, 
naturalizing process of school meanings. The study of how curriculum knowledge is 
transformed into something that can be handled in practice provides interesting indications on 
the interpretation of school notions and genres presented and processes described by the 
students (Tochon, 2000b). Such maps can be used to observe the initial stages of a learner’s 
knowledge as well as monitor conceptual changes. Novak & Cañas (2008, p. 180) indicate 
the links between learning and epistemology: epistemology deals ‘with the nature of 
knowledge and new knowledge creation’. Learners who struggle to map knowledge are 
engaged in a creative process. Novak compares concepts and propositions to the atoms of 
matter and the molecules of matter: they would be the building blocks of knowledge in any 
subject-matter. Concepts relate with perceived regularities (or patterns) in either events or 
objects designated by labels. The atomic analogy provides a Platonician perspective as if 
concepts were abstract universals; however their epistemic dynamics implies that they are in 
process and in construction. Curriculum mapping can be a method that makes students 



Tochon & Okten: Curriculum mapping and instructional affordances 

 

 
Transnational Curriculum Inquiry 7 (1) 2010 http://nitinat.library.ubc.ca/ojs/index.php/tci 

 

5 

acquire ‘a habit of changing habits’ (Kankkunen, 2004, p.1). It allows both students and 
teachers to evaluate their conceptual development and belief system.  

Belief systems are the substrates of meanings sedimented by habits that crystallized into 
knowledge. Peirce’s 1877-1878 articles published in Popular Science Monthly propose a 
semiotic interpretation of beliefs: ‘Our beliefs guide our desires and shape our actions’ 
(Peirce, 1877a, III). Beliefs help establish conceptual stability even though they are 
changeable. Peirce stated that new beliefs are formed in situations of inadequacy and genuine 
doubt. In a genuine doubt situation, humans struggle to attain a new belief and this process is 
called ‘inquiry’. In a similar way, curriculum inquiry is led by genuine doubt on the ground 
of belief cultures. The inquiry process gives opportunities for deeper interaction with a 
variety of possible meanings, and it furthers the development of understanding. Peirce 
proposed four ways of fixing beliefs: tenacity, authority, a priori, and experiment (ibid, 
1877b). Experimentation was his preferred way to provide negotiation, cooperation, and 
openness to alternatives.  Peirce’s work thus helps provide a framework to understand teacher 
beliefs and more generally education. Experimentations provide teachers ways to investigate 
and alter their beliefs through abductive reasoning. This process, which is one of the foci of 
the present study, has a significant impact on teachers’ beliefs and affects their decisions. 
Genuine revision of prior judgments is a constant process. Moreover when curriculum 
reasoning is remodeled by (foreign) international standards and their ‘quality imperialism’ 
(Gough, 2006), the teachers’ inner conversations get ‘complicated’ within cross-cultural 
regimes of signs (Pinar, 2000), especially in such an internationalized curriculum field as 
English Language Teaching. 

In this section, we have indicated that concept mapping research can be extended to 
subtle processes which imply a transformational understanding of one’s own semiosis. 
Semiotic curriculum inquiry thus defined can be integrated into teacher education to 
stimulate the ability of student teachers to reflect on their curriculum knowledge and the 
meaning making process more broadly. The next section digs into this analytical framework 
further. 

 
Peirce’s analytical framework 
For Peirce (1931-1958), logic has to be interpreted in its contextual dynamics; the context of 
an utterance conditions its interpretation. Any interpretable movement, or any thought is a 
sign (Chandler, 2003). Peirce developed taxonomies to describe how sign meanings emerge 
from the on-going interpretation of links between form, perception of the context, and 
possible meanings produced. His theory is subtle, adaptive and dynamic. Meanings are 
constructed to form realities, culture, and communication. Peirce’s model of signs depicts the 
agency components of meaning constructions in the reciprocal movement of signs, objects 
and interpretants. The sign mediates between the object and its interpretant. The interpretant 
is the interpretive ‘outcome of the sign which indicates that different signs may reference 
different aspects of an object, leading to different outcomes or effects. The process of 
creating the outcome or interpretant is a type of reasoning called abduction’ (Osberg, 1997, 
p.27).  

As deduction and induction are not capable of generating new knowledge, a third 
inferential process creates hypotheses and instructional guesses: abductive reasoning moves 
from the interpretive result to the rule to the case (Bopry, 2002). As we move from abduction 
to deduction, we progress from the simple reconciliation of meaning toward the prescribed 
process of selecting the necessary truth (Shank, 1995). The Peircean model characterizes the 
semiotic process on the basis of three movements of meaning making: firstness, secondness 
and thirdness. Firstness (or idea-representamen) is associated with qualities that have an 



Tochon & Okten: Curriculum mapping and instructional affordances 

 

 
Transnational Curriculum Inquiry 7 (1) 2010 http://nitinat.library.ubc.ca/ojs/index.php/tci 

 

6 

iconic relationship with their objects (a photograph, portrait, map, etc.). Secondness (or brute 
actuality-object) comes in the recognition of ‘the other’. It is the recognition that there is self 
and not self, and comes into play in the separation of field and ground, given that the nature 
of secondness is opposition. Firstness involves abduction  – which is the spontaneous and 
direct emergence of meaning  –  and deals with the person’s qualitative ideas and beliefs. 
Secondness involves induction through verbal and non-verbal signs that the person already 
experienced consciously. Thirdness associates firstness and secondness through reasoning 
and making connections, and it is deductive. Thirdness (or a sign’s soul-interpretant) refers to 
the use of symbols. A symbol is a form of thirdness (such as waving hands, traffic lights, 
etc.). The symbol mediates between an object and the interpretant through law or reason. 

Perception involves semiosis or meaning production on the basis of signs (Allot, 1994). 
As perception leads to conceptual interpretation, it is directed by the perceiver. It produces 
continuous change to provide an organizing construction within the perceiver. Semiosis is 
thus part of the perceptual process. Perception involves the patterns of action in response to 
the environment dynamics (Umwelt  – Deely, 1994). The actions are complementary and 
interlocked with each other in the structuring of perception. Organizing perceptions are the 
ground of learning experience and, in turn, education organizes perceptions. According to 
Cunningham, human semiosis and education are but one and the same thing. ‘If by semiosis 
we mean the lifelong building of structures of experience, then education is precisely that 
field which attempts to understand, nurture and make people more reflective about this 
process’ (Cunningham, 1987, p.207). Thus educational perception is formed through 
semiosis. Cunningham (2002) proposes a broad model that details the cognitive process in 
terms of four components: signs, semiosis, inference, and reflexivity. He defines signs as 
metaphorical or analogical referents to some aspect, concept and object, or relationship. They 
are context-sensitive.  Individuals develop new ideas and hypotheses through their 
experiences. The process of conceptualizing the curriculum is inferential. The results of this 
process contribute to the perception of knowledge. In Cunningham’s view, reflexivity is the 
awareness of semiosis. Not all aspects of this rising awareness can be explicit and explicated 
as some irrupt from intuitions  – or, in semiotic terms, abductions.  

Semiotic theory offers a broad framework to understand such processes through 
highlighting the nuances of subtle possible progressions between implicit stages and more 
explicit stages of understanding within perception itself. Peirce devised ten classes of signs as 
part of his theory. In the terminology proposed by Merrell (2000), this taxonomy includes: a) 
Feeling (Peirce’s qualisign); b) Imaging (iconic sinsign); c) Sensing (rhematic indexical 
sinsign); d) Awaring (dicent sinsign); e) Scheming (iconic legisign); f) Impressing-saying 
(rhematic indexical legisign); g) Looking (Acknowledging)-Saying (dicent indexical 
legisign); h) Seing (Identifying)-Saying (rhematic symbol); i) Perceiving-Saying (dicent 
symbol or proposition); and j) Realizing (argument) (MS 540, CP 2.233-72). Shank & 
Cunningham (1996) derived from Peirce’s taxonomy six distinct modes for abduction, which 
are sketched out as follows:  
 

1) The Hunch type of inference opens awareness to the virtual possibility of a possible 
resemblance: initial observations might serve as intuitive suggestions for possible 
evidence.   

2) Symptoms would appeal to possible resemblances, comparing properties to be 
considered, looking for the presence of a more general phenomenon. The detection of a 
symptom often implies a dependence on prior experience.  



Tochon & Okten: Curriculum mapping and instructional affordances 

 

 
Transnational Curriculum Inquiry 7 (1) 2010 http://nitinat.library.ubc.ca/ojs/index.php/tci 

 

7 

3) Metaphor or Analogy manipulates resemblance to create new, potential rules and 
conceptual frames.  

