- Email: [email protected]
On the need for teacher training in curriculum development
Studies in Educational Evaluation . Vol. 7, pp.307-315, 1982
0191-491X/82/030307-09504.50/0 Copyright © 1982 Pergamon Press Ltd.
Printed in Great Britain. All rights reserved.
ON THE NEED FOR TEACHER TRAINING IN C U R R I C U L U M DEVELOPMENT Naarna Sabar and Nitza Shafriri Curriculum Development Department, TeI-Aviv University, School o f Education, Ramat Aviv, 69978, Israel
One of the most important methods of introducing educational changes is through new curricula, and like most induced changes, the success of any new curriculum depends upon an appropriate level of qualified input on the part of many individuals at different stages of the change process. The stages involved are first, the design and development of a new curriculum, which is generally handled by a specialized development team; next, a dissemination process handled by that same team and/or their agents; and finally, the implementation stage, which should be accomplished primarily by regular teachers. This breakdown of responsibilities for the different stages of curriculum development stems from the activities of the innovative curricular movement which began in the late 1950s, and stressed the responsibility of professional curriculum centers in the introduction of educational changes. This movement was influenced by the guiding theories behind these centers, chiefly that of Tyler (1950) and later on by the naturalistic approach of Walker (1971), and a strategy of centralization was adopted. The centers topped down their materials on the field which acted as a feedback source (Connelly, 1972). Until about 1970, the curriculum centers' attention was focused mainly on formulation and development and less on the implementation stage (Eden, 1979). However, in recent years dissatisfaction with the level of learning in the classroom despite the new curricula has led to a growing awareness of the need to examine the effective utilization of new curricula by teachers and pupils (Goodlad, 1977). One of the principal conclusions to be drawn from these studies is that, while external centralized curriculum-development bodies are valuable for attracting skilled personnel, have access to various sources of specialists and can mobilize the other necessary resources for the construction of high quality materials, they also suffer from one serious disadvantage: their remoteness from the classroom. Too often, it is found that a curriculum offered by an external center conceives of its users in terms of an "average" and this is not an adequate solution for the learning conditions faced by individual teachers and classes. Furthermore, assuming the latter difficulty is overcome and a suitable curriculum is developed, we have seen that the dialogue between development teams and teachers in the field -- the latter usually voicing their opinions and needs through the intermediary of selected trial teachers rather than through a more representative cross-section of regular teachers -- is not sufficient to bring about implementation of the curriculum with the development team's intentions and in their "spirit." Misunderstandings of the components of the curriculum and of the "spirit of the curriculum" often have negative results in terms of the developers' intentiom
307
308
N. Sabar ~ N. Shafriri
regarding their innovations. We feel that solutions to these problems require old approaches with new modifications seeking ways to establish more fruitful reciprocal relations between curricular theory and curricular practice. As one of these ways, this paper suggests a program for involving teachers in curriculum making through the improvement of their own understanding in the curriculum area by means of experimental workshops in all phases of curriculum development. This suggested approach is based on our own experience and on recent trends in the curriculum field that view individual teachers as independent professionals able to define their problems, consult experts and seek solutions in the form of teaching materials suited to their conditions and attempting to answer their pupils' needs (Harlen, 1977; Silberstein, 1979; Ben-Peretz & Lipman, 1978). The element shared by all these trends is the desire to establish a connection between the outside developer and the actual needs of the educational situation in which the teacher implementing the curriculum operates.
L i t e r a t u r e Review Schwabs' works (1969, 1971, 1973) were among the early ones which turned the attention from theory to practice, where practice means "choice and actions." In contrast to theory which seeks to arrive at simplification and generalization, practice deals with concrete situations and individual cases. Schwab believes that it is possible to arrive at a proper consideration of the four basic factors in curricular decision-making: the pupil, the teacher, the subject and society (Schwab, 1973), by means of what he calls the "arts of deliberation" in making curricula. The process of deliberation is described as a complicated one dealing with both ends and means. It must test alternatives, consider their "cost" and results, and select the most suitable one for the actual situation (~alker, 1975). Thus, the deliberation process is essentially the choice of the best alternative, and its justification on the basis of a particular concept. In the classic process of curriculum planning, preference was generally given to considerations and rationale taken from the structure of knowledge and of the subject. Most teams were composed of professionals, many of them lacking teaching experience and some of them unfamiliar with the particular problems of specific teaching/learning processes. The teachers' working methods were not taken sufficiently into account in the curricula, and critics now seek to alter the role of the teacher in curriculum development (Connelly, 1972; Silberstein, 1973; Olson, 1977; Ben-Peretz, 1977). In what little research has in fact been done on the curriculum planning processes as carried out by teachers in the course of their work, it was found that the teacher does not operate according to the classic model of Tyler and his followers -- systematically keeping the curricular goals in mind - but rather is primarily concerned with activities and content (Shulman, 1979). A careful investigation by Taylor (1970) and Zahorik C~975) of the planning behavior of teachers in the course of their work showed similar results and indicated that teachers are primarily ~nterested in content, teaching materials and teaching aids. It is only later that they deal with the component of goals and evaluation. Shulman (1979) conceives a successful curriculum as one that enables teachers to be independent in making decisions on the questions of what is most desirable for the pupils. Yet, we find that most curricula envision the teacher as a person who hears or reads about innovations and is the means of achieving the planned aims of the planners in the centers. In other words, the teacher is viewed as "realizing" or "interpreting" a curriculum (Silberstein, 1979). The planning needs of the creative teacher are not considered at all, and developers often failed because of their unfamiliarity with the actual educational situation, having produced essentially unteachable curricula ~Tyler, 1975). The knowledge,
Curriculum Development
