Teachers’ feelings of curriculum ownership: Estonian schoolteachers as curriculum developers and curriculum users
Kuupäev
2024-10-10
Autorid
Ajakirja pealkiri
Ajakirja ISSN
Köite pealkiri
Kirjastaja
Abstrakt
Uuringute tulemused on näidanud, et õppekavauuenduste edu või ebaõnnestumine sõltub suuresti õpetajate arusaamadest, ootustest ja omanikutundest nende uuenduste suhtes. Sellest tulenevalt on oluline, et õpetajad mõistaksid õppekavapoliitika muudatuste põhjuseid ja neis kajastuvad ideid ning omaksid nende suhtes omanikutunnet. Õpetajad kipuvad aga väljastpoolt algatatud uuendustele vastu seisma, kuna neil puudub omanikutunne planeeritavate uuenduste suhtes. Õpetajate õppekava