Exploring The Alignment Of The Intended And Implemented .

3y ago
64 Views
3 Downloads
843.04 KB
18 Pages
Last View : 2m ago
Last Download : 2m ago
Upload by : Samir Mcswain
Transcription

OPEN ACCESSEURASIA Journal of Mathematics Science and Technology EducationISSN: 1305-8223 (online) 1305-8215 (print)2017 13(3):723-740DOI 10.12973/eurasia.2017.00640aExploring the Alignment of the Intended andImplemented Curriculum Through Teachers’Interpretation: A Case Study of A-Level BiologyPractical WorkMukaro Joe PhaetonUniversity of KwaZulu-Natal, SOUTH AFRICAMichèle StearsUniversity of KwaZulu-Natal, SOUTH AFRICAReceived 16 November 2015 Revised 30 April 2016 Accepted 16 May 2016ABSTRACTThe research reported on here is part of a larger study exploring the alignment of theintended, implemented and attained curriculum with regard to practical work in theZimbabwean A-level Biology curriculum. In this paper we focus on the alignment betweenthe intended and implemented A-Level Biology curriculum through the lens of teachers’interpretation of the curriculum. This interpretive study sought to understand how teachersinterpret a particular curriculum design. Participants were five teachers drawn from fourHigh schools in Zimbabwe. The findings show a misalignment between the intended andimplemented curriculum caused by teachers’ misinterpretation of the intended curriculum.Teachers lacked knowledge of Science Process Skills and could not interpret them from thecurriculum documents. They interpreted the curriculum through the examinations and werereluctant to engage with the curriculum in order to understand the objectives for practicalwork. The poor design of the curriculum contributed to this reluctance. This misalignmenthas implications for curriculum design and implementation.Keywords: curriculum alignment, intended curriculum, practical work, science process skillsINTRODUCTIONAn aspect of education that has received attention from numerous authors internationally isthat of the relationship between different levels of a curriculum. Kuiper, Folmer andOttevanger (2013) and van den Akker (2003; 2010) recognise that curriculum is influenced atdifferent organisational levels of society. At government level (macro-level), political andadministrative decisions about the curriculum are made; at school and classroom level (mesolevel), the implementation of the curriculum is executed and at learner level (micro-level), theimpact of the curriculum is viewed through the output (NRC, 2004; Thijs & van den Akker,2009; van den Akker, 2003). Decisions about educational goals are made at each level and Authors. Terms and conditions of Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) apply.Correspondence: Mukaro Joe Phaeton, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Private Bag X03, Ashwood, 3605, SouthAfrica, 0027 Durban, South Africa.joe.mukaro@yahoo.co.uk

M. J. Phaeton & M. StearsState of the literature The establishment of curriculum levels assists in and contributes towards an understanding ofthe necessity to coordinate the different curriculum domains, leading to an alignment of theintended, implemented and attained curriculum.The intended curriculum consists of the ideal and the formal curriculum where the idealcurriculum constitutes the original ideas of the curriculum developers. When these ideas areencapsulated in a formal document it constitutes the formal curriculum.The implemented curriculum consists of two domains; the perceived curriculum which refers tothe interpretation of the users of the curriculum who are the main actors- the teachers. The actualinstructional process is regarded as the operational curriculum. Misalignment between theintended and implemented curriculum may exist as gaps occur between the expectations of thecurriculum designers and what happens in the classroom.Contribution of this paper to the literature In this study a misalignment exists between the ideal and certain aspects of the formalcurriculum.Teachers choose to consult only limited parts of the intended curriculum which results in aperceived curriculum which does not reflect the intention of the curriculum designers.Within the context of biology practical work this means an inability by teachers to identify theScience Process Skills learners are expected to develop in A-Level Biology.different actors are involved (van den Akker, 2003). Different stakeholders at different levelstend to influence the way the curriculum should be viewed at that particular level and thisdifference between different levels of the curriculum has an important bearing on teaching. Aswith all other subjects, the quality of Science Education depends on a strong relationshipbetween the vision of the curriculum developers and the consumers of the education system(NRC, 2004). However, findings of research in Science and Mathematics Education show thatthere is significant difference between the intended, perceived, and implemented curriculumat both primary and secondary level (Levitt, 2001; Smith & Southerland, 2007).A number of researchers concur that conceptualising the curriculum as consisting ofdifferent levels, helps in the analysis and understanding of the coordination between thedifferent curricular domains (Goodlad, Klein & Tye, 1979; Thijs & van den Akker, 2009;Treagust, 2004; van den Akker, 2003; 2010), which in turn can shape the teaching and learningof the curriculum. These domains are named differently by different researchers, dependingon the way each domain is perceived (Goodlad, Klein & Tye, 1979; Kuiper, Folmer &Ottevanger, 2013). Thijs and van den Akker (2009) and van den Akker (2003) regard the levelsof curriculum as intended (curriculum plans at the macro-level), implemented (meso-level,consisting of the content, time allocations, instructional strategies for teaching and learning to724