4) The Clue would lead to the type of inference dealing with possible evidence, a mode 
of determining whether or not observations are clues of some more general phenomenon. 
The sign would help detecting the circumstances of a past state of affairs. In order to 
make a judgment, the observer would look for connections.  

5) The Diagnosis or Scenario forms a possible rule on the basis of available evidence, 
in order to discover diagnostic judgments amidst observations. Such diagnoses create 
plausible scenarios from the cluster of clues. The patterns of clues take on a unity of 
character.  

6) Explanations concern formal rules to account for puzzling clusters of data and gather 
scenarios into a coherent explanation that forms the basis for meaningful insight.  
 
This model will help us analyzing the capacity of student teachers for ‘suspension of 

action and deliberation for critical thinking and conscious awareness’ (Petrilli & Ponzio, 
2007, p.7). It elicits important aspects of curriculum semiosis that appear as affordances in 
the process of educational inquiry. The concept of affordance relates with the creation of 
meaning from the perception of meaningful ‘niches’ within a fluid and dynamic Umwelt. It 
refers to ‘the perceived and actual properties of the thing, primarily those fundamental 
properties that determine just how the thing could possibly be used’ (Norman, 1988, p.9). It 
also integrates the understanding that sign meanings are associated with and negotiated 
within such semiotic niches (Schumann, 2003; Logan & Schumann, 2005; Burgin & 
Schumann, 2006). ‘A situation provides a suitable niche only for those persons who are 
prepared to meet and use its affordances effectively. Those not properly tuned or prepared 
will in some way fail to perform effectively in the situation as given’ (Snow, 1998, p.107). 
This leads us to anticipate that student teachers get attuned to curriculum ‘niches’ through 
transformative affordances. These niches are locations for knowledge transformation.  

In this section, we have discussed semiosis, metasemiosis, knowledge emergence and 
generation processes through three types of reasoning. We have seen how reasoning provides 
meaning to signs, allowing for interpretations and inferences. The last step, based on the 
production of meaning, has been to explore how perception is structured by education on the 
basis of experience. For that purpose, we have presented a taxonomy that will help us analyze 
student teachers’ intentions related to curriculum mapping.  

 
Research design 
In this study, we propose to explicate curriculum mapping as the result of affordances that 
characterize semiotic inquiry in education. 
 
Curriculum as an inquiry process. Semiotic analysis involves a variety of approaches that 
confer richness and flexibility in the signifying stages of inquiry. In the process by which 
student teachers conceptualize their curriculum field, transformative semiosis helps 
deconstruct reality such that its historical and cultural background can be deciphered. The 
semiotic viewpoint is integrative and encompassing and does not privilege particular stands: 
it makes individuals and groups self-critical of their own interpretive responsibility and 
action. The theory of affordances in education  – as noted earlier  – posits that the perceiver is 
active in sensing information-rich environments. Humans build a sense of meaningfulness 
through matching patterns of perception to semiotic niches. Education can be viewed as a 



Tochon & Okten: Curriculum mapping and instructional affordances 

 

 
Transnational Curriculum Inquiry 7 (1) 2010 http://nitinat.library.ubc.ca/ojs/index.php/tci 

 

8 

semiotic process of deciphering that co-constructs meaningful relations between one learner 
or a group of learners, the curriculum and the teacher. This understanding brings a humane 
dimension to the education process.  
 
Setting. This study is one aspect of a larger inquiry that bears on the integration of portfolios 
in the English Language Teaching (ELT) department of a public university in Istanbul, 
Turkey. The student teachers were taught about the Common European Framework of 
Reference for Languages as well as the standards of the American Council for the Teaching 
of Foreign Languages (Tochon, 2008). We studied what role e-portfolios could play in the 
enhancement of teacher education. The aim of the teacher education program was to train 
culturally-learned teachers who have a deep knowledge of their discipline and their 
profession on the basis of exploratory and participatory action research (Kemmis & 
McTaggart, 2005). Curriculum mapping was integrated in the portfolio with multiple 
feedback loops and formative evaluations.   

 
Participants. This study involved 23 volunteer student teachers of English Language 
Teaching (ELT).   They were third year students in a 4-year Teacher Education program. 
Twelve students finished their curriculum maps in Spring 2008, while others decided to 
continue the process during Summer. At the end of the semester, 23 student teachers had 
completed their concept maps. The student teachers had various contrasted views on issues 
such as language policies, the role of English in globalization, and its role regarding Turkish 
secularism and issues related with Christian and Islamic fundamentalisms. Three student 
teachers were chosen for the purpose of this article according to the criteria below: 
 
• The curriculum maps were contrasted enough to allow for a semiotic analysis of their 

development; 
• We had information through observations and interviews about the meaning-making 

process that led to the construction of these maps;  
• The correspondence of items in their curriculum map with subject-matter knowledge 

expressed by student teachers during interviews provided an indication of its ecological 
validity.  
 
The oral interviews with the three participants whose concept maps were chosen for the 

study (two females and one male) were transcribed verbatim, and written interviews were 
used additionally to form an opinion about their curriculum inquiry.  
 
Data. The study was based on multiple sources: group discussion, peer work, teacher’s 
participatory observations, oral feedback on their curriculum design, research logs, students’ 
comments, written and oral interviews. The student teachers had no idea about concept 
mapping before starting their portfolio. The participants studied with their peers and in 
groups and explored individually ways of building concept maps electronically to represent 
their curriculum knowledge. Student teachers were observed during both individual studies 
and group discussions at which time notes were taken. The students were given a written 
interview form, following which they sent their answers for the interview questions by e-
mail. Participants were also observed while doing their curriculum maps and were 
interviewed orally for about 20 minutes each. Besides their memos, and transcriptions of 
interviews held in the Turkish language, the researchers translated parts of the student 
teachers’ comments on the concept mapping process to share the details. From the beginning 
of the research logs were kept for each meeting day.  



Tochon & Okten: Curriculum mapping and instructional affordances 

 

 
Transnational Curriculum Inquiry 7 (1) 2010 http://nitinat.library.ubc.ca/ojs/index.php/tci 

 

9 

 
Procedure. While building e-portfolios, student teachers learned concept mapping to 
explore, envision and discuss their subject-matter knowledge, as Beyerbach (1988) and 
Beyerbach and Smith (1990) had modeled. Thus concept mapping was an integral step in 
portfolio planning. Curriculum maps offered a nice way to scaffold conceptual supports in 
this project-based learning through the student teachers’ collaborations and their growing 
knowledge community. The participants’ instructions were to detail through concept maps 
what they knew rather than what they did not know. They were given handouts and were 
guided flexibly in the process. They could search more information on the internet. They 
shared such information, comparing models and studies. It was decided not to constrain 
concept mapping with too many rules, of which formalism could restrict the creative flow. 
Most examples were from Novak’s style maps. They met once a week at the computer 
laboratory and had another weekly meeting in a normal classroom to discuss the process and 
contents. It is usual in teacher education to guide the students and to provide precise 
formatting criteria for action. Here however, student teachers were free to choose their own 
framework and format when they mapped their curriculum knowledge. Participants were 
encouraged to include both curricular beliefs and facts in their concept maps, while being 
reminded that ‘up-to-date’ meanings are never perfect, nor immutable. After preparing their 
own concept maps, they compared their work with their peers and became evaluators of their 
curriculum maps.   
 
Data analysis. Semiotic analysis is a hermeneutic process. It gave the researchers the 
opportunity to identify commonalities and be provided with flexibility in the research. The 
resulting emphasis was to try not to essentialize the data or the process but to study the 
normalization process which is inherent with curriculum design. We enacted an integrated 
and not dualistic epistemology  – Peirce was a pragmatist while also considering that 
conceptual normalization was part of the process rising from firstness to thirdness. We 
utilized Shank & Cunningham’s (1996) model of reasoning  – derived from Peirce’s works  – 
to explain student teachers’ mapping process as an initial step in the creation of their 
portfolio. We tried to show how they construct their curriculum through available 
affordances, or through the perception of specific ‘semio-niches’ proper to the classroom 
environment of ELT in Turkey.  The questions addressed the following points: perception of 
curriculum knowledge; sub-concept maps and the rationale for their organizing; possible 
conceptual conflicts in the process of building curriculum knowledge; questions raised while 
choosing relevant knowledge; trans-semiosis: transformations of knowledge stimulated by 
the mapping process; criteria for curriculum relevance; ways of reflecting: thought processes 
and ways of categorizing what is important for the field of action; selection as political 
process: ways the curriculum was politicized by the categories chosen; curriculum and 
identity development: transformative learning in the mapping process. 
 
