- PDF Free Download

up down bottom up I

A Research of the View of an Elementary School Principal, Administrators and Teachers on School-Based Curriculum Development with Environment Education Abstract This research aims at reviewing Elementary School Principal, administrative and teaching Staff s standpoint and reactive strategy upon the conduction School-Based Curriculum Development with Environment Education.. For the purpose and depth of this study, this study was fabricated by qualitative method, individual interviews, document analysis, and finalized by categorized analysis. A public elementary school in Taichung is the chosen field of this study. As this school has the experience in running the program of SBCD with Environment Education, this study exclusively looks into Principal, administrative and teaching staff s view and reactive approach upon every step of strategic implantation. Selected by purposive and snowball sampling, a total of 20 subjects consist of admin supervisors, teachers, and the Principal. Following the collecting of data, and pull together the subjects views and attitude, this study will be categorized and interwoven by three footsteps in the course of SBCD with Environment Education: Pre-implantation: In the early stage, the data of staff s conceptual recognition, and conductibility of the idea. Implantation: The taken steps of actual implantation, strategy, views and reaction of subjects in practice. Review: Pro and cons, difficulties and outlook of this practice. Analysis of viewpoints from Principal, admin and teaching staffs. The findings and conclusion of this study can be stated as follows: 1. Beliefs in SBCD: The subjects and this study share one common definition for school-based curriculum, but a contradiction is formed under the circumstance of deciding whether to adopt school problem-solving orientation, or school-feature orientation in terms of up-down or bottom-up strategy in conducting school-based curriculum. 2. Motive toward the SBCD: By the effect of government policies, school politics and conducts, peer pressure, and personal issues, most teaching staffs in this study were resistant to curriculum III

development. 3. Strategy to implant SBCD: In the early stage the school administrators reinforces the forming of a common consensus among staff in practice. The development council would study, discuss and analysis the practicing plan. Finally, the implantation of strategy and plans. 4. The reactive attitude of teachers upon the implantation of SBCD: It is found that the followings would yield positive attitude toward the practice: culture and atmosphere in the organization, communication, encouragement, positive curriculum leadership, further acquirement of professional knowledge, a full completed structure and schedule, and professional-experience exchange between team members. 5. Pros of this curriculum development project: Joining different subjective views in teaching; increase of teaching belief, environmental awareness, and professional ability for teachers. In terms of improvement of school environment and effect on students, the project is beneficial. In short, this project is positive and advantageous 6. Difficulties and effects of curriculum development implantation: The followings could be improved: the forming of policy, training and planning for teachers, teaching staff s resistance and conservative approach, professional ability and workload, the integration and communication in the administrative structure. 7. Future prospects: Sixty-five percent of the subjects appeared to be supportive for the future development and addressed the importance of practical conduct. They were also hoping to construct a rational and encouraging system for such projects. Also, the subjects were willing to receive more professional and local support. With the above finding and conclusion, this study offers the following advice to educational ministries, schools, and teaching staff: 1. The policy, and implantation plan for education reform should be unanimous and transparent. 2. Teachers curriculum knowledge and improvement programs should be carefully planned. IV

3. To create a positive and encouraging atmosphere, and an affective communication channel. 4. The shaping of vision for school, long-term object for school-based curriculum. 5. Utilize learning organizations, and curriculum-leadership strategy. 6. To provide school-based professional training, and introduce an integrated profession resource. 7. To adjust teachers belief and teaching faith, construct the image of teaching as a professional, and the recognition of the role as a teacher. 8. To uplift professional ability of individual. 9. To form a culture of co-operative in between organizations to facilitate effective dialogue, and information exchange. Key Words: School-Based Curriculum Development, Environment Education, Teachers belief, Curriculum Leadership, Professional Interactivity V

VII

VIII

87 1

School-based curriculum development, SBCD 88 90 88 Eggleston1980 Craig1980 Skilbeck1984 7

Marsh 1990 1. 2. 88 3. 89 4. 90a 8

() 89 1 90a (1) (2) 3 4 5 9

10 2-1-1 87

89 Skilbeck Skilbeck1984 2-1-1 1. analyze the situation 2. define the objective 3. design the teaching-learning programme 4. interpret and implement the programme 5. assess and evaluate 11