EURASIA J Math Sci and Tech Edtake place) and attained curriculum (micro-level, consisting of competencies and attitudeslearners demonstrate as the result of teaching and learning process). Aikenhead (2006) viewscurriculum as that plan of activities that prescribes what will happen in schools (intendedcurriculum) and regards the actual instructional practice as the implemented curriculum. Millsand Treagust (2003) recognise the intended, implemented and the achieved curriculum andregard the perceived curriculum as a level between the implemented and the achievedcurriculum. Decisions about the educational goals are made at each level and different actorsare involved (van den Akker, 2003).The intended curriculum is determined by the educational organisational system(macro level) of many countries in the world (van den Akker, 2003; 2010). It usually includesgoals and expectations set by the curriculum policy makers and curriculum developers alongwith textbooks, official syllabi or curriculum standards set by a particular nation ororganisation (Kuiper, Folmer, & Ottevanger, 2013; NRC, 2004; van den Akker, 2003). Theintended curriculum comes in two important forms, namely the ideal and the formal curricula.The ideal curriculum, also known as the ideological domain constitutes the original ideas ofthe curriculum developers (Goodlad et al, 1979; Thijs & van den Akker, 2009; van den Akker,2003). It considers the convictions and values of content experts outside the school system (vanden Akker, 2003). When the ideas of the developers are written down to produce a documentor converted into curriculum materials, that constitutes the formal curriculum. The domain ofthe formal curriculum is represented by documents that have been developed inside the schoolsystem, for example syllabi, practical guides which are officially approved by the curriculumcoordinator or any government agent (van den Akker, 2003; 2010). In the process of convertingthe ideals of the developers into the formal curriculum, there is a chance of distorting thecurriculum as language can change the original ideas of the developers. The danger is that theassessment of learners may occur against a curriculum which was never implemented due tothe distortion originating from the curriculum developers themselves (van den Akker &Voogt, 1994).The implemented curriculum which is enacted at the school level (meso-level)comprises of content, instructional strategies and time allocations which are meant to guideteachers with regard to the way the intended curriculum should be put into practice. ForGoodlad, Klein and Tye (1979), Thijs and van den Akker (2009) and van den Akker (2003), theimplemented curriculum is viewed in two forms, namely the perceived curriculum whichrefers to the interpretation of the users of the curriculum who are the main actors- the teachers.The perceived curriculum takes into account the philosophy of the teacher, the lesson plans,schemes of work, the interpretation of what should be taught in the classroom (Goodlad, Klein& Tye, 1979; van den Akker, 2003). The actual instructional process is regarded as theoperational curriculum (Kuiper, Folmer & Ottevanger, 2013; van den Akker, 2003). It considers725