Semiotic analysis of the curriculum mapping process 
We focused on the answers of three student teachers related to their curriculum mapping. The 
answers were evaluated in terms of meaning construction; of student teachers’ reflection on 
the subject-matter; of their way of categorizing the subject-matter; and the semiotic processes 
that supported deep, transformative thinking involving identity reframing.   
 
Semiotic processes that led student teachers to think more deeply  
Curriculum mapping was a special case of portfolio building process. Identical semiotic 
processes were at work in portfolio building, as in both cases the arguments were linking 



Tochon & Okten: Curriculum mapping and instructional affordances 

 

 
Transnational Curriculum Inquiry 7 (1) 2010 http://nitinat.library.ubc.ca/ojs/index.php/tci 

 

10 

normative experience. Hereafter, we analyze each student teacher’s curriculum map as the 
progressive sedimentation of layers of understanding that stimulated semiotic inquiry to 
frame a personal view of the curriculum. It urged the students to think deeply about their 
subject-matter knowledge. What they learned about themselves in this process was to give 
attention to the meaning and usage of the language. They saw  – which surprised them very 
much  – that when they wrote a word on the map, they would immediately remember another 
subject-matter relevant to it. They decided to limit the sub-titles because conceptual fields 
were related to each other in a certain way. They had to hierarchize the subject-matter and 
select what they believed would be worth keeping on their map.  

Shank & Cunningham’s model (1996) guided us in the analysis of curriculum semiosis in 
the following sections.  Harun, Seval, and Esra (pseudonyms) were the three students whose 
concept maps were chosen for the present study. They were invited to discuss their 
curriculum mapping and comment their maps, then share them with each other. This section 
analyzes their conversations, and the oral interviews as well as written remarks they made 
during the process. Their curriculum maps are presented in figures 1, 2, and 3. 
 
Harun, Student Teacher 1  
Hunch: Harun had no prior experience with concept mapping, and never thought about his 
own curriculum knowledge; therefore the selection of valid topics was a demanding task. His 
intuitions are not clear. In his oral interview, Harun complains about limited time he had for 
designing his curriculum map. He is trying to organize his thoughts which are fuzzy at this 
stage. His design incorporated both structural and social aspects of the curriculum. 
 
Symptom: Harun searched the internet for possible designs. He drafted possible forms of 
maps trying to put titles and sub-titles. He felt confined mostly to the structural aspect, but it 
helped him remember basic curriculum knowledge and teaching techniques within the 
discipline. When we observed him, Harun was looking at the design on paper. He tried to put 
everything on one page, perceived as the most compact design. He preferred a hierarchical 
composition of topics. Because Harun’s concept map structure largely followed the visual 
patterns that were given to him earlier, it was evident that these framed his knowledge of the 
discipline.  
 
Metaphor: Observations indicated that Harun’s designing process involved naming and 
ordering ideas within a hierarchy. He used internet as a reference resource for both choosing 
curriculum concepts and map designs. Harun designed his map according to samples on 
internet and comparing the results with his peers and paid more attention to design than to 
consistency between titles and sub-titles. Harun constructed his curriculum knowledge on a 
structural basis with contents, teaching and learning aspects, and then linked these elements 
to English understood as a worldwide language. He also alluded to the historical and 
economic backgrounds of the discipline. During the interview, Harun does not reflect about 
the language teaching literature and therefore it does not show up on his concept map. He 
does not feel the need either to discuss grammar and language skills. 
 
Clue: Harun sees culture as the constructing element of language. He induced how popular 
English is through its historical importance and current impacts on economy. He emphasizes 
the social dimension of English as a possible cause for its worldwide popularity. He 
expresses clearly the connections between teaching and learning.  

 



Tochon & Okten: Curriculum mapping and instructional affordances 

 

 
Transnational Curriculum Inquiry 7 (1) 2010 http://nitinat.library.ubc.ca/ojs/index.php/tci 

 

11 

 
 

Figure 1. Harun’s Curriculum Map 
 
Diagnosis: Harun states that he used his previous curriculum knowledge in making those 
connections. Doing his curriculum map was a worthwhile experience. He evaluates concept 
mapping as a useful method for instruction. For Harun, capitalism and the industrial 
revolution are primary factors contributing to the popularity of English. To him capitalism 
largely the cultural specificity of the Anglo-world: it stimulates its expansion, promotes its 
hegemony and leads it to control the rest of the world. This diagnostic explains Harun’s sub-
titles for English language teaching: ‘money, travel, and interaction’.  
 
Explanation: Harun clarifies the implications of curriculum mapping: he made a self-
assessment of English Language Teaching, and realizes his need to work harder and master 
the discipline as a whole. The mutual connections between the three different foci of English, 
Language, and Teaching now become more meaningful to him. Harun could not post more 
details on his curriculum map because of the size of the paper and, in the electronic format, 
the size of the webpage. He wanted a hierarchical design that, because of this economy of 
space, might overlook some topics. The distinctive concepts on his map are ‘English’, and 
‘Culture’. 
 



Tochon & Okten: Curriculum mapping and instructional affordances 

 

 
Transnational Curriculum Inquiry 7 (1) 2010 http://nitinat.library.ubc.ca/ojs/index.php/tci 

 

12 

Deductive reasoning: Harun re-read his curriculum map and compared it with his peers, and 
then made a self-assessment. Knowing English means having advantages in terms of job 
opportunities. You may earn money more easily, and increase your standard of living. Then 
you can travel, and interact with other people, and cultures. These dimensions that may 
motivate learners are thus, key in Harun’s curriculum vision. Capitalist power provides 
currency and characterizes the contributions of English. Harun connects that view with 
language politics. The power of that currency contributes to shape language policies and 
education policies around the world. At this point in the creation of the map, Esra intervenes 
in the conversation and compares her curriculum map with his. She finds his map inadequate, 
claiming that he needs to write more details about the classroom, language learning, the 
school environment, and the students, Harun then criticizes himself for not having better 
exposed issues related with the school, the classroom, and the students, agreeing that such 
topics should appear more clearly. He also compares his maps with the map of Seval. He 
finds that Seval examines the characteristics of the teacher and learner perspectives in more 
detail.  He especially appreciates her statements about types of learners. Such deductions 
stimulate his transformative semiosis as he is discovering his own identity traits in the 
process, which leads him to revise his belief system. 
  
Identification: The next semiosis levels (identification, prediction, and model building) 
appear clearly in Harun’s oral interview. Harun corrects his previous views; he should have 
written ‘Teachers’ before the ‘Students’ title. He had identified these two opposite 
perspectives coincidentally, but they emphasize different ways of approaching curriculum 
reality. He responded that he would better pay attention to classroom ecology, and enlarge 
that topic. 
 
Prediction: The other prospective aspects of what should be learned in English, such as the 
four skills, grammar, vocabulary… are already known and are not new topics for English 
Language Teaching. Nonetheless Harun still insists on the significance of culture in English 
learning. The cultural approach should be emphasized and the classroom activities would be 
better organized along the cultural dimension of the discipline. 
 
Model building: Finally, Harun re-examines ELT through three basic categories: English, 
Language, and Teaching as expressions of globally constructed curriculum knowledge. This 
modeling process has been transformative for Harun as he feels a better sense of 
identification with his curricular stands.  
 
Seval, Student Teacher 2  
Hunch: When Seval started to design her map she faced the curriculum knowledge 
accumulated during her studies. Sketch theses concepts on paper obliged her to categorize, 
and organize her mind map. Her initial huntch was to refer to her undergraduate studies at the 
university and to model her understanding according to that program. She was happy to 
perceive intuitively with a sense of wholeness the broad understanding that she had 
developed, grasping the numerous rhyzomatic aspects of the field. The professor had advised 
her to write about any curriculum item that came to mind; it is what she did as she 
subsequently wrote down everything she remembered about English Language Teaching, 
then she organized these first intuitions. At first she had no idea of what her map could be, 
and how to locate and design knowledge making her approach intuitive. 
 