309
attitudes and needs of the teachers were not the point of departure, and the role of the teacher as a partner in the curricular process was not stressed (Connelly & Ben-Peretz, 1980). The contribution of teachers in the field to this classic curriculum development process was generally conceived of as being carried out by trial teachers implementing the curriculum according to the directives of the developers and providing the feedback needed for the assessment stage and the composition of the experimental edition (Rudd, 1975). The above studies focus on the remoteness of the curricula from the actual educational act. It is the teacher who has the closest contact to the classroom situation and thereby can make a unique contribution to the success of the curriculum (Connelly, 1972). Connelly objects to the "top-down" strategy used by the development centers in the 1960s and shows how to turn the teacher into an active partner in the planning process, making a sharp distinction between outside curriculum-makers and the user-teachers. He proposes that the outside developers should submit to the "users" a well-defined stock of alternatives, along with empirical reports of research on their effectiveness under various conditions. Thus, the implementing teachers could select, adapt and modify material on the basis of specific, practical considerations. With Connelly's approach the teacher's involvement is greater than it is when the ready-made product is merely passed on, but the teacher still plays no active part in the developing process itself. In contrast to Connelly's sharp distinction between the "outside developers" and the "user-developers," Silberstein (1979) believes that "the common points of contact between the writing teams and the teachers also continue during the process of turning the teaching material into teaching-learning situations in the classes," and to this end he proposes three functions for the development team after the dissemination of the curriculum during the implementation stage: (I) exploration of the hidden aspects or potential of the curriculum; (2) involvement in advanced teacher training; and (3) curriculum consultation in teacher workshops. Similarly, the conclusions of the Rand Study (McLaughlin & Marsh. 1978), which examined the relationship between introducing changes and the professional development of teachers' teams, included a rejection of the "top-down" planning approach. The study suggests instead a mutual type of planning in which the professional curriculum development team works together with local teachers and principals concerning adjustment for solutions to specific needs. As mentioned earlier, recent curricular literature has included approaches presenting the teacher as creative, independent and autonomous, and have aimed at ensuring teachers the place they merit in all stages of the curricular process. These trends aim to produce "a curriculum-proof teacher" (Zoller, 1977) rather than the formerly preferred situation of "a teacher-proof curriculum" (Romey, 1973), or as Olsen (1977) terms it, the "adaptive approach" rather than the "remote control approach." This latter approach retains the central position of the teacher as vital in the implementation of the curriculum (Olson, 1977; BenPeretz, 1978; Silberstein, 1979; Harlen, 1979; Shulman, 1979), and consequently propose training teachers to cope with content and teaching methods in two ways: by preparing teaching materials that teachers can handle in accordance with their inclinations, and by training teachers in reasoning, selection and adaptation in accordance with a set of rules. The education of teachers in this direction must take many forms, of which the "teacher's guide" is only one. Directives given in writing in teacher's guides have not proven effective in the implementation of new curricula (Adar & Fox, 1978; Harlen, 1977), nor has teacher in-service training which is aimed at training the teachers in the innovative skills involved in the new curricula. The problem with such training is that although it may produce short-term results, it does not equip the teacher to deal with the continuing need to adapt those same innovations to the ever-changing classroom conditions (McLaughlin & Marsh, 1978). Taba already in the early sixties (1962) argued for
310
N. Sabar ~ N. Shafriri
training so that the teachers would not be merely recipients of directives, but would discuss real school problems and would react to innovations by contributing their own experiences and translating them into practical learning materials. Therefore, it seems to us that one of the desired approaches should include experiences that would have an effect on involvement and participation in the process of curriculum development associated with focusing the participants' awareness of the different steps in the process, its rationale and deliberations.
I n v o l v i n g Teachers in Developing Curriculum Participation in curriculum development, which is a protracted process, is likely to take the teacher from a conscious phase to one of greater autonomy and internalization. Such autonomy can develop gradually, in a supportive environment wherein teachers can operate in teams, develop interpersonal communication, and become educated toward greater creativity -- which is the principal aim of modern education. One of the ways to involve teachers in curricular research and development is through workshops in which teams of teachers engage in curriculum development and operate as writing teams, preparing curricula. Gray (1974) reports on his work with a group of teachers who developed teaching materials, and Harlen (1977, 1979) and Prestt (1979) cite examples of local projects in England undertaken in response to dissatisfaction with national curriculum development centers. The "teachers' centers" that have been flourishing in England over the past decade are an impressive example of this possibility. These centers offer a new approach to advanced teacher training in its broadest sense, including the curricular aspect (Bailey, 1971; Thornbury, 1973; Gough, 1975; Rudd, 1975). One of the clear indicators of the new approach is the substitution of the term "in-service education" for the previously current "in-service training." Aside from many other activities, these centers provide the opportunity for teachers to join in curriculum construction and, working together with experts, to produce ideas, teaching materials and teaching aids for their own use in their classrooms. Thus, curricular projects developed nationally can be better implemented by teachers in their own communities since they continue to adapt, improve, develop and modify the teaching materials even after the construction team has dispersed. The teachers' center trend has reached other countries as well, among them the U.S. and Canada ~Stabler, 1975). In Israel, too, there have recently been sporadic experiments in the involvement of teachers in curriculum development. Silberstein et aI. (1979% report on teachers' workshops to develop teaching materials connected with existing curricula. Ben-Peretz (1977) describes a project conducted by the Curriculum Division of llaifa University in which biology teachers were guided by a curriculum expert. Another example, the regional teachers' workshop for developing teaching materials in the Lake of GalileeKinneret valley, is described below.