M. J. Phaeton & M. Stearsthe expertise of the teachers in interpreting the ideas of the developers and putting them intopractice, as well as being able to change the thinking of the learner.The attained curriculum which is also regarded as the experiential curriculum refers tothe reactions and outcomes of the learners after receiving instruction (Thijs & van den Akker,2009; van den Akker, 2003; 2010). The interactive process between the learner and the learningmaterials, compounded by the teacher interactions contribute to the output of instruction andtranslates into how learning is achieved (Ennis, 1990).Curriculum implementation may be fraught with problems as it may not occur asintended and it reflects loopholes which create a gap between the expectations of the designersof the curriculum and what really takes place within the classroom (Thijs & van den Akker,2009; van den Akker, 2003). Curriculum developers assume that their ‘good’ curriculum willbe interpreted and implemented in line with their expectations. This notion ignores the role ofother players in the curriculum implementation process. Stenhouse (1979) underlines the needfor an agent for the curriculum implementation process and identifies the teacher as the keyagent for curriculum implementation. It is therefore imperative that teachers understand thecurriculum requirements as clearly as possible in order for them to correctly implement thecurriculum as intended.The challenges faced by curriculum planners and those faced with the implementationprocess are different. This creates the possibility of a gap developing between the intendedand implemented curriculum (Sethole, 2004). Rogan (2004) has referred to this incongruenceas a “mismatch between expectation and reality” (p176) and Jansen (2001) quoted an exampleas a deviation from the original policy. These researchers agree that what is articulated by thepolicy documents on curriculum and what happens during the implementation process maybe quite dissimilar. Distortions of the intended curriculum at different organisational levelshave a resultant effect on the learner. The coherence between the intended, implemented andthe attained curriculum is important as it determines the kind of product the teaching andlearning process yields.In this study our aim was to explore the alignment between the intended andimplemented curriculum with regard to the teaching of Science Process Skills (SPS). Thelearning of Science involves the acquisition of SPS. Literature has demonstrated that SPS cutacross disciplines (Chiappetta & Adams, 2004). The teaching of SPS along with otherdisciplines has produced significant effects on concept development within various disciplines(Chiappetta & Adams, 2004; Rambuda & Fraser, 2004). Lumbantobing (2004) has found thatteaching SPS enhances problem solving skills. Donmez and Azizoglu (2010) have shown thatteaching SPS is strongly linked to the transition from one level of cognitive development tothe next. That the development of scientific processes simultaneously promotes readingprocesses is a notion advocated by Harlen and Gardner (2010) who further posit that science726

EURASIA J Math Sci and Tech Edprocesses have an important role in the development of skills of communicating, criticalthinking, problem solving as well as the ability to use and evaluate evidence. Therefore,learners’ competencies in SPS enable them to learn with understanding and Harlen andGardner (2010) view this as achievable if a linkage is established between the new experiencesand the previous ones and extending these ideas to other related areas. Harlen (1999) furtheralludes to the fact that poor SPS development may impede the understanding of the worldaround us.Research has also established that by learning SPS learners develop critical and creativethinking as they will be able to make decisions and apply the process skills in other disciplines(Meador, 2003; Halim & Meerah, 2012). For Sevilay (2011) learners develop a sense ofresponsibility as they take control of their own learning. Opateye (2012) posits that processskills will foster the development of positive scientific attitudes. Our views also concur withthose of Ogunniyi and Mikalsen (2004) who indeed suggest that the understanding of scientificconcepts heavily rely on the application of SPS in order to bring about the essence of thephenomenon. The understanding of the natural world requires a strong craftsmanship in theprocess skills as these will guarantee that conclusions drawn about a given phenomenon areauthentic as they are verifiable, giving results that are either contrary to the establishedknowledge or in line with what is already known. A similar view is shared by Harlen andGardner (2010) who also emphasises the role of SPS in practical work as measures of verifyingscientific facts which helps to understand the world in a better way.The idea of using SPS in the teaching and learning of Science is to establish a stronglinkage between the two domains of knowledge, namely the domain of objects andobservables and domain of ideas. This, as Millar (2004) notes, helps learners to understandand explain the world around them. Bilgin (2006) supports the idea that the learning of SPShelps learners in deriving the meaning of phenomena through their capacity to interpret thedata generated through the realisation of the scientific processes. Sevilay (2011) posits that SPSequip learners with tools for understanding content knowledge.Purpose of the studyThe purpose of this study was to investigate the alignment of the intended andimplemented curriculum by exploring the way teachers interact with the intended curriculumin A-Level Biology in Zimbabwe with regard to practical work. As mentioned above, theaspects of practical work that were focused on are Science Process Skills (SPS). The questionsthat drove the research are: What does the intended curriculum stipulate with regard to the acquisition of ScienceProcess Skills in A-Level Biology practical work?727