Tochon & Okten: Curriculum mapping and instructional affordances 

 

 
Transnational Curriculum Inquiry 7 (1) 2010 http://nitinat.library.ubc.ca/ojs/index.php/tci 

 

13 

 
 

Figure 2. Seval’s Curriculum Map 
 

Symptom: Seval mentally surveyed her curriculum knowledge, and noticed that some 
emphasis should be given to the two poles of the learner and the teacher. She wanted to show 
the differences, as she felt it would help her understanding of language teaching. After the 
initial phase of clarification and classification, Seval focused on sub-maps titled ‘teachers’ 
and ‘learners’. While she was attempting to conceptualize what her map could be, she 
realized that she had never reflected about some curriculum topics. As she did not know 
much about teacher types and teaching styles, she researched them on the internet, which 
increased her awareness of such nuances. While Seval started to reflect about language as an 
entity, and about its educational classification, she remembered more details about 
worthwhile knowledge, and decided to make her own design according to what was most 
important teaching for her. One marked preference for Seval was speaking of ‘Linguistics’ 
rather than simply ‘Language’. She initially thought linguistics might include more 
educational topics than language, but then found that she could not compose a whole variety 
of important and useful topics under the ‘Linguistics’ label. 
 
Metaphor: According to Seval, implementing knowledge relative to teacher and learner 
types, styles, methods and applications would make instruction more complete and enjoyable 
for both teacher and student. Seval felt that teachers should consider these factors while 
planning lessons, since in her opinion, these aspects contribute to an adaptive classroom 
environment. During the interview, Seval reflected on the needs of teachers for instruction. In 
her opinion, a language teacher should apply and connect the four language skills together. 
Although Seval identified linguists such as Chomsky, Krashen, Whorf and Sapir, and wants 
to mention them on her concept map, her knowledge about linguistics is not accurate.  



Tochon & Okten: Curriculum mapping and instructional affordances 

 

 
Transnational Curriculum Inquiry 7 (1) 2010 http://nitinat.library.ubc.ca/ojs/index.php/tci 

 

14 

Clue: Seval classified her knowledge in terms of ‘teachers, learners, skills, language, 
literature, language classroom, people, and 5C’s standards’ and tries to show the relevance of 
these categories and their necessity for the discipline. Seval likewise emphasizes teaching 
techniques and methods as what is mostly required in the discipline and believes that the ‘5 
C’s standards approach’ is one of the popular and valid methods in language teaching. She 
notes that the literature in English on these topics is also important. Other important issues 
for keeping students’ learning alive include the language classroom characteristics, 
motivation, the need for feedback, and aspects of the class environment. 
 
Diagnosis: Seval took each category one by one and inquired into the connection of each part 
to the whole. After much hesitation due to comprehension problems about the role of 
linguistics, Seval located it as a sub-title of the ‘Language’ category. She also put the 
linguists under the ‘People’ title to show their contributions to linguistic studies. Seval 
mentions the instructional materials as one of the classroom contexts while examining the 
context variables of language teaching. Then she talks about social strategies (teacher 
centeredness and learner-centeredness from the view point of individuals and large groups). 
She feels it is but one of the major issues of teaching in the Turkish context. 
 
Explanation: Seval chose categories that were key elements for lesson planning. She 
detailed the teacher and learner categories, then emphasized the whole integration of the four 
skills into lesson planning. Seval divided ‘language’ into ‘syntax, semantics, and linguistics’ 
sub-groups to comprehend the nature/structure of language. Seval furthermore felt that if 
English literature is taught, the logic of English will be understood more clearly based on the 
reasoning that when given access to the literature, the students can acquire the utterances of 
the speech community more easily. Based on her opinion that students like to read poems, 
short stories, novels Seval reasoned that they would feel more comfortable learning English 
through literature. 
 
Deductive reasoning: Seval clarified bit by bit the criteria for an appropriate teacher 
education: what should be the teaching and learning specifics, how to apply the 5C’s 
standards as a way to handle the curriculum, organize evaluations to match the Common 
European framework for languages, and integrate literature to provide cultural perspectives 
on the target language. These are all important features of English Language Teaching for 
Seval. Seval compares her own curriculum map with the one of Esra and finds hers to be 
better for several reasons. For starters, Esra discusses English Language Teaching as a 
general concept, and examines the skills as being the basics of language. Seval finds she is 
correct in examining the ‘Learners’ and the ‘Language classroom’ as two separate sub-groups 
whereas Esra deals with them as context variables for teaching. Esra talks about the learners 
in more details as she details the learner types and levels. Seval indicates that Esra does not 
mention any linguist, and literature does not appear on her map. At the same time, Seval finds 
Esra to be more successful in specifying topics such as instructional materials, social 
strategies, and the history of English teaching. Seval criticizes the minor part that evaluation 
plays in Esra’s curriculum map, as Esra says nothing about evaluation, and it seems out of 
her vision. Finally, Seval examines Harun’s map and criticizes its lack of information on 
teaching approaches, techniques, styles, and learners; according to Seval, Harun disregards 
the most important aspects of English Language Teaching, while discussing only two 
teaching methods: grammar translation and the communicative approach. Seval evaluates this 
knowledge to be insufficient, yet appreciates that he mentions the ‘Syllabus’ as an important 
aspect of curriculum knowledge for teaching. 



Tochon & Okten: Curriculum mapping and instructional affordances 

 

 
Transnational Curriculum Inquiry 7 (1) 2010 http://nitinat.library.ubc.ca/ojs/index.php/tci 

 

15 

Identification: Seval identifies teaching and learning specifics that impact classroom 
planning and education. The 5C’s standards are distinctive language standards to demonstrate 
the interconnectedness of all areas of language learning. Literature is needed to comprehend 
the cultural codes of the speech community. With the first sub-title ‘teachers’, Seval deals 
with ‘teacher types, teaching styles, methods, approaches, techniques’, and indicates that 
teachers should know new methods, styles, approaches well to communicate with students 
and teach more meaningfully. She also identifies ‘syntax, linguistics, semantics, the 5C’s 
method’ as a sub-group of ‘language’. In her words, that’s a good way of developing 
language skills. Seval does not need to write a separate title for language politics; indeed her 
curriculum map specifies that educational politics relate with any issues that concern teachers 
and learners. For her, Harun should detail the curriculum aspects that pertain to the school 
and classroom environments, the students, and the teacher with greater depth. These are also 
important aspects of English Language Teaching, and as Harun only shows ‘English’ as a 
sub-group of ELT dealing with money, travel, and interaction, Seval finds these issues 
irrelevant to the discipline. She evaluates her own curriculum map as being more successful 
than his as he does not seem to pay attention to the learners! Nonetheless she admits that he 
mentioned the syllabus as a useful curriculum instrument, which she forgot to place on her 
concept map. But she would prefer to write ‘syllabus’ as a language classroom characteristic.  
 
Prediction: The choice of Seval’s curriculum topics is justified by her main goal which is 
teaching performance in terms of interaction. She believes that this framework will provide a 
better support for learning. She perceives the history of English teaching  – which is not 
found on her map  – as generic only, possibly helpful for teachers and learners but of minor 
importance. Thus she considers her curriculum map to be a sound predictor of successful 
teaching. Seval verifies the implications of the 5C’s standards and the literature on ELT 
training on classroom practice. She recapitulates the peculiar idioms and language utterances, 
and the cultural viewpoints of native speakers provided by literature, and tries to figure out 
how she would use them in a class situation. Finally, Seval feels that learners would develop 
their communicative skills with the 5C’s orientation. 
 
Model building: Seval says that language should be taught and learned in context. In 
addition, using a taxonomy makes knowledge more meaningful. Seval classifies her 
curriculum knowledge as a hierarchy of titles, and contexts are provided to match knowledge 
taxonomies.  The main title is ‘ELT’ and the sub-titles are Teachers, Learners, Skills, 
Language, Literature, Language classroom, People, 5C’s. Seval interprets the realization of 
her map in terms of curriculum modeling, and curriculum building has increased her sense of 
coherence in the discipline taught. 
 
Esra, Student Teacher 3 
Hunch: Esra first reflected on her undergraduate program and tried to find examples in her 
courses at the university. She was wondering what to teach, how to teach, and when to teach. 
She sailed on sight attempting at figuring out what she knew. She alluded to the contents of 
courses to which she added her own elements. In the oral interview, Esra remarks that her 
first concept map was intuitive and disorganized. She wrote down everything coming to her 
mind; there was no systematic order. Then she started to design another map. 
 