Teachers as Curriculum Developers - Experimental Workshops in Curriculum Development The common denominator Jn all the approaches, experiments and recommendations cited is the desire to assure the teacher a proper place as a partner in all phases of the planning and development process. The emphasis is on the involvement of the teachers' initiative, ability and desire to define their needs, and their gift for enthusiasm and creativity in the course of the ongoing implementation of a new curriculum. All the examples cited brought teachers together in order to close gaps made by missing or unsatisfactory learning materials, and teachers participating even once in such a workshop gained experience that affected their future teaching. However, none of the above examples of planned systematic
Curriculum Development
311
in-service education are equal in priority to production of materials. These considerations have impelled us to propose in-service education in the area of curriculum for regular teachers, through practical experience in all phases of the process of curriculum development. In our view, a workshop of teachers guided by a curriculum expert and covering all phases of the development of a new curriculum will contribute both to the enhancement of the professional expertise of the autonomous teacher and to an increased knowledge of the subject of the curriculum. Such workshops will accustom teachers to team work and to the appreciation of individual and group contributions; will provide intense, meaningful and continuous experience in the creative process; and constitute a link between experimental work and the teachers' current needs. The basic guidelines for such workshops would be the following: a. The workshop will develop a relevant subject, defined as important and necessary to the teachers. b. The teachers will continue in their regular work, and their deliberations in the workshop will be an outcome of their personal teaching experience. c. The teachers will conduct an experiment in their schools and carry out an evaluation of the teaching units developed in the workshop, getting continual feedback from the implementing teachers. d. Through participation in the workshop and by having their attention drawn to curriculum planning principles, the teachers will gradually become better utilizers of the curricula in their schools. As noted, the experience of developing curricula is essentially a continuous creative process likely to lead to the personal autonomous growth of the participating teachers; we support Dewey's contention that actual experiencing is needed to internalize innovation. It may be assumed that teachers participating in a systematic process of identifying needs; analyzing and formulating goals; planning, testing and evaluating activities; expanding professional knowledge; and acquiring skills in the development and implementation of curricula will gradually become more effective and autonomous implementers of new curricula, more amenable to educational changes, more knowledgeable in their chosen field and fully deserving of the title of senior teachers. In the curricular field, this approach is likely to result in the production of contemporary teaching material that is more suitable to a particular teacher and pupil population, and that will open the way for effective utilization of new curricula. It is our belief that participation in the process of development leads to an increased awareness of the deliberations behind the curriculum components during the implementation of existing curriculum materials, as well as to better curricular decisions in other curriculum concerned situations. Development workshops of this kind are not proposed as substitutes for central major external curriculum projects, but as additions to it. The advantages of a national center in the subject area and for mobilizing resources are unchallenged, but the combination of local and national curricular activities and the participation of curricular specialists in the guidance of teachers' workshops will contribute to the expansion and improvement of curricular activity in general, and to the advancement of the teachers' professional training in particular. Further in support of the argument in favor of teachers' active participation is the proposal submitted here which has been tried out in teachers' workshop in the Kinneret Valley (Sabar & Shafriri, 1980). This workshop which had developed a study unit in the region of the Lake of Galilee (Kinneret) including its geography, history, economy and its biological, ecological nature, is described briefly below.
312
N. Sabar 0 N. Shafriri
Organization of the Workshop The workshop group included nine teachers working in elementary schools in grades 1-8, who had no previous experience in curriculum development and no special training in the subject matter -- the region of l,ake Kinneret. The group leader was a curriculum specialist in geography as well as a practicing teacher. In selecting participants the critical criteria used were: (I) solid experience in teaching in the belief that, with experience teachers could deliberate on the requirements of the learner, the teacher, the school, and the subject matter; (2) motivation to participate in the process of curriculum development; and (3) interest in studying and teaching about their region -- a needed subject. During the school year the teachers were released from teaching for half a day each week to work in the team (homework following almost every meeting). Participation of teachers in the workshop was authorized by the regional superintendent and substitutes were provided in their respective schools for that day. Thirty-six meetings were held in the first year.
Guidelines and Operation of the Weekly Workshop Five basic elements were interwoven in the workshop: i. Introduction to the principles of curriculum development. 2. Designing activities aimed to increase students' knowledge of the region: field trips, reading, searching for sources, contributions by specialists, etc. 3. Deliberations on approaches to curriculum development; decisions about the unit's general framework, defining objectives and selecting activities. 4. Development and production of learning materials. 5. Interaction with teachers and schools in the region, trying out the materials, revising and modifying them based on feedback collected via the questionnaire. At each weekly meeting the workshop dealt with at least two of these element The sequence was dictated by the behavior of the teachers and their needs. Thus, for instance, experience in development activities preceded the defining of objectives, and gathering information on the topic preceded discussions on the general framework. Below is a sample of the subjects which were dealt with in two of the thirty-six meetings held during the first year. MEETING
NO.
7
a. Discussion:
the approach to the new curricula (element l).
b. Outlining activities during a field trip (2). c. Exercise in definitions of operative objectives (1). d. Working in sub-groups, designing field trip activity on 'The early settlers' (2). MEETING
NO.
22
a. Subgroups developing activities on 'The early settlers'
(element 4).
b. Collecting feedback from specialists about the working paper on 'Topics of the curriculum' (2). c. Exploring the sources influencing the definition of objectives (I). d. Final shaping of the working paper on the 'General objectives'
(3).
Curriculum Development
313
Although there was an outline plan for the workshops, there was great flexibility in the way in which the five elements were integrated. Changes were made in the timetable according to the teachers' demands and the pace at which the development of the materials progressed. The first three elements were emphasized during the first six months of meetings, resulting in three working papers: (i) a pool of topics (foci of the program); (ii) general objectives; and (iii) the philosophy and approaches to the program and its components (the teacher, student, school and strategies of teaching). During the last three months the focus shifted to the fourth element, in which the efforts of the subgroups were devoted to developing and producing learning materials for the suggested topics. These materials were not elaborated fully, but were offered as raw material which teachers could work with in their own way; there are no elaborated student activities, but a resource book and a teachers' guide with suggestions were produced. This enabled teachers to act autonomously and gave them the opportunity for self-expression in using the materials. It also encouraged contributions from a greater range of teachers (element 5) than pre-made materials would have done. Hopefully, it also raised their level of awareness of the evolving new curriculum, increased their sense of active involvement in the process of development and made them immediately able to implement what they had developed together. The fifth element was emphasized the following summer during an in-service course attended by the workshop teachers and a new group of about 30 teachers who intended to use the program in the autumn. The original group served as tutors for the new group. Following this course an intensive week-long workshop was held in which the reactions and comments of the new teachers were discussed by the original group. Interaction between the two groups will continue to provide mutual feedback during the trials of the developed materials. In summing up, the encouraging results reported by the teachers indicate that their experience "led to a growth process" which resulted not only in teachers producing high quality curriculum on regional studies, but also stimulated the creation of more independence and initiative on the part of the school (thanks to teachers newly trained in curriculum making), when faced with curriculum issues and teaching/learning situations. This workshop demonstrated that teachers can be real contributors to the production of teachable curriculum materials. There is a need for many more such enterprises which plan systematic teacher in-service education either through developing new materials or by adapting and revising existing materials. The increased demand in Israel coming from teachers who wish to be guided in methods of adapting, revising and developing learning materials suitable to their specific needs (during the last year many groups of teachers established production workshops) has created concern over the lack of curriculum coordinators needed for operating such workshops successfully. At present an attempt is being made to study the desirable competencies of curriculum coordinators for teachers as learning materials developers (Sabar, et al, 1980). Such a study will serve as a basis for planning a systematic and comprehensive in-service program for coordinators.