M. J. Phaeton & M. mAttainedcurriculumWritten /formalcurriculumFigure 1. Model of curriculum alignment (Taken from van den Akker, Fasoglio and Mulder (2010) How do teachers interpret the intended curriculum with regard to Science ProcessSkills in A-Level Biology practical work?FrameworkElements of curriculum alignment as perceived by van den Akker and Voogt (1994)were adopted as a conceptual framework for this study. These are the intended, implementedand the attained curriculum. Van den Akker, Fasoglio and Mulder (2010) recognise thedifferent levels of the curriculum and view the alignment of these curriculum levels as thebasis for the successful achievement of the goals for the curriculum. Figure 1 shows the idealarrangement of the different levels of curriculum.The intended curriculum is influenced by both the ideals designers may have and thewritten curriculum. The intended curriculum should align with the implemented curriculumin order to achieve the goals of the curriculum through the attained curriculum. As mentionedbefore, in this study we focus on the alignment between the intended and implementedcurriculum. For a better understanding of how the curriculum is interpreted with regard topractical work it was necessary to consider the SPS as defined by Padilla (1990). Padillacategorises SPS as basic and integrated SPS. A similar view of the categories of the SPS isshared by Coil et al (2010).Figure 2 shows the categories of SPS. Padilla (1990) viewed basic SPS as those simpleSPS which form the foundation for studying more complex SPS (integrated). The basic SPS areimplied in the integrated (complex) SPS. This is supported by Rezba et al. (2007). A good728

EURASIA J Math Sci and Tech EdFigure 2. Categories of SPS (Padilla, 1990; Coil et al (2010)foundation in the basic SPS therefore makes the acquisition of integrated SPS easier forlearners.METHODOLOGYThis study is located within an interpretive paradigm as the purpose was tounderstand the alignment of the intended and implemented curriculum. In this research, weused a qualitative research approach to understand the intentions of the curriculumdevelopers with respect to A-level Biology practical work. This understanding of the demandsof the curriculum developers enabled us to establish connections with the way in which thecurriculum is interpreted by the teachers. However, there were cases where the results weresummarised and presented quantitatively.Five teachers from four purposefully selected high schools in Zimbabwe participatedin this case study of the Zimbabwean A-Level Biology Curriculum with particular focus onSPS. The choice of five teachers is appropriate for a case study and is regarded as a suitablenumber by experts in case study design, such as Yin (2003). The intention of the study was tounderstand how teachers interpreted the A-Level Biology Curriculum with respect to practicalwork. Teachers were therefore selected on the basis that they were teaching A-Level Biologyin the selected schools. This purposeful selection of teachers was done to ensure thatappropriate data were gathered which would facilitate our understanding of how teachersunderstood the curriculum with respect to practical work from the intended curriculum.An analysis of the curriculum documents was conducted to understand the demandsof the A-level curriculum for biology practical work. These included the curriculum statement729