Foriska, 1998 13

Marsh 1990 / 2-1-4 14

90a 2-1-2 17

() Midgley & Wood, 1993 86 () 0 Sergiovanni, 1995 19

lines of authority Sergiovanni, 1995 Sergiovanni, 1995 Senge, 1990 () Owens, 1998/2000 1 2 3 4 5 20

Bartunek & Moch1987 Driver 1996 () 88 21

(Lindahl, 1987) 87 1 2 3 4 88 Sergiovanni(1995) (the technical leader) (management engineer) (the human leader) (human engineer) (the educational leader) (clinical practitioner) 22

(the symbolic leader) (chief) (the culture leader) (high priest) (head teacher) teaching principal school principal supervising principal change agent Malone & Caddell, 2000 Sergiovanni 2-2-1 Council of Chief State School Officers, 1996 23

Muncey & McQuillan, 1996 Lieberman & Miller, 1990 Skilbeck1984 Brady1985 24

Brady1987 Bezzina1991 Shelby et al., 2000 Marsh (1997) (responder) manager (initiator) 88 25

26 2-2-1 2-2-1

27 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) Berlin 1988 Aronstein DeBenedicts1988 1 2 3 4 2-2-1 ()

28 5 3 4 5 6 7 8 88 1 2 3 4 5 6 Lieberman & Miller, 1990

() 90 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. boundaries decentering loosening Usher & Edwards, 1994 ; 85 85 87 () Talcott Parsons 87 30

postcolonial 84Said1995 89 (stress) (conflict) (Darley, 1981/1994) Darley, 1981/1994 31

() Clark Peterson1986 2-3-1 a b c Constraints and Opportunities Teacher s actions and Teacher s thought processes observable effects 2-3-1 86 32

86 () McCutcheon1995 adoption implementation standardization restructuring Fullan et al, 1990 1960 1970 1980 1990 Cronin 1986 33

87 88 87 88 34

88 89 88 Wildy et al, 1996 87 89 35

37 2-3-1 ()

Iozzi, 1989 39

43 why what who where when which how (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) -- - - STSScience/ Technology/Society STS - - - STESScience/Technology/ Environmental/Society 89 87 STS

qualitative research methods Bogdan & Biklen, 1992 Ely et al., 1991 45

80 89 Slavin, 1992 46

3-1-1 48

3-2-1 49

(89) 51

90 52

(91-92 ) 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 3-3-1 53

25% 3-3-2 55

3-3-2 56

80 57

in-depth open-ended interview direct observation Patton, 1990/1995 Langness Frank 58

80 Patton, 1990/1995 Patton, 1990/1995 2 3 Taylor Bogdan(1984) 59

P FI 01~ M FI 01~ M FI 01~ M FI 01~ M FI 01~ M FI 01~ - FI 01~ - 01~ 60

Patton, 1990/1995 content analysis Patton, 1990/1995 Patton, 1990/1995 61

Patton, 1990/1995 Patton, 1990/1995 credibility issue Patton, 1990/1995 Patton,1990/1995 triangulation 62

cross checking Patton, 1990/1995 intellectual rigor 85 80 63

66 ( ) 3-5-1 45 67

background,.. Skilbeck, 1984; OECD, 1979 67

.. SWOT 4-1-2 69

T10 70

! 72

73 1. 2.

3. 4. 5. 4-1-2 9 (45%) 74

76.

2. 80

4-1-3 1. 1-1 5 83% 10 71% 83

84 2. M05 () 3.

T12 T14 1. 2-1.1 2-2.2 9 (45%) T5 T7 2. 4-1-3 2-1.1 2-1.2 85

!!! 3. 86

learning by doing 87

4-2-1 90

1 1-1 T07T11( ) 1-2. T06 2 2-1 T04T06T14 2-2 T06 2-3 T01T02T04T07T08T12T13 3 3-1 T03T06 3-2 T02T05T09T10 4 4-1 T04T05T06 4-2 M2T3T5 T6T8 4-3 T12T13 T10( ) 93

94 4-4 T03T08T10T11 4-5 T01T02T04T07T11( ) 4-6 T01,,.(),.Q:,,,. Q 4

! 95

! 96

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 99

100 4-2-4 1 T3 T11( ) T2( )T7( ) T14 2 ( ) T3( )T8 T2( )T6( ) T12( 3 T1( )T5( )T13( ) P...