REFERENCES ADAR, L., & FOX, S. Analysis of a History c u r r i c u l u m and its implementation in the schools. Jerusalem: Hebrew University School of Education, 1978. (Hebrew) BAILEY, S.K. Teachers' centers: A British first. Phi Delta Kappa, November 1971, 53, 146-149. BEN-PERETZ, M. Comparative analysis of several biology curricula used in Israeli
314
N. Sabar ~ N. Shafriri
high schools: Theoretical and practical considerations in the process of curriculum planning, Ph.D. dissertation, Hebrew University, Jerusalem, 1977. (Hebrew) BEN-PERETZ, M., & LIPMAN, M. Training teachers to implement curricula: Workbook Haifa University School of Education, 1978. (Hebrew) CONNELLY, F.M. The function of curriculum development. Interchange, 1972, 3(2,3), 161-177. CONNELLY, F.M., & BEN-PERETZ, M. Teachers' roles in the using and doing of research and curriculum development. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 1980, 12(2), 95-107. EDEN, S. The implementation of innovations in education. A case study in curriculum planning. Studies in Educational Evaluation. Monograph series, 1979, No. 2. GOUGH, B. Teachers' centers as providers of in-service education. British Journal of In-Service Education, 1975, 1(3), 11-14. GRAY, K.R. What can teachers contribute to a curriculum development? Journal of Curriculum Studies, 1974, 6(2), 158-167. GOODLAD, J.I. What goes on in our schools? Educational Researcher, 1977, 6(3), 3-6. HARLEN, W. A stronger teacher role in curriculum development? Journal of Curriculum Studies, 1977, 9(1), 21-29. HARLEN, W. Implementation through involvement in development processes. In Tamir, P. et al. (Eds.), Curriculum implementation and its relationship to curriculum development in science. Israel Science Teaching Center, Jerusalem, 1979. blcLAUGHLIN, M.W., & MARSH, D.D. Staff development and school change. Teacher College Record, 1978, 80(i), 69-94. OLSON, J.K. Teacher education and curriculum change: Re-examining the relationship. Curriculum Inquiry, 1977, 7(i), 61-66. PRESTT, B.M. Take your time: Curriculum development at your own pace. In Tamir, P. et al. (Eds.), Curriculum implementation and its relationship to curriculum development in science. Israel Science Teaching Center, Jerusalem, 1979. ROMEY, W.D. The curriculum proof teacher. Phi Delta Kappa, 1973, 54, 407-408. RUDD, A.W.G. Teachers' as curriculum developers: A second generation viewpoint. In P.H. Taylor & J. Walton (Eds.), The curriculum research innovation and change. London: Ward Lock Education, 1975. SABAR, N., & SHAFRIRI, N. Teachers as curriculum developers: A model for inservice training of teachers in Israel. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 1980, 12(3), 207-217. SABAR, N., SILBERSTEIN, M., SHAFRIRI, N. Needed: Curriculum coordinators for teams of teachers as developers of learning materials. Paper presented to the Israeli Educational Research Association, Ramat Gan, February, 1981. SCHWAB, J.J. The practical: A language for curriculum. School Review, 1969,
78(1), 1-24. SCHWAB, J.J. The practical arts of eclectic. School Review, 1971, 79(4), 493-542. SC~¢AB, J.J. The practical 3: Translation into curriculum. School Review, 1973, 81(4), 501-522. SHULMAN, L.S. Research on teaching: The missing link in curriculum implementation. In Tamir, P. e t a ] . (Eds.), Curriculum implementation and its relationship to curriculum development in science. Israel Science Teaching Center, Jerusalem, 1979. SILBERSTEIN, M. The new curricula and autonomous teachers. Metodica, 1973, i, 41-52. (Hebrew) SILBERSTEIN, M. Does curriculum implementation constitute part of its development? In Tamir, P. et al. (Eds.), Curriculum implementation and its relationship to curriculum development Jn science. Israel Science Teaching Center, Jerusalem, 1979.
Curriculum Development
315
SILBERSTEIN, M., SEGAL, H., & NAHMAN, B. Collaboration of teachers and curriculum consultants in the development of study material of a local nature. In Tamir, P. et al. (Eds.), Curriculum implementation and its relationship to curriculum development in science. Israel Science Teaching Center, Jerusalem, 1979. STABLER, D.E. Teachers' centers: A comparative view. Paper given at the annual conference of Comparative and International Education, Society of Canada, Edmonton, Alberta, June 1975. TABA, H. Curriculum development. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World, 1962. TAYLOR, P.H. Row teachers plan their courses: Studies in curriculum. London: N.F.E.R., 1970. THORNBURY, R. (Ed.). Teachers' center. New York: Apathon Press, 1973. TYLER, R.W. Basic principles of curriculum and instructions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1950. TYLER, R.W. Specific approaches to curriculum development. In 3. Schaffarzick & D.H. Hampson (Eds.), Strategies for curriculum development. Berkeley: Mo. Cutton Pub. Corp., 1975, 17-33. WALKER, D.F. A naturalistic model for curriculum development. School Review, 1971, 79(]), 51-65. WALKER, .D.F. Curriculum development in an art project. In W.A. Reid & D.F. Walker (Eds.), Case studies in curriculum change: Great Britain and the United States. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1975, 54-91. ZAHORIK, J.A. Teachers' planning models. Educational Leadership, 1975, 33(2), 134-139. ZOLLER, U. Implementation of curricula for the "curriculum-proof teacher" ty~e curricula: The realism of constraints. The realism of constraints. Science Education, 1977, 61(2), 129-134.
THE AUTHORS NAAMA SABAR is a lecturer and chairperson of curriculum studies at the School of Education, Tel-Aviv University. She holds the degrees of M.Sc. and Ph.D. from the Hebrew University, Jerusalem. Her main interests are in curriculum implementation, training curriculum development leaders and in science education. NITZA SHAFRIRI holds the degree of M.A. from Tel-Aviv University. She is a principle of kibbutz school and currently running teachers' workshop for teachers in various places. Her main interest is in Teacher Education in environmental studies and in curriculum development.