 



Tochon & Okten: Curriculum mapping and instructional affordances 

 

 
Transnational Curriculum Inquiry 7 (1) 2010 http://nitinat.library.ubc.ca/ojs/index.php/tci 

 

16 

 
 

 

 
 
 

 
 

Figure 3. Esra’s Curriculum Map 
 
Symptom: Esra drafted her first curriculum map somewhat randomly, and then realized that, 
after this initial brainstorming, she needed a systematic way of classifying her curriculum 
knowledge. She built two categories: ‘teaching’ and ‘learning’. She would make a proper 
selection to match her personal sense of order as necessary along the way. She reflected 
deeply for a good while, and noticed that certain titles were a good fit as curriculum 



Tochon & Okten: Curriculum mapping and instructional affordances 

 

 
Transnational Curriculum Inquiry 7 (1) 2010 http://nitinat.library.ubc.ca/ojs/index.php/tci 

 

17 

organizers. One title would remind her of another possible one, and it was an ongoing, 
creative process. She had to select the most distinctive ones to make English Language 
Teaching more comprehensible. Indeed ELT related topics such as SLA (second language 
acquisition), EFL (English as a foreign language), and linguistics were not clear in her mind 
and would call for more straightfoward theorizing in the discipline. Esra looked for compact 
curriculum titles that could be flashy in her portfolio and would be noticed immediately. Her 
primary concerns while designing her concept map was the anticipated result for her e-
portfolio. She was heavily geared by her university courses in the choice of contents. 
 
Metaphor: While selecting and writing the sub-titles, Esra pushed herself to limit their 
number in order to avoid the complexity and messiness of knowledge ramifications. Most of 
the concepts were related to each other, which allowed her to conclude her selection 
concisely. ‘Language’ and ‘Teaching’ are the main curricular concepts and organizing 
metaphors. Esra was very interested in language as a science, but paradoxically, she did not 
really consider linguistics as a relevant category for her map. The categories she chose are 
important for language learning as an applied field. While she was examining her initial draft, 
more curriculum categories would come to mind. Then she tried to utilize Bloom’s taxonomy 
in an effort to better organize her map. 
 
Clue: Esra emphasized the present and forthcoming status of English and the importance of 
the perception that people have of language status, which seemed to explain the role of ELT 
training in Turkey. If English became less important worldwide, she felt that ELT would be 
out of the agenda of Turkish education. Esra focused on the language and teaching aspects of 
ELT. She would not really consider much linguistics’ topics and its jargon as, for her, 
linguistics items were anyway already included in the broader, language category. Esra firstly 
considered teaching styles as a category that seemed relevant as a guide for action: in what 
way would the teacher be a model and, in other words, which characteristics teachers should 
expose in the classroom. Esra calls the teacher a facilitator, but what does the teacher 
facilitate in the classroom? She tried to find clues. 

 
Diagnosis: She eventually chose ‘linguistics’ as well as ‘English’ as the sub-titles of 
‘Language’ after consulting the maps of her peers. ‘History of language teaching’, ‘theory of 
language teaching’ then became sub-titles of ‘teaching’. Esra argued that English teaching 
practices, their historical background, and lingua franca status should be demonstrated during 
language training, as they were fundamental to the understanding of the discipline. The 
teacher should orient students towards not only acquiring knowledge, but also interpreting it 
critically. Besides the general teaching methods such as brainstorming, role-playing, she 
would distinguish the learner and teacher types separately, and develop the intelligence types 
as learner characteristics. She thus establishes a diagnostic of useful knowledge. 
 
Explanation: Esra indicated that one might find her curriculum map political, but her 
attempt was epistemic. For her, teaching the sociocultural aspects was the most crucial in a 
discipline that otherwise might simply be submitted to hegemonic practices, leading her to 
question the historical background of English. Today, English seems to be accepted as a 
lingua franca. Language history would probably help explain to students why they learn 
English. Esra wants her students to further consider what would happen if they did not learn 
English, and why English is so popular today rather than other languages? Additionally, Esra 
examines the status of English, the 5 C’s standard approach, instructional materials, social 
strategies in classroom, and the language structure in both receptive (interpretive) and 



Tochon & Okten: Curriculum mapping and instructional affordances 

 

 
Transnational Curriculum Inquiry 7 (1) 2010 http://nitinat.library.ubc.ca/ojs/index.php/tci 

 

18 

productive (presentational) skills). She includes language knowledge and evaluation as 
crucial elements for teaching English. Esra does not discuss linguistics much because she 
does not believe it is important for teaching the language. In so doing, her conceptions match 
communicative theory: ; she wants to facilitate proficiency, not train grammar specialists. 
 
Deductive reasoning: Having a second look at her map, Esra realized what was her real 
level of English language acquisition, as well as her current level of mastery of the theories, 
classroom applications, and methods. The map helped her reach a level where she could start 
investigating deductively and systematically into knowledge organizing and proficiency, after 
the first inductive phases. Curriculum mapping helped Esra remember and reflect deeply on 
her disciplinary field. She decided that teachers should practice different methods together for 
meaningful learning, and that such eclecticism would be more profitable in the classroom. 
The teacher’s input in terms of personal experiences and characteristics are a necessary 
component of successful teaching as lived experiences make the material meaningful for the 
student. Esra forgot to mention Literature as an instructional tool, she notices. She believes in 
the usefulness of literature in language teaching but prefers using literature for homework as 
well as occasional classroom applications. Esra furthermore accepts the critiques she received 
from her peers on the ‘Evaluation’ part of her curriculum map. With more reflection, she 
would write ‘Feedback’ instead of ‘Evaluation’ as she agrees that it provides a better fit with 
her general conception of teaching. Esra examines Seval’s concept map and finds that Seval 
has a deeper account of teaching in general, but she also feels that it not so much open to the 
characteristic details of the discipline and that Seval could be more specific. Esra appreciates 
Seval’s curriculum view for classifying learner types such as visual, auditory and kinesthetic 
and taking their characteristics into account. This point in particular brings Esra to 
reconceptualize her own approach to concept mapping. Now, she would prefer not to express 
the Teacher and Learner characteristics under the title Theory of language teaching. As a 
result, viewing the maps of her peers helps Esra reframe her own knowledge. The first 
abductive and inductive phases are now replaced by deduction and she examines different 
rationales. Esra argues that Harun put general titles on his map and that he should have 
opened such generic conceptual boxes and refine their distinctive characteristics to look for 
their instructional (didactic) implications in the discipline itself. 
 
Identification: Esra admits she needs some brainstorming to engage more in what English 
Language Teaching studies represent and make her curriculum more meaningful. She wants 
to attend conferences to see samples of processed curriculum knowledge. Feedback inspired 
Esra to reflect on the concepts of the discipline. She felt she could better classify the teachers 
according to types of professional experiences. She did not integrate language politics in her 
concept map. When it came to be discussed with the students she concluded that each 
curriculum map demonstrates a personal teaching philosophy. Each map depicts the 
discipline in various ways, and their approaches indicate their own politics of education. The 
distinctive point in her map is the role of history in constructing the field of knowledge. 
According to her, Harun should have put more sub-titles and have clarified the instructional 
topics, as he talks about only two methods grammar translation and communicative approach 
and needs to account for many more aspects of language teaching. Nevertheless, she 
appreciates his map’s cultural viewpoint, as he reflects about English culture from a global 
perspective. 
 
Prediction: Courses are not sufficient to acquire professionalism; Esra needs to experience 
more language teaching practices. She also needs to revisit her lesson plans as regards the 



Tochon & Okten: Curriculum mapping and instructional affordances 

 

 
Transnational Curriculum Inquiry 7 (1) 2010 http://nitinat.library.ubc.ca/ojs/index.php/tci 

 

19 

historical background of the discipline, and get a better sense of its worlwide potential value 
for the future. Esra uses Richards & Rodgers’ book in her discussion of methods. She thinks 
teachers should add their own experiences to the methods to improve teaching. They should 
note their personal traits to make the best out of it and create a coherent, professional profile. 
Esra gives herself as an example: she sometimes becomes impatient, which may affect her 
professionalism. She evaluates the learners according to what they bring into the classroom, 
not as a measure of their learning aptitudes. In the classroom environment, the teacher should 
notice the students’ background, their developmental characteristics, interests, and discover 
their talents. Commenting on her map, she mentions that linguistics includes semantics and 
syntax, so you do not need to show them separately. 
 
Model building: Esra’s concept map is based more on theories than practices. She considers 
the national curriculum and knowledge she received during teacher training, which indicates 
the key role of teacher education in shaping the curriculum values that will be enacted in the 
classroom. Esra divides the domain of ‘ELT’ into two main topics, ‘Teaching’ and 
‘Language’. Then she divides ‘Language’ into two sections: ‘English’ and ‘Linguistics’. She 
makes two groups of language skills: receptive (reading, listening) and productive (speaking, 
writing). She classifies the methods under the ‘History of language teaching’. She remarks 
that Harun added something more distinctive besides the categories they studied at the 
university: a different interpretation of disciplinary knowledge can be noticed on his map.  
She feels that because he built an original model, this helps her re-think about her own 
positioning.   
 