M. J. Phaeton & M. Stearsin the form of the national syllabus for A-Level Biology and the national examination papersfor A-Level practical work in Biology for the years 2010-2013, as well as analysis of thecurriculum policy. The content analysis of the A-Level Biology curriculum and the nationalexamination papers helped in the understanding of the kind of SPS curriculum developersenvisioned as essential for A-level Biology. Padilla’s (1990) categories of Science Process Skillswere used to identify the types of SPS mentioned in the curriculum documents. This served asa benchmark against which the teachers’ interpretations were measured. These documentsprovided an insight into what the intended curriculum expected for practical work in Biology.The data gathered enabled us to answer the first research question.An analysis of the teachers’ workbooks was conducted in order to understand moreabout how teachers interpret the intended curriculum with respect to practical work. Teacherswere subsequently asked to complete a questionnaire and were interviewed afterwards.The questionnaire solicited teachers’ interpretation of the practical work objectives asenshrined in the curriculum document. In the questionnaire teachers were presented with anextract from the curriculum document for A-Level Biology. This extract included the objectivesfor practical work for each of the themes in A-Level Biology as well as the associated SPS foreach theme. Each teacher was requested to indicate which activities they would plan for theirlearners to achieve the stated

the necessity to coordinate the different curriculum domains, leading to an alignment of the intended, implemented and attained curriculum. The intended curriculum consists of the ideal and the formal curriculum where the ideal curriculum constitutes the original ideas of the curriculum developers. When these ideas are

Related Documents:

May 02, 2018 · D. Program Evaluation ͟The organization has provided a description of the framework for how each program will be evaluated. The framework should include all the elements below: ͟The evaluation methods are cost-effective for the organization ͟Quantitative and qualitative data is being collected (at Basics tier, data collection must have begun)

Silat is a combative art of self-defense and survival rooted from Matay archipelago. It was traced at thé early of Langkasuka Kingdom (2nd century CE) till thé reign of Melaka (Malaysia) Sultanate era (13th century). Silat has now evolved to become part of social culture and tradition with thé appearance of a fine physical and spiritual .

On an exceptional basis, Member States may request UNESCO to provide thé candidates with access to thé platform so they can complète thé form by themselves. Thèse requests must be addressed to esd rize unesco. or by 15 A ril 2021 UNESCO will provide thé nomineewith accessto thé platform via their émail address.

̶The leading indicator of employee engagement is based on the quality of the relationship between employee and supervisor Empower your managers! ̶Help them understand the impact on the organization ̶Share important changes, plan options, tasks, and deadlines ̶Provide key messages and talking points ̶Prepare them to answer employee questions

Dr. Sunita Bharatwal** Dr. Pawan Garga*** Abstract Customer satisfaction is derived from thè functionalities and values, a product or Service can provide. The current study aims to segregate thè dimensions of ordine Service quality and gather insights on its impact on web shopping. The trends of purchases have

Chính Văn.- Còn đức Thế tôn thì tuệ giác cực kỳ trong sạch 8: hiện hành bất nhị 9, đạt đến vô tướng 10, đứng vào chỗ đứng của các đức Thế tôn 11, thể hiện tính bình đẳng của các Ngài, đến chỗ không còn chướng ngại 12, giáo pháp không thể khuynh đảo, tâm thức không bị cản trở, cái được

Le genou de Lucy. Odile Jacob. 1999. Coppens Y. Pré-textes. L’homme préhistorique en morceaux. Eds Odile Jacob. 2011. Costentin J., Delaveau P. Café, thé, chocolat, les bons effets sur le cerveau et pour le corps. Editions Odile Jacob. 2010. Crawford M., Marsh D. The driving force : food in human evolution and the future.

Le genou de Lucy. Odile Jacob. 1999. Coppens Y. Pré-textes. L’homme préhistorique en morceaux. Eds Odile Jacob. 2011. Costentin J., Delaveau P. Café, thé, chocolat, les bons effets sur le cerveau et pour le corps. Editions Odile Jacob. 2010. 3 Crawford M., Marsh D. The driving force : food in human evolution and the future.