0191-491X/82/030307-09504.50/0 Copyright © 1982 Pergamon Press Ltd.
Printed in Great Britain. All rights reserved.
ON THE NEED FOR TEACHER TRAINING IN C U R R I C U L U M DEVELOPMENT Naarna Sabar and Nitza Shafriri Curriculum Development Department, TeI-Aviv University, School o f Education, Ramat Aviv, 69978, Israel
One of the most important methods of introducing educational changes is through new curricula, and like most induced changes, the success of any new curriculum depends upon an appropriate level of qualified input on the part of many individuals at different stages of the change process. The stages involved are first, the design and development of a new curriculum, which is generally handled by a specialized development team; next, a dissemination process handled by that same team and/or their agents; and finally, the implementation stage, which should be accomplished primarily by regular teachers. This breakdown of responsibilities for the different stages of curriculum development stems from the activities of the innovative curricular movement which began in the late 1950s, and stressed the responsibility of professional curriculum centers in the introduction of educational changes. This movement was influenced by the guiding theories behind these centers, chiefly that of Tyler (1950) and later on by the naturalistic approach of Walker (1971), and a strategy of centralization was adopted. The centers topped down their materials on the field which acted as a feedback source (Connelly, 1972). Until about 1970, the curriculum centers' attention was focused mainly on formulation and development and less on the implementation stage (Eden, 1979). However, in recent years dissatisfaction with the level of learning in the classroom despite the new curricula has led to a growing awareness of the need to examine the effective utilization of new curricula by teachers and pupils (Goodlad, 1977). One of the principal conclusions to be drawn from these studies is that, while external centralized curriculum-development bodies are valuable for attracting skilled personnel, have access to various sources of specialists and can mobilize the other necessary resources for the construction of high quality materials, they also suffer from one serious disadvantage: their remoteness from the classroom. Too often, it is found that a curriculum offered by an external center conceives of its users in terms of an "average" and this is not an adequate solution for the learning conditions faced by individual teachers and classes. Furthermore, assuming the latter difficulty is overcome and a suitable curriculum is developed, we have seen that the dialogue between development teams and teachers in the field -- the latter usually voicing their opinions and needs through the intermediary of selected trial teachers rather than through a more representative cross-section of regular teachers -- is not sufficient to bring about implementation of the curriculum with the development team's intentions and in their "spirit." Misunderstandings of the components of the curriculum and of the "spirit of the curriculum" often have negative results in terms of the developers' intentiom
307
308
N. Sabar ~ N. Shafriri
regarding their innovations. We feel that solutions to these problems require old approaches with new modifications seeking ways to establish more fruitful reciprocal relations between curricular theory and curricular practice. As one of these ways, this paper suggests a program for involving teachers in curriculum making through the improvement of their own understanding in the curriculum area by means of experimental workshops in all phases of curriculum development. This suggested approach is based on our own experience and on recent trends in the curriculum field that view individual teachers as independent professionals able to define their problems, consult experts and seek solutions in the form of teaching materials suited to their conditions and attempting to answer their pupils' needs (Harlen, 1977; Silberstein, 1979; Ben-Peretz & Lipman, 1978). The element shared by all these trends is the desire to establish a connection between the outside developer and the actual needs of the educational situation in which the teacher implementing the curriculum operates.
L i t e r a t u r e Review Schwabs' works (1969, 1971, 1973) were among the early ones which turned the attention from theory to practice, where practice means "choice and actions." In contrast to theory which seeks to arrive at simplification and generalization, practice deals with concrete situations and individual cases. Schwab believes that it is possible to arrive at a proper consideration of the four basic factors in curricular decision-making: the pupil, the teacher, the subject and society (Schwab, 1973), by means of what he calls the "arts of deliberation" in making curricula. The process of deliberation is described as a complicated one dealing with both ends and means. It must test alternatives, consider their "cost" and results, and select the most suitable one for the actual situation (~alker, 1975). Thus, the deliberation process is essentially the choice of the best alternative, and its justification on the basis of a particular concept. In the classic process of curriculum planning, preference was generally given to considerations and rationale taken from the structure of knowledge and of the subject. Most teams were composed of professionals, many of them lacking teaching experience and some of them unfamiliar with the particular problems of specific teaching/learning processes. The teachers' working methods were not taken sufficiently into account in the curricula, and critics now seek to alter the role of the teacher in curriculum development (Connelly, 1972; Silberstein, 1973; Olson, 1977; Ben-Peretz, 1977). In what little research has in fact been done on the curriculum planning processes as carried out by teachers in the course of their work, it was found that the teacher does not operate according to the classic model of Tyler and his followers -- systematically keeping the curricular goals in mind - but rather is primarily concerned with activities and content (Shulman, 1979). A careful investigation by Taylor (1970) and Zahorik C~975) of the planning behavior of teachers in the course of their work showed similar results and indicated that teachers are primarily ~nterested in content, teaching materials and teaching aids. It is only later that they deal with the component of goals and evaluation. Shulman (1979) conceives a successful curriculum as one that enables teachers to be independent in making decisions on the questions of what is most desirable for the pupils. Yet, we find that most curricula envision the teacher as a person who hears or reads about innovations and is the means of achieving the planned aims of the planners in the centers. In other words, the teacher is viewed as "realizing" or "interpreting" a curriculum (Silberstein, 1979). The planning needs of the creative teacher are not considered at all, and developers often failed because of their unfamiliarity with the actual educational situation, having produced essentially unteachable curricula ~Tyler, 1975). The knowledge,
Curriculum Development
309