P 101

P 102

4-2-5 1. M1M3T2T3 T8T10 T4 2. -- M1M3M4M5 T2T3 3. M1M2M5T3 T9T11T13 4. P1T6T12T14 T5T12 5. T12T14 T4T5T10T11 T13T14 T8 T12 6. T1T2T4T8T11 T2T7 T14 103

104 7.M1 4 1 4 6 8 M1( ) 8. P1M1T3T4T5 T6T14 M5T2T8( )T9T10T14 9.M2T3T6 10. M1M2T1T6 T8T11T14 M1M4T3T6T7 T9T13 11. T5T6T8 12. M1T2T9T11 13.P1M1M4T6T10 14.T1( ) M2( )T6T8( )T10T11T13 M 11 M Q

,?,,,(),, M M M M 105

M M M Q 106

107

108

OK COPY Q!! 109

M M 1.2 110

M 111

M 112

M Q complain 113

() 114

115

Q..Q M Q!! T T11 Aronstein & DeBenedicts Q 116

117 P M M.,,,,,,.!!! T10 Q 25 Q Q 45 T M

118

119

4-3-1 1 P1M3T1T2T4T12T13840% T14 2 2-1 P1T2T6T8 4(20%) 2-2 M3M5T1T3T4T5T711(55%) T11T12T13T14 2-3 T1T2T9T10T11 5(25%) 2-4 P1M2M3M5T1T3T412(60%) T5T6T8T11T14 3 3-1 P1 1(5%) 120

3-2 M1T7 2(10%) 3-3 T6 1(5%) 4 4-1 M1M2M3T3T5T8T99(45%) T12T14 4-2 M1M4 2(10%) 121

!!!Q T02 T01 122

123

124

125

126

1 1-1 M1T11 2(10%) 1-2 M1M4M5T5 2 2-1 M1M4T3T4T5T8 4(20%) 7(35%) T10 2-2 P1M1M3M4T1T2 T9T10 8(40%) 3 3-1 T3T7T8 3(15%) 3-2 P1M3T8T10T13 5(25%) 3-3 P1M4T2T5T6T9T10(9(45%) )T12T14( ) 127

4 M1M4T3T5T7T8 7(35%) T10 5 M5T1T2T4T13T14 6(30%) 6 VS M1( ) 4(20%) T1T7T11( ) 7 7-1 M1M3T6T11 4(20%) 7-2 M2T6T8T12 4(20%) M M T1 128

129 Wildy et al., 1996 Q M M Q Q T05 M

130 M T08 T05 T04 T03 M M M,,,, T10

T09 131

() 132

()!!! M 133

M 134

Q Q M M 135

136!!!! T11 Q T06 M T12. T08 Q T08 T06 Q T06

P1 M5 T7 M1 M2 T12 T8 T14 T11 M3 T13 M4 T1 T4 T5 T6 T2 T3 T9 T10 13 65% 3 (15%) 4 (20%) 137

M M M 138

139

1 P1M1M4T4T2 T5( )T7 T11 2 M1M5T1T2 T9T11T14 3 P1M1M3T14 T12 M4 T8 T2 P1 M1M3( ) 140 T7( )T10( )T12( )

M M T12! T07 Q T05 T02 141

! T02 M 142

143 M?!?Q! Q M

144

Q 14% 29% 57% 145

T3T10 4-1-1 4-3-3 4-3-1 4-3-2 T3 T1 12-22-32-4 2-256 T4 T4 12-22-3 2-1 T5 T5 2-22-44-1 1-22-13-34 29% T10 T6 2-12-43-3 3-37-1 57% T2 12-1 5-53-35 T1 T3 2-22-44-1 2-13-14 T2 T9 2-34-1 2-23-3 T6 T10 2-3 2-12-23-34 71% T7 T8 T12 14-1 3-37-2 T9 14% T14 12-22-44-1 3-35 T11 T12 T7 2-23-2 3-146 T13 T8 2-12-44-1 2-13-13-247-2 T14 29% T11 2-22-32-4 67-1 T13 12-2 3-25 146

