| Summary: | 碩士 === 臺北市立教育大學 === 教育行政與評鑑研究所 === 94 === ABSTRACT
The purpose of the study is to understand how Taipei primary school teachers’ understanding of school-led curriculum affects their role in teaching curriculum. The data of the study came from the questionnaire (Curriculum Leadership and the Cognition of teacher’s Curricular Role) that I put together. I used the statistics software SPSS version 10.0, with t verification on independent samples, variations analysis, repetitive quantities verification and related statistics methods such as linear regression. Here are my conclusions and suggestions.
Regarding understanding school-led curriculum, teachers do the best in the dimension of “Clarification and Communication”, reaching outstanding standard p<.05, than the other 4 dimensions, “Organization and System”, “Planning and Designing”, “Implementation and Evaluation”, and “Resources and Cooperation”. They score the lowest in “Implementation and Evaluation” as well as “Resources and Cooperation”. Future Improvements in these two dimensions are recommended.
Regarding “Planning and Designing” school-led curriculum and other dimensions, teachers who help schools with curriculum development and organization score higher than those who don’t assume any types of the work. This indicates that teachers’ participation in curriculum-related development will help them better understand school-led curriculum and their role in teaching curriculum.
Male teachers score higher, reaching outstanding statistics standard p<.05, in the 5 dimensions than female teachers. This shows it is easier for male teachers to understand school-led curriculum.
Teachers above age 50 score higher than teachers of other age groups in “Clarification and Communication”. The above age 50 group also scores higher in “Organization and System” than the age group 31-40. To increase younger teachers’ decision-making in school curriculum policies is recommended. By doing so, younger teachers can gain better sense of school-led curriculum and school’s efforts in establishing an organization and system.
Teachers identify themselves more as a curriculum designer, executer, and evaluator; less as an action researcher and cooperator; least as a reformer. I suggest educational institutions invite frequent teachers’ participation in the decision-making process of curriculum reforms or reform marketing activities, help them generate sense of involvement and let them feel they have a mission ahead. It is suggested that teachers pay more attention to curriculum trends, collect related information, grasp the essence of curriculum reforms in order to accurately pass on messages and implement curriculum policies.
Male teachers identify themselves as “curriculum reformers” more than female teachers. Male teachers can relate in the following ways: having a sense of mission in participating in curriculum reforms, taking time to explain the importance and content of curriculum reforms to parents, making frequent dialogue with colleagues to clarify the essence and priorities of curriculum reforms, exercising influence, participating in reform seminars and providing opinions. It is suggested that schools actively offer teachers with professional dialogue and decision-making opportunities, so that teachers can implement their roles in pushing curriculum reforms.
In identifying themselves as a reformer, executer and evaluator, teachers above age 50 score higher than teachers of younger age groups. In identifying themselves as a designer, action researcher, and cooperator, teachers above age 50 and younger age groups score more or less the same. This shows that teachers of the above age 50 group adapt well in teaching 9-year consistent curriculum. Older teachers do not necessarily provide negative influences in curriculum reforms.
In identifying themselves as a reformer, teachers with 37-60 students per class score higher than those with 12-36 students per class. In identifying themselves as a cooperator, teachers with above 60 students per class score higher than those with 12-36 students per class. I suspect that different class sizes have different field demands, hence, teachers have different role recognitions in teaching curriculum.
The co-relation between school-led curriculum and teachers’ role in teaching curriculum is high. Implementation is possible only when teachers can identify their roles. Therefore, I suggest, schools, when leading curriculum, should focus on teachers’ role of implementation in addition to teachers’ role of understanding.
By using “teachers’ understanding of school-led curriculum” as a dependent variable and “teachers’ recognition of their role in all dimensions” as independent variables to obtain a regression pattern, a result shows that co-efficient numbers reach outstanding standard in “curriculum execution” and “curriculum evaluation”. This shows the situation of school-led curriculum can be predicted through teachers’ role in implementing and evaluating curriculum.
By using “teachers’ recognition of their role in teaching curriculum” as a dependent variable and “their understanding of all dimensions of school-led curriculum” as independent variables to obtain a linear regression pattern, a result shows “Resources and Cooperation” can best predict teachers’ recognition of their role in teaching curriculum, indicating that schools should provide resources to teachers and set up a mechanism and platform for teaching cooperation.
The study shows an outstanding co-relation between teachers’ understanding of school-led curriculum and teachers’ recognition of their role in teaching curriculum. It is possible to establish a regression pattern between the two. For future studies, I recommend to pursue a co-relation between implementation of teachers’ role in teaching curriculum and student performances. I look forward to seeing a regression pattern useful for school curriculum and teaching evaluation, by using the following 3 dimensions: standardization of school-led curriculum, teachers’ role in curriculum and student performances.
|
|---|