attitudes and needs of the teachers were not the point of departure, and the role of the teacher as a partner in the curricular process was not stressed (Connelly & Ben-Peretz, 1980). The contribution of teachers in the field to this classic curriculum development process was generally conceived of as being carried out by trial teachers implementing the curriculum according to the directives of the developers and providing the feedback needed for the assessment stage and the composition of the experimental edition (Rudd, 1975). The above studies focus on the remoteness of the curricula from the actual educational act. It is the teacher who has the closest contact to the classroom situation and thereby can make a unique contribution to the success of the curriculum (Connelly, 1972). Connelly objects to the "top-down" strategy used by the development centers in the 1960s and shows how to turn the teacher into an active partner in the planning process, making a sharp distinction between outside curriculum-makers and the user-teachers. He proposes that the outside developers should submit to the "users" a well-defined stock of alternatives, along with empirical reports of research on their effectiveness under various conditions. Thus, the implementing teachers could select, adapt and modify material on the basis of specific, practical considerations. With Connelly's approach the teacher's involvement is greater than it is when the ready-made product is merely passed on, but the teacher still plays no active part in the developing process itself. In contrast to Connelly's sharp distinction between the "outside developers" and the "user-developers," Silberstein (1979) believes that "the common points of contact between the writing teams and the teachers also continue during the process of turning the teaching material into teaching-learning situations in the classes," and to this end he proposes three functions for the development team after the dissemination of the curriculum during the implementation stage: (I) exploration of the hidden aspects or potential of the curriculum; (2) involvement in advanced teacher training; and (3) curriculum consultation in teacher workshops. Similarly, the conclusions of the Rand Study (McLaughlin & Marsh. 1978), which examined the relationship between introducing changes and the professional development of teachers' teams, included a rejection of the "top-down" planning approach. The study suggests instead a mutual type of planning in which the professional curriculum development team works together with local teachers and principals concerning adjustment for solutions to specific needs. As mentioned earlier, recent curricular literature has included approaches presenting the teacher as creative, independent and autonomous, and have aimed at ensuring teachers the place they merit in all stages of the curricular process. These trends aim to produce "a curriculum-proof teacher" (Zoller, 1977) rather than the formerly preferred situation of "a teacher-proof curriculum" (Romey, 1973), or as Olsen (1977) terms it, the "adaptive approach" rather than the "remote control approach." This latter approach retains the central position of the teacher as vital in the implementation of the curriculum (Olson, 1977; BenPeretz, 1978; Silberstein, 1979; Harlen, 1979; Shulman, 1979), and consequently propose training teachers to cope with content and teaching methods in two ways: by preparing teaching materials that teachers can handle in accordance with their inclinations, and by training teachers in reasoning, selection and adaptation in accordance with a set of rules. The education of teachers in this direction must take many forms, of which the "teacher's guide" is only one. Directives given in writing in teacher's guides have not proven effective in the implementation of new curricula (Adar & Fox, 1978; Harlen, 1977), nor has teacher in-service training which is aimed at training the teachers in the innovative skills involved in the new curricula. The problem with such training is that although it may produce short-term results, it does not equip the teacher to deal with the continuing need to adapt those same innovations to the ever-changing classroom conditions (McLaughlin & Marsh, 1978). Taba already in the early sixties (1962) argued for
310
N. Sabar ~ N. Shafriri
training so that the teachers would not be merely recipients of directives, but would discuss real school problems and would react to innovations by contributing their own experiences and translating them into practical learning materials. Therefore, it seems to us that one of the desired approaches should include experiences that would have an effect on involvement and participation in the process of curriculum development associated with focusing the participants' awareness of the different steps in the process, its rationale and deliberations.
I n v o l v i n g Teachers in Developing Curriculum Participation in curriculum development, which is a protracted process, is likely to take the teacher from a conscious phase to one of greater autonomy and internalization. Such autonomy can develop gradually, in a supportive environment wherein teachers can operate in teams, develop interpersonal communication, and become educated toward greater creativity -- which is the principal aim of modern education. One of the ways to involve teachers in curricular research and development is through workshops in which teams of teachers engage in curriculum development and operate as writing teams, preparing curricula. Gray (1974) reports on his work with a group of teachers who developed teaching materials, and Harlen (1977, 1979) and Prestt (1979) cite examples of local projects in England undertaken in response to dissatisfaction with national curriculum development centers. The "teachers' centers" that have been flourishing in England over the past decade are an impressive example of this possibility. These centers offer a new approach to advanced teacher training in its broadest sense, including the curricular aspect (Bailey, 1971; Thornbury, 1973; Gough, 1975; Rudd, 1975). One of the clear indicators of the new approach is the substitution of the term "in-service education" for the previously current "in-service training." Aside from many other activities, these centers provide the opportunity for teachers to join in curriculum construction and, working together with experts, to produce ideas, teaching materials and teaching aids for their own use in their classrooms. Thus, curricular projects developed nationally can be better implemented by teachers in their own communities since they continue to adapt, improve, develop and modify the teaching materials even after the construction team has dispersed. The teachers' center trend has reached other countries as well, among them the U.S. and Canada ~Stabler, 1975). In Israel, too, there have recently been sporadic experiments in the involvement of teachers in curriculum development. Silberstein et aI. (1979% report on teachers' workshops to develop teaching materials connected with existing curricula. Ben-Peretz (1977) describes a project conducted by the Curriculum Division of llaifa University in which biology teachers were guided by a curriculum expert. Another example, the regional teachers' workshop for developing teaching materials in the Lake of GalileeKinneret valley, is described below.