If we compare the three maps, all three use previous curriculum knowledge constructed 
during teacher education at the university. Prior knowledge provides the hunch to start the 
reflective process but, while deliberating about the field of knowledge, the student teachers 
increase their capacity to work on curriculum at a metasemiotic level. Seval and Esra 
emphasize the teaching and learning aspects that are key to the transition from theory to 
practice. Their approaches are based on neo-constructivism but they follow structural 
procedures for instruction. First, a valid approach is chosen through needs analysis, then it is 
applied to the target group because its application can be meaningful. Finally the results and 
expectations are evaluated according to the objectives. Both Seval and Esra focus on the 
previously modelled structure that they were given during their teacher training, and do not 
use their capacity to reach a personal, idiosyncratic interpretation of their own. In contrast, 
Harun’s inner dialogue helps him model a sense of globalization along the lines of a 
‘semiotic of the self’ (Petrilli, 2003). Even if Harun’s map seems somewhat distant from 
known designs of the field, he elicits a sociocultural perspective with global implications and 
connections that indicate a higher level of metasemiosis. His case manifests the metasemiotic 
process more clearly than the others. First he interrupts routine conceptions of the domain, he 
suspends his interpretation of English Language Teaching for a while as he reflects, and then 
deliberates on the imperialist power of English and imposed English language policies, and 
finally makes original decisions and suggestions in terms of communication, education, 
economy, and state governance. His metasemiosis involves knowledge reframing and 
determines his position towards the English language and culture. The process makes him 
feel the responsibility of his own curriculum knowledge as it relates to professional action. 
Thus he develops what Petrilli (2004) has named ‘semioethics’. 
 
 



Tochon & Okten: Curriculum mapping and instructional affordances 

 

 
Transnational Curriculum Inquiry 7 (1) 2010 http://nitinat.library.ubc.ca/ojs/index.php/tci 

 

20 

Discussion 
Evaluation of curriculum maps  
A constructive approach of curriculum maps 
Curriculum semiosis was explored among Turkish student teachers who will teach English as 
a foreign language. For that purpose, curriculum mapping was instrumental in helping 
activate reflection on the semiotic framing of the field and consequently help the students 
construe a sense of professionalism. Mapping curriculum knowledge allowed the participants 
to inquire into how they perceived, understood, constructed, interpreted, ‘enminded’ 
(Tochon, 2000a) and enacted the discipline taught. The feedback on this process shed light on 
the crucial role of teacher education courses in the shaping of curriculum contents. It is 
compatible with a constructivist view of teacher education. Curriculum maps support a 
constructive view of teaching, as it did for Harun. The study of semiotic features raises 
awareness of the sign systems and its codes. Student teachers give meanings to signs 
according to codes of which they are not aware. Student teachers who evaluate and interpret 
their curriculum knowledge reflect on the value of contents and the expressions of knowledge 
they learned previously. Such an inquiry process makes curriculum learning more 
meaningful. Student teachers do not acquire subject-matter knowledge as a set of neutral, 
sanitized concepts, but rather construct their own perception of relevant knowledge through 
interpretations, dialogues, collaborations, additions and improvements. They also adapt 
themselves to new knowledge that is reconstructed by their mutual contributions. 
Constructing their curriculum then becomes a relevance process: Each time, knowledge is 
added to prior models, students adjust themselves with new interpretations. 

As this approach is experience-based, the resulting knowledge is experimental and 
intersubjective, allowing curriculum mapping to provide a framework for teacher 
development. Because curriculum mapping connects ideas visually, its design contributes to 
indicate the nature of the relations between ideas and cases. It provides a road map that shows 
the convergences and ways of connecting meanings and assumptions. In this respect, 
curriculum mapping is an approach we can recommend in the current reforms as its helps 
practitioners reflect on the organization of knowledge. As concept mapping has been 
recommended by the Turkish national curriculum to increase the quality of education at all 
levels (MEB TTKB Curriculum, 2005) this study provides supporting data for this approach 
in a pre-service context, demonstrating that it leads to more reflective, creative, collaborative, 
and pragmatic approaches.  
 
Benefits of Curriculum Semiotic Mapping  
The primary finding of this study is that curriculum maps can be used as training tools for 
student teachers to improve their professional skills or improve their view of the curriculum 
they will enact in classroom situations. Knowledge mapping proved to be an encouraging 
semiotic approach which allowed student teachers to get a sense of what was meaningful in 
the subject-matter as it eased communication between the student teachers and their teacher 
educator. Additionally, curriculum mapping facilitated the acquisition of major educational 
concepts as the curriculum maps indicated to students the connections between subjects that 
they had been taught and those they would choose to teach, thus legitimating their teacher 
education. Curriculum maps furthermore stimulated reflective practice among student 
teachers, leading them to re-conceptualize their personal, academic and professional 
knowledge. The student teachers could then collaboratively discuss the relevance of their 
priorities, better prepare professionally, and minimize the risks of being inexperienced.  



Tochon & Okten: Curriculum mapping and instructional affordances 

 

 
Transnational Curriculum Inquiry 7 (1) 2010 http://nitinat.library.ubc.ca/ojs/index.php/tci 

 

21 

Curriculum mapping also helped these student teachers to foster their professionalism as 
lifelong learners. They started to understand that curriculum building is a form of interpretive 
conceptualizing, it is partly fabricated. In the Peircean view, experimentation is important to 
fix beliefs. Curriculum mapping allows the students to review their personal reflections, 
expectations, past goals and criticisms. The process of developing individualized curriculum 
maps raised students’ awareness of what they knew, and led them to reflect on the utility and 
the pertinency of subject-matter knowledge, their deficiencies in disciplinary training, 
possible lack of motivation and self-assessment in the growth of professionalism. In the 
beginning the student teachers had some difficulty locating and classifying subject-matters on 
paper. However, they soon felt they were placed in the position of future professionals 
making crucial choices as to what is to be taught during one school year. One particular 
motivating factor for the student teachers was their desire to behave like qualified teachers. 
Defining for themselves what a ‘qualified teacher’ would do motivated them to reflect about 
the concepts of their discipline. While they were appreciating their level of knowledge they 
were encouraged to represent their ideas on improving the field, which was a sound 
preparation for their internship. 

The study indicates that teacher educators can use curriculum mapping as a reflective 
tool to professionalize student teachers through providing self-assessment and highlighting 
possible deficiencies. Students who map their knowledge reframe the functions and contents 
of the courses they took.  Other aspects revealed by conversations around curriculum 
mapping were the importance of preparing for large class activities, and developing the 
listening and speaking skills required to teach in the target language. Curriculum mapping 
was an excellent instrument for both teacher educators and student teachers to foster their 
professional skills, and gave rise to important questions on the nature of curricular 
knowledge. The student teachers investigated proper ways to sequence knowledge, and the 
reasoning behind the construction of disciplinary knowledge. 

The concept of affordance was useful in emphasizing that the national curriculum is not 
lived in abstracto, but must be adapted to specific meaningful niches and semiotic 
environments where it is being taught. Furthermore student teachers have their own semiotic 
niches and affordances with particular aspects of the curriculum, which will lead to prioritize 
particular segments of the national program; curriculum mapping proved to be an interesting 
way to dig into the rationales for such choices. Student teachers were guided from their initial 
level of intuitive inquiry (the firstness level) to articulate the major objects of the curriculum 
with coherence (at the secondness level) and start moving these curriculum concepts into a 
theoretical whole, which helped them reframe the field as their professional domain of 
thought and action. The whole process was deep enough that it not only aimed at teaching 
and learning but gave them a taste for ‘deep education’ (Tochon, 2008) 
 
Curriculum knowledge construction 
In this study, we have analyzed curriculum mapping as a metasemiotic, and potentially trans-
semiotic process, which involves multiple layers of negotiation and design. Curricula tend to 
represent the authority that aims at fixing meanings for society. The shared understanding in 
Turkish institutions is that meaning construction can evolve in the students’ minds but it is 
supposed to be stable and normed in the teacher’s mind. The teacher gets training to objectify 
concepts in a way that will permit either their transmission or their reflective reconstruction. 
Bourdieu (2001) might note that such naturalizing is part of the school enforcement of the 
sociocultural heritage. As this study demonstrates, knowledge is certainly more than 
information processing. Its selection and processing emerges from identity processes.  
 