, ; 90a 147

148

91 158

159

160

161

162

163

Patton, M. Q. (1990); Owens, R. G. (1998); Glatthorn, A. A. (1997); Darley, J. M. (1981); Aronstein, L. W., & DeBenedictis, K. L. (1988). The principal as a leader of curriculum change: A study of exemplary school administrators (Reporter No. EA020195). Quincy, MI: Commonwealth Leadership Academy. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No.ED296481) Bartunek, J. M. & Moch, M. K.1987. First- order, Second-order, and Third-order Change and Organization Development Interventions: A Cognitive Approach, J. Appl. Behav. Sci. 23:483-500. Berlin, B.; & Others 1988The principal as curriculum leader; expectations vs. performance. Educational Management, 72(509), 43-49. 164

Bezzina, M. (1991). Being free and feeling free: Primary teachers perceptions of participation in curriculum development (Reporter No. SP035115). Australia, New South Wales: Teaching and Teacher Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED368693) Bogdan, R. C. & Biklen, S. K.(1992). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theory and methods (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon. Brady, L. (1985). The supportiveness of the principal in school-based curriculum development. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 7(1), 95-97. Brady, L. (1987). Explaining school-based curriculum satisfaction: A case study. Journal of curriculum studies, 19(4), 375-378. Carter, S. F. (1992). What is the relationship between what teachers believe about how children learn mathematics and how those teachers teach mathematics? A case study of elementary school teachers beliefs and behaviors. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts. Chou, S. H. (1992). Elementary school teachers beliefs about teaching and learning mathematics: Selected case studies in Taiwan. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts. Clark, C. M., & Peterson, P. L. (1986). Teachers thought processes. New York, NY: Macmillan. Council of Chief State School Officers. (1996). Standards for school leaders. Washington, DC: Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium. Craig, A. (1980). Teacher perceptions of curriculum autonomy (Reporter No. SP016265). Australia: Teaching and Teacher Education. (ERIC Document 165

Reproduction Service No. ED190498) Cronin, L. L. (1986). Intended versus implemented curriculum: A interpretive study. Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, the University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia. Daresh, J. C. (1999). Preparing school leaders to "break ranks". Journal of Secondary and Higher Education, 2, 29-32. Driver, M. J., Svensson, K., Amato, R. P. & Pate, L. E. (1996). A human-information processing approach to strategic change. International Journal of Management and Organization, 26(1), 313-341. Eggleston, J. (1980). School-based curriculum development in Britain: A collection of case studies. London: RKP. Ely, M., Anzul, M., Friedman, T., Gamer, D., & Steinmetz, A. M. (1991). Doing qualitative research: circles within circles. New York: The Falmer Press. Foriska, T. J. (1998). Restructuring around standards: A practitioner s guide to design and implementation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Fullan, M. G. & Stiegelbauer, S. (1991). The new meaning of educational change (2nd ed. ). London: Cassell. Fullan,M. (1993). Innovation, Reform and RestructuringStrategies. In Cawelti, G. (Ed.), Challenges and achievements of American education. ASCD. Fullan, M., Bennett, B., & Rolheiser- Bennett, C. (1990). Linking classroom and school improvement. Educational Leadership, 47(8), 13-15. Hargreaves, A. (1992). Cultures of teaching: A focus for change. In Hargreaves, A. & Fullan, M. G. (Eds.), Understanding teacher development. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. 166