Teachers as Curriculum Developers - Experimental Workshops in Curriculum Development The common denominator Jn all the approaches, experiments and recommendations cited is the desire to assure the teacher a proper place as a partner in all phases of the planning and development process. The emphasis is on the involvement of the teachers' initiative, ability and desire to define their needs, and their gift for enthusiasm and creativity in the course of the ongoing implementation of a new curriculum. All the examples cited brought teachers together in order to close gaps made by missing or unsatisfactory learning materials, and teachers participating even once in such a workshop gained experience that affected their future teaching. However, none of the above examples of planned systematic
Curriculum Development
311
in-service education are equal in priority to production of materials. These considerations have impelled us to propose in-service education in the area of curriculum for regular teachers, through practical experience in all phases of the process of curriculum development. In our view, a workshop of teachers guided by a curriculum expert and covering all phases of the development of a new curriculum will contribute both to the enhancement of the professional expertise of the autonomous teacher and to an increased knowledge of the subject of the curriculum. Such workshops will accustom teachers to team work and to the appreciation of individual and group contributions; will provide intense, meaningful and continuous experience in the creative process; and constitute a link between experimental work and the teachers' current needs. The basic guidelines for such workshops would be the following: a. The workshop will develop a relevant subject, defined as important and necessary to the teachers. b. The teachers will continue in their regular work, and their deliberations in the workshop will be an outcome of their personal teaching experience. c. The teachers will conduct an experiment in their schools and carry out an evaluation of the teaching units developed in the workshop, getting continual feedback from the implementing teachers. d. Through participation in the workshop and by having their attention drawn to curriculum planning principles, the teachers will gradually become better utilizers of the curricula in their schools. As noted, the experience of developing curricula is essentially a continuous creative process likely to lead to the personal autonomous growth of the participating teachers; we support Dewey's contention that actual experiencing is needed to internalize innovation. It may be assumed that teachers participating in a systematic process of identifying needs; analyzing and formulating goals; planning, testing and evaluating activities; expanding professional knowledge; and acquiring skills in the development and implementation of curricula will gradually become more effective and autonomous implementers of new curricula, more amenable to educational changes, more knowledgeable in their chosen field and fully deserving of the title of senior teachers. In the curricular field, this approach is likely to result in the production of contemporary teaching material that is more suitable to a particular teacher and pupil population, and that will open the way for effective utilization of new curricula. It is our belief that participation in the process of development leads to an increased awareness of the deliberations behind the curriculum components during the implementation of existing curriculum materials, as well as to better curricular decisions in other curriculum concerned situations. Development workshops of this kind are not proposed as substitutes for central major external curriculum projects, but as additions to it. The advantages of a national center in the subject area and for mobilizing resources are unchallenged, but the combination of local and national curricular activities and the participation of curricular specialists in the guidance of teachers' workshops will contribute to the expansion and improvement of curricular activity in general, and to the advancement of the teachers' professional training in particular. Further in support of the argument in favor of teachers' active participation is the proposal submitted here which has been tried out in teachers' workshop in the Kinneret Valley (Sabar & Shafriri, 1980). This workshop which had developed a study unit in the region of the Lake of Galilee (Kinneret) including its geography, history, economy and its biological, ecological nature, is described briefly below.
312
N. Sabar 0 N. Shafriri
Organization of the Workshop The workshop group included nine teachers working in elementary schools in grades 1-8, who had no previous experience in curriculum development and no special training in the subject matter -- the region of l,ake Kinneret. The group leader was a curriculum specialist in geography as well as a practicing teacher. In selecting participants the critical criteria used were: (I) solid experience in teaching in the belief that, with experience teachers could deliberate on the requirements of the learner, the teacher, the school, and the subject matter; (2) motivation to participate in the process of curriculum development; and (3) interest in studying and teaching about their region -- a needed subject. During the school year the teachers were released from teaching for half a day each week to work in the team (homework following almost every meeting). Participation of teachers in the workshop was authorized by the regional superintendent and substitutes were provided in their respective schools for that day. Thirty-six meetings were held in the first year.
Guidelines and Operation of the Weekly Workshop Five basic elements were interwoven in the workshop: i. Introduction to the principles of curriculum development. 2. Designing activities aimed to increase students' knowledge of the region: field trips, reading, searching for sources, contributions by specialists, etc. 3. Deliberations on approaches to curriculum development; decisions about the unit's general framework, defining objectives and selecting activities. 4. Development and production of learning materials. 5. Interaction with teachers and schools in the region, trying out the materials, revising and modifying them based on feedback collected via the questionnaire. At each weekly meeting the workshop dealt with at least two of these element The sequence was dictated by the behavior of the teachers and their needs. Thus, for instance, experience in development activities preceded the defining of objectives, and gathering information on the topic preceded discussions on the general framework. Below is a sample of the subjects which were dealt with in two of the thirty-six meetings held during the first year. MEETING
NO.
7
a. Discussion:
the approach to the new curricula (element l).
b. Outlining activities during a field trip (2). c. Exercise in definitions of operative objectives (1). d. Working in sub-groups, designing field trip activity on 'The early settlers' (2). MEETING
NO.
22
a. Subgroups developing activities on 'The early settlers'
(element 4).
b. Collecting feedback from specialists about the working paper on 'Topics of the curriculum' (2). c. Exploring the sources influencing the definition of objectives (I). d. Final shaping of the working paper on the 'General objectives'
(3).
Curriculum Development
313
Although there was an outline plan for the workshops, there was great flexibility in the way in which the five elements were integrated. Changes were made in the timetable according to the teachers' demands and the pace at which the development of the materials progressed. The first three elements were emphasized during the first six months of meetings, resulting in three working papers: (i) a pool of topics (foci of the program); (ii) general objectives; and (iii) the philosophy and approaches to the program and its components (the teacher, student, school and strategies of teaching). During the last three months the focus shifted to the fourth element, in which the efforts of the subgroups were devoted to developing and producing learning materials for the suggested topics. These materials were not elaborated fully, but were offered as raw material which teachers could work with in their own way; there are no elaborated student activities, but a resource book and a teachers' guide with suggestions were produced. This enabled teachers to act autonomously and gave them the opportunity for self-expression in using the materials. It also encouraged contributions from a greater range of teachers (element 5) than pre-made materials would have done. Hopefully, it also raised their level of awareness of the evolving new curriculum, increased their sense of active involvement in the process of development and made them immediately able to implement what they had developed together. The fifth element was emphasized the following summer during an in-service course attended by the workshop teachers and a new group of about 30 teachers who intended to use the program in the autumn. The original group served as tutors for the new group. Following this course an intensive week-long workshop was held in which the reactions and comments of the new teachers were discussed by the original group. Interaction between the two groups will continue to provide mutual feedback during the trials of the developed materials. In summing up, the encouraging results reported by the teachers indicate that their experience "led to a growth process" which resulted not only in teachers producing high quality curriculum on regional studies, but also stimulated the creation of more independence and initiative on the part of the school (thanks to teachers newly trained in curriculum making), when faced with curriculum issues and teaching/learning situations. This workshop demonstrated that teachers can be real contributors to the production of teachable curriculum materials. There is a need for many more such enterprises which plan systematic teacher in-service education either through developing new materials or by adapting and revising existing materials. The increased demand in Israel coming from teachers who wish to be guided in methods of adapting, revising and developing learning materials suitable to their specific needs (during the last year many groups of teachers established production workshops) has created concern over the lack of curriculum coordinators needed for operating such workshops successfully. At present an attempt is being made to study the desirable competencies of curriculum coordinators for teachers as learning materials developers (Sabar, et al, 1980). Such a study will serve as a basis for planning a systematic and comprehensive in-service program for coordinators.