Tochon & Okten: Curriculum mapping and instructional affordances 

 

 
Transnational Curriculum Inquiry 7 (1) 2010 http://nitinat.library.ubc.ca/ojs/index.php/tci 

 

22 

Harun, for example, has a socio-political view of the discipline taught that differs drastically 
from the ones of its peers. When he compared his map to theirs, he realized that he missed 
some methodological dimensions that would be relevant compared to his initial vision. After 
discussion with his peers, however, he agreed to complement his political philosophy with 
other stands that indicate that he agreed to change to follow external suggestions. Over time 
the modeling process proves transformative for Harun as he feels an increased identification 
with his curricular stands.  
 
Seval’s reflection, on the other hand, is based on ascertained knowledge: she takes for 
granted knowledge she was given during teacher training courses. This prevents her from 
having a thorough reading of Harun’s innovative views. She sees these views as insufficient 
from the viewpoint of methods as essentialized in the didactic discourse, although they dig 
into crucial issues in the sociology of knowledge and the politics of language. In this respect, 
Seval doesn’t demonstrate much trans-semiosis outside of a few categories of understanding 
that she felt Esra articulated somewhat better than her, and for the increased sense of 
coherence within the discipline taught. 
 
Esra deeply reflects on language status and how people perceive and create social 
valorization of particular language practices. She realizes that the current status of English 
might change one day, given how it is closely related with the current economic power of the 
Anglo-Saxon world, which could partly vanish in one or two decades. Esra develops a better 
understanding that her discipline of choice is a matter of epistemic and social representation. 
Then while considering Harun’s map, Esra sees that he has a global perspective on the 
English culture that shows up on his map, which leads her to revisit her own map. This 
interaction with Harun’s conceptualization of history leads her to reframe her perspective in a 
way that differs from the orientation provided in method courses, but it is a better fit with her 
new sense of what is important in what she will do as an English teacher. Through the trans-
semiosis of these three student teachers, it becomes obvious that curriculum is related with 
shared experience, identities, humaneness as well as conceptualizing and design.  
 
We have analyzed the dynamic emergence of relations between agency and structure, and 
observed how student teachers reconceptualize their discipline in original ways, including 
how the structure of their curriculum maps evolves as meanings are never fixed. The way 
concepts are conveyed in the school context explains why students often fail to personalize 
what they learned. Student teachers likewise often exhibit this tendency. As this study shows, 
however, student teachers would like to see knowledge as an effective and functional way of 
acting in their professional lives. The myth of effectiveness hides the values underlying 
evaluation. Evaluation is a valuing process and is part of a normalizing semiosis, leading 
prior knowledge to condition what is considered good education. Reflecting on the designing 
process helped student teachers understand the fabrication of knowledge for schooling 
allowing them to become critically reflective.  
 
Conclusion 
The student teachers’ perception of the curriculum is based on values that differ markedly 
according to their sociocultural substrate and experiential history. In helping student teachers 
understand how central the valuing process is to education, semiotic analysis offers a useful 
interpretive framework, given how the goals of education can in turn be understood as 
semiotic expressions.  When, for example, student teachers design their curriculum on 
electronic maps, they tend to reconstruct and reconceptualize their understanding of the 



Tochon & Okten: Curriculum mapping and instructional affordances 

 

 
Transnational Curriculum Inquiry 7 (1) 2010 http://nitinat.library.ubc.ca/ojs/index.php/tci 

 

23 

subject-matter for teaching. This form of curriculum building constitutes a meaning 
negotiation endeavor imbued with values that involves political and sociocultural choices, 
selection, a hierarchizing of values and their enactment into a model that can be taught in 
schools. Thus curriculum mapping can be an interesting instrument to observe and discuss 
hunches and values that lead the edification of curriculum choices among postulant 
practitioners. Viewing curriculum mapping, then, as a process and not as a goal in itself helps 
explicate how disciplinary knowledge is enmeshed with personal knowledge.   

Based on the interviews that accompanied the process of curriculum mapping, we 
observed that the student teacher looks at the curriculum in terms of prior knowledge and 
experiences in search for semiotic niches on which to base his or her teaching practice. 
Curriculum mapping is based on the selection of and affordance with subject-matter niches in 
which student teachers feel comfortable.  For them, the curriculum has conceptual niches to 
which they must get accustomed. The student teacher’s semiotic inquiry can be regarded as 
the discovery of such affordances, which is why curriculum mapping is such a helpful 
process. Affordances do not exist independently from the perceiver but rather imply 
interaction in the meaning construction process. The curriculum supports a particular set of 
interactional constructions that are available for teachers who know how to use these 
affordances. Thus the theory of affordance, analyzed from a Peircean, semiotic viewpoint, 
provides a way to decipher how student teachers give meanings and functions to curriculum 
objects and interactively build their conceptual niches. 

To sum up, when student teachers try to resolve their doubts, they follow hunches and 
look for clues, building scenarios and coming up with possible explanations. They sharpen 
their ability to catch what symptoms are important and need to be trusted, and which ones are 
irrelevant. Abduction is the beginning of the process of conceptualizing. Ideas are linked by 
reason and evaluated. As student teachers jointly compared curriculum maps they also 
challenged their beliefs, induced genuine doubt and stimulated conceptual reframing. The 
deciphering of affordances is an expression of semiotic inquiry. It helped student teachers 
explore the conceptual processes of selection elicited when designing the curriculum. In this 
process, the student teachers had to fix their beliefs. This implied selective decision-making. 
Mapping curriculum affordances generated a form of reasoning that was initially of abductive 
nature, as the student teachers were stimulated to enter a transformative process, through 
which they had to make meaning of their own meaning-making. We named that process 
‘trans-semiosis’. Understanding their own abductive reasoning in framing the subject-matter 
in turn characterized the student teachers’ inquiry and gave the whole process an educational 
dimension.   
 
Acknowledgements 
The research reported in this article was supported by a grant from Tübitak – the National 
Science and Technology Council of Turkey – that permitted the first author to spend one 
semester onsite facilitating the integration of e-portfolios, and from the Spencer Foundation 
(#38723) that supported data processing on issues of globalization, standardization and 
organizational learning as well as a visit of the second author to UW-Madison. We are 
grateful to Elif Kir, research assistant, for helping with some aspects of data collection and 
transcription, and to Nathan Black who did the linguistic revision of the paper. We are also 
grateful to the pre-service teachers who participated in the study, to Münire Erden and to Ali 
Ilker Gumuseli for their support all along the implementation of the portfolio project.  
 
 



Tochon & Okten: Curriculum mapping and instructional affordances 

 

 
Transnational Curriculum Inquiry 7 (1) 2010 http://nitinat.library.ubc.ca/ojs/index.php/tci 

 

24 

References 
Allott, R. (1994). Language and the origin of Semiosis. In W. North (Ed.), Sign evolution in 

nature and culture, Part III Glottogenesis: Phylogeny, ontogeny, and actogeny 
(pp.255-268). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.  

Beyerbach, B. A. (1988). Developing a technical vocabulary on teacher planning: Preservice 
teachers' concept maps. Teacher & Teacher Education, 4(4), 339-347. 

Beyerbach, B. A., & Smith, J. M. (1990). Using a computerized concept mapping program to 
assess preservice teachers' thinking about effective teaching. Journal of Research in 
Science Teaching, 27(10), 961-971. 

Bopry, J. (2002). Semiotics, epistemology, and Inquiry. Teaching & Learning, 17(1), 5-18. 
Bourdieu, P. (2001). Langage et pouvoir symbolique (Language and symbolic power). Paris : 

Seuil, Essais.  
Brown, D. A. (2002, March). Creative concept mapping. The Science Teacher, 69(3), 58-61.  
Burgin, M., & Schumann, J. H. (2006). Three levels of the symbolosphere. Semiotica, 160 (1-

4), 185-202.   
Chandler, D. (2007). Semiotics: The basics (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge. 
Cunningham, D. (1987). Outline of an education semiotic. The American Journal of Semiotic, 

5(2), 201-216. 
Cunningham, D. J. (2002). Semiotic inquiry in Education. Teaching & Learning, 17(1), 19-

24. 
Daley, B. J., Shaw, C. R., Balistrieri, T. Glasenap, K. & Piacentine, L. (January 1999). 

Concept maps: A strategy to teach and evaluate critical thinking. Journal of Nursing 
Education, 38(1), 42-47.  