Harrison, M. (1981). Toward empirical-based curriculum theory: A participant observation study of school-based curriculum decision-making. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Macquarie University, Australia. Horenstein, L. B. & Berlin, B. M. (1995). Strategies for school change: A case study. curriculum and teaching, 10(1), 55-62. Iozzi, l. A. (1989) What research says to the education. Part one: Environmental education and the affective domain. Journal of Environmental Education, 20(3), 3-9. Jantsch, E. (1980). The self-organizing universe: Scientific and human implications of the emerging paradigm of evolution. New York, NY: Pergamon. Kelly, D. G. (1977). The effects of curriculum organizational structure on curriculum innovation (Reporter No. EA009419). Educational Management. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED137941) Kennedy, K. J. (1992). School-based curriculum development as a policy option for the 1990s: An Australian perspective. Journal of Curriculum and Supervision, 7(2), 180-195. Kyriakides, L. (1997). Influences on primary teachers practice: Some problems for curriculum change theory. British Educational Research Journal, 23(2), 39-46. Lindahl, R. A. (1987). Planning for more effective schools: what can we learn from research on American Industry? Educational Planning, 5(4), 21-31. Lieberman, A., & Miller, L. (1990). Restructuring schools: What matters and what works. Phi Delta Kappan, 71(10), 759-764. 167

Lorshbach, A.W. (1991). An examination of prospective science teachers beliefs about teaching, learning, and the nature of science. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The Florida State University, Tallahassee, Florida. Malone, B. G. & Caddell, T. A. (2000). A crisis in leadership: where are tomorrow's principals? Clearing House, 73(3), 162-164. Marsh, C., Day, C., Hannay, L., & McCutcheon, G. (1990). Reconceptualizing school-based curriculum development. London: The Falmer Press. Marsh, C. J. (1997). Planning, management and ideology: Key concepts for understanding curriculum. Washington, D.C.: The Falmer Press. McCutcheon, G. (1995). Developing the curriculumsolo and group deliberation. White Plains, NY: Longman. Midgley, C. & Wood, S. (1993). Beyond site-based management: Empowering teachers to reform schools. Phi Delta Kappan, 75(3), 245-252. Muncey, D. E., & McQuillan, P. J. (1996). Reform and resistance in schools and classrooms. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Nisbet, R. (1973). The future of tenure. Higher Education Change, 5(3), 27-33. OECD. (1979). School-based curriculum development. Paris: OECD. Olson, J. (1981). Teacher influence in the classroom: A context for understanding curriculum translation. Instructional Science, 10, 259-275. Rennie, L. J. & Treagust, D. F. (1993). Implementing technology in the school curriculum: A case study involving six secondary schools. Journal of Technology Education, 5(1), 38-53. 168

Said, E. (1995). Orientalism. New York, NY: Penguin. Senge, P. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. New York, NY: Doubleday. Sergiovanni, T. J. (1995). The principal: A reflective practice perspective. San Francisco, CA: Allyn & Bacon. Shelby, A. W., Hilda, B., Rebekah, L. E., & Monette, C. M. (2000). That dog won t hunt! Exemplary school change efforts within the Kentucky reform. American Educational Research Journal, 37(2), 349-393. Skilbeck, M. (1984). School-based curriculum development. In J. Walton & J. Welton (Eds.), Rational curriculum planning: for case studies. London: Ward Lock Educational. Slavin, R. E. (1992). Research methods in education (2nd ed. ). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon. Sutherland, M. B. (1981). The impossibilities of education for citizenship: The 1981 SeraLecture. Scottish Educational Review, 13(1), 5-11. Taylor, S. J. & Bogdan, R. (1984). Introduction to qualitative research methods: The search for meaning (2nd ed. ). New York, NY: John Wiley. Usher, R. & Edwards, R. (1994). Disciplining the subject: The power of competence. Studies in the Education of Adults, 26(1), 1-14. Virgilio, S. J., & Virgilio, I. R. (1984). The role of principal in curriculum implementation. Education, 104(4), 346-350. Watts, L. T. (1991). Teachers and principals perceptions, beliefs and attitudes about proposed reform in elementary mathematics teaching, curriculum, evaluation and learning. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, the University of Georgia, Athens, 169

Georgia. Wildy, H., Wallace, J. & Lesley, P. (1996). Decentralizing curriculum reform: the link teacher model of in-service training. School Organization, 16(1), 17-28. Wilson, M. R. (1992). A study of three preservice secondary mathematics teachers knowledge and beliefs about mathematical functions. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia. 170

171

172