REFERENCES ADAR, L., & FOX, S. Analysis of a History c u r r i c u l u m and its implementation in the schools. Jerusalem: Hebrew University School of Education, 1978. (Hebrew) BAILEY, S.K. Teachers' centers: A British first. Phi Delta Kappa, November 1971, 53, 146-149. BEN-PERETZ, M. Comparative analysis of several biology curricula used in Israeli
314
N. Sabar ~ N. Shafriri
high schools: Theoretical and practical considerations in the process of curriculum planning, Ph.D. dissertation, Hebrew University, Jerusalem, 1977. (Hebrew) BEN-PERETZ, M., & LIPMAN, M. Training teachers to implement curricula: Workbook Haifa University School of Education, 1978. (Hebrew) CONNELLY, F.M. The function of curriculum development. Interchange, 1972, 3(2,3), 161-177. CONNELLY, F.M., & BEN-PERETZ, M. Teachers' roles in the using and doing of research and curriculum development. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 1980, 12(2), 95-107. EDEN, S. The implementation of innovations in education. A case study in curriculum planning. Studies in Educational Evaluation. Monograph series, 1979, No. 2. GOUGH, B. Teachers' centers as providers of in-service education. British Journal of In-Service Education, 1975, 1(3), 11-14. GRAY, K.R. What can teachers contribute to a curriculum development? Journal of Curriculum Studies, 1974, 6(2), 158-167. GOODLAD, J.I. What goes on in our schools? Educational Researcher, 1977, 6(3), 3-6. HARLEN, W. A stronger teacher role in curriculum development? Journal of Curriculum Studies, 1977, 9(1), 21-29. HARLEN, W. Implementation through involvement in development processes. In Tamir, P. et al. (Eds.), Curriculum implementation and its relationship to curriculum development in science. Israel Science Teaching Center, Jerusalem, 1979. blcLAUGHLIN, M.W., & MARSH, D.D. Staff development and school change. Teacher College Record, 1978, 80(i), 69-94. OLSON, J.K. Teacher education and curriculum change: Re-examining the relationship. Curriculum Inquiry, 1977, 7(i), 61-66. PRESTT, B.M. Take your time: Curriculum development at your own pace. In Tamir, P. et al. (Eds.), Curriculum implementation and its relationship to curriculum development in science. Israel Science Teaching Center, Jerusalem, 1979. ROMEY, W.D. The curriculum proof teacher. Phi Delta Kappa, 1973, 54, 407-408. RUDD, A.W.G. Teachers' as curriculum developers: A second generation viewpoint. In P.H. Taylor & J. Walton (Eds.), The curriculum research innovation and change. London: Ward Lock Education, 1975. SABAR, N., & SHAFRIRI, N. Teachers as curriculum developers: A model for inservice training of teachers in Israel. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 1980, 12(3), 207-217. SABAR, N., SILBERSTEIN, M., SHAFRIRI, N. Needed: Curriculum coordinators for teams of teachers as developers of learning materials. Paper presented to the Israeli Educational Research Association, Ramat Gan, February, 1981. SCHWAB, J.J. The practical: A language for curriculum. School Review, 1969,
78(1), 1-24. SCHWAB, J.J. The practical arts of eclectic. School Review, 1971, 79(4), 493-542. SC~¢AB, J.J. The practical 3: Translation into curriculum. School Review, 1973, 81(4), 501-522. SHULMAN, L.S. Research on teaching: The missing link in curriculum implementation. In Tamir, P. e t a ] . (Eds.), Curriculum implementation and its relationship to curriculum development in science. Israel Science Teaching Center, Jerusalem, 1979. SILBERSTEIN, M. The new curricula and autonomous teachers. Metodica, 1973, i, 41-52. (Hebrew) SILBERSTEIN, M. Does curriculum implementation constitute part of its development? In Tamir, P. et al. (Eds.), Curriculum implementation and its relationship to curriculum development Jn science. Israel Science Teaching Center, Jerusalem, 1979.
Curriculum Development
315
SILBERSTEIN, M., SEGAL, H., & NAHMAN, B. Collaboration of teachers and curriculum consultants in the development of study material of a local nature. In Tamir, P. et al. (Eds.), Curriculum implementation and its relationship to curriculum development in science. Israel Science Teaching Center, Jerusalem, 1979. STABLER, D.E. Teachers' centers: A comparative view. Paper given at the annual conference of Comparative and International Education, Society of Canada, Edmonton, Alberta, June 1975. TABA, H. Curriculum development. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World, 1962. TAYLOR, P.H. Row teachers plan their courses: Studies in curriculum. London: N.F.E.R., 1970. THORNBURY, R. (Ed.). Teachers' center. New York: Apathon Press, 1973. TYLER, R.W. Basic principles of curriculum and instructions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1950. TYLER, R.W. Specific approaches to curriculum development. In 3. Schaffarzick & D.H. Hampson (Eds.), Strategies for curriculum development. Berkeley: Mo. Cutton Pub. Corp., 1975, 17-33. WALKER, D.F. A naturalistic model for curriculum development. School Review, 1971, 79(]), 51-65. WALKER, .D.F. Curriculum development in an art project. In W.A. Reid & D.F. Walker (Eds.), Case studies in curriculum change: Great Britain and the United States. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1975, 54-91. ZAHORIK, J.A. Teachers' planning models. Educational Leadership, 1975, 33(2), 134-139. ZOLLER, U. Implementation of curricula for the "curriculum-proof teacher" ty~e curricula: The realism of constraints. The realism of constraints. Science Education, 1977, 61(2), 129-134.
THE AUTHORS NAAMA SABAR is a lecturer and chairperson of curriculum studies at the School of Education, Tel-Aviv University. She holds the degrees of M.Sc. and Ph.D. from the Hebrew University, Jerusalem. Her main interests are in curriculum implementation, training curriculum development leaders and in science education. NITZA SHAFRIRI holds the degree of M.A. from Tel-Aviv University. She is a principle of kibbutz school and currently running teachers' workshop for teachers in various places. Her main interest is in Teacher Education in environmental studies and in curriculum development.