Danesi, M. (2002). Understanding media semiotics. London: Arnold. 
Deely, J. (1994). The human use of signs or elements of anthroposemiosis. Lanham, MD: 

Rowman & Littlefield. 
Gómez, A., Moreno, A., Pazos, J., & Sierra-Alonso, A. (2000). Knowledge maps: An 

essential technique for conceptualisation. Data and Knowledge Engineering, 33(2), 
169-190.  

Gough, N. (2006). Quality imperialism in higher education: A global empire of the mind? 
ACCESS: Critical Perspectives on Communication, Cultural & Policy Studies, 25(2), 
1–15.  

Kankkunen, M. (2004). How to acquire ‘The Habit of Changing Habits’: The marriage of 
Charles Peirce’s semiotic paradigm and concept mapping. In A. J. Cañas, J. D. Novak 
& F. M. González (Eds.), Proceedings of the First Conference on Concept Mapping. 
pp. 9. Pamplona, Spain. Retrieved on Mai 2, 2008 from 
http://cmc.ihmc.us/papers/cmc2004-109.pdf. 

Kemmis, S., & McTaggart, R. (2005). Participatory Action Research:  Communicative action 
and the public sphere. In N. Denzin and Y. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage Handbook of 
Qualitative Research (3rd ed., pp. 559-604).  Thousand Oaks, CA:  Sage. 

Logan, R.K. & Schumann, J.H. (2005). The Symbolosphere, Conceptualization, Language 
and Neo-Dualism. Semiotica, 155-1/4, pp.201-214. 

MEB (Ministry of National Education), TTKB (Teaching Training Board Chairmanship), 
(2005). Curriculum.  http://ttkb.meb.gov.tr/ 

Menand, L. (1997). An introduction to pragmatism. In L. Menand (Ed.), Pragmatism (pp.xi-
xxxiv). New York: Vintage.  

Merrell, F. (2000). Change through signs of body, mind, and language. Prospect Heights, IL: 
Waveland Press. 

Norman, D. A. (1988). The psychology of everyday things. New York: Basic Books. 



Tochon & Okten: Curriculum mapping and instructional affordances 

 

 
Transnational Curriculum Inquiry 7 (1) 2010 http://nitinat.library.ubc.ca/ojs/index.php/tci 

 

25 

Novak, J. D., & Cañas, A. J. (2006). Building on new constructivist ideas and CmapTools to 
create a new model for education. Retrieved on Jan. 14 2008 from: 
http://emerge2006.net/connect/site/UploadWSC/emerge2006/file40/NewModelforEdu
cation.pdf 

Novak, J. D., & Cañas, A. J. (2008, January). The theory underlying concept maps and how 
to construct and use them. Technical Report IHMC CmapTools 01-2008. Retrieved on 
July 2d, 2008 from: http://cmap.ihmc.us/Publications/ResearchPapers/TheoryCmaps 

Øhrstrom, P. (1997). C. S. Peirce and the quest for Gamma Graphs. In Conceptual structures: 
fullfilling Peirce’s dream (Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, pp.357-370). New 
York: Springer.   

Okten, C. E., & Tochon, F. V. (2009). Organizational learning for the development of 
national and European Union standards in Turkish teacher education. European 
Journal of Education, in press. 

Osberg, K. M. (1997). Constructivism in practice: The case for meaning-making in the virtual 
world. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. School of Education, University of 
Washington, Seattle, WA.  

Peirce, C. S. (1931-1958). The Collected Papers  (C. Hartshorne & P. Weiss (Eds.), Vols.1-6; 
A. Burks (Ed.), Vols. 7-8). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.  

Peirce, C. S. (1867-1893/1992). The essential Peirce: Selected philosophical writings, vol. 1 
(1867-1893) (N. Houser & C. Kloesel, Eds.). Bloomington, IN: Indiana University 
Press. 

Peirce, C. S. (1877a). The fixation of belief. Popular Science Monthly, 12, 1-15. Also in 
Peirce Edition Project, Writings of Charles S. Peirce, Vol. 3: 1872-1878 (pp.242-
256). Retrieved on June 5, 2007 from http://www.peirce.org/writings/p107.html 

Peirce, C. S. (1877b/1957). Illustrations of the logic of science. Popular Science Monthly. In 
Peirce Edition Project, Writings of Charles S. Peirce, Vol. 3: 1872-1878 (pp.242-
337). Bloomington, IN: University of Indiana Press. 

Petrilli, S. (2004). The responsibility of power and the power of responsibility: From the 
‘semiotic’ to the ‘semioethic’ animal. In G. Withalmm & J. Wallmannsberger (Eds.), 
Macht der Zeichen, Zeichen der Macht. / Signs of Power, Power of Signs. Essays in 
Honor of Jeff Bernard (pp.103-119). Wien: INST, www.inst.at.  

Petrilli, S., & Ponzio, A. (1998). Signs of research on signs. Semiotische Berichte. 
Österreichschen Gesellschaft für Semiotik, 22(3/4). 

Petrilli, S., & Ponzio, A. (2007). The semiotic animal. Applying biosemiotics: understanding 
and misunderstanding culture. Roundtable Organiser: Paul Cobley. 9th World 
Congress of IASS/AIS Communication: Understanding/Misunderstanding.11-17 June 
2007, University of Helsinki, International Semiotics Institute at Imatra. pp.9. 
Retrieved on Mai 25, 2008 from 
http://susanpetrilli.com/Papers%20cart/5.Semiotic_Animal.pdf  

Pinar, W. F. (2005). Complicated conversation: Occasions for ‘intellectual breakthrough’ in 
the internationalization of curriculum studies. Journal of Curriculum Studies 
(Taiwan), 1(1), 1–26. 

Schumann, J. H. (2003, November). Evolution of the Symbolosphere. Paper presented at the 
Great Ideas in social Sciences Lecture, University of California, LA, Center for 
Governance. 

Sebeok, T. A. (2001). Global Semiotics. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.  
Shank, G. (1995). Semiotics and qualitative research in education: The third crossroad. The 

Qualitative Report, 2(3), pp.9. Retrieved on April 4, 2008 from: 
http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR2-3/shank.html 



Tochon & Okten: Curriculum mapping and instructional affordances 

 

 
Transnational Curriculum Inquiry 7 (1) 2010 http://nitinat.library.ubc.ca/ojs/index.php/tci 

 

26 

Shank, G., & Cunningham, D. J. (1996). Modeling the six modes of Peircean abduction for 
educational purposes. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Midwest Al and 
Cognitive Science conference, Bloomington, IN.   

Smith, H. (2001). Psychosemiotics. New York: Peter Lang. 
Snow, R. E. (1998) Abilities as aptitudes and achievements in learning situations. In J. J.  

McArdle and R. W. Woodcock (eds), Human Cognitive Abilities in Theory and 
Practice (pp. 93-112). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum . 

Tochon, F. V. (1990). Heuristic schemata as tools for epistemic analysis of teachers' thinking. 
Teaching and Teacher Education, 6(2), 183-196. 

Tochon, F. V. (2000a). When authentic experiences are ‘Enminded’ into disciplinary  genres: 
Crossing biographic and situated knowledge, Learning and Instruction, 10, 331-359. 

Tochon, F. V. (2000b). A semiotic theory of supervision as friendship: Cooperative 
communication as support in second-language education. In S. Simpkins, C. W. 
Spinks, & J. Deely (Eds.), Semiotics 1999 (pp. 283- 299). New York: Peter Lang. 

Tochon, F. V. (2008). Globalization, standardization and e-portfolios in teacher education: 
From organizational learning to social opportunity. Chicago: Spencer Foundation, 
38723. 

Tochon, F. V. (2009). The deep approach to Turkish teaching and learning. Title VI Grant 
from the U.S. Department of Education. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin-
Madison, Wisconsin Center for Educational Research. 

Urban, G. (2006). Metasemiosis and metapragmatics. Encyclopedia of Language and 
Linguistics (2nd Ed. Vol. 8, pp.88-91). London, UK: Elsevier. 

 

Authors 
Francois Victor Tochon, Professor, World Language Education, Department of Curriculum & 
Instruction, School of Education, Teacher Education Building, 225 North Mills Street, 
Madison, WI 53706 USA. Emails: ftochon@education.wisc.edu. Fax: (608) 263-9992. 
Celile E. Okten, Yildiz Technical University, Yıldız Teknik Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi,  
Davutpaşa Yerleşim Birimi, Esenler, İstanbul, 34210, Turkey; e-mail: cargit@yildiz.edu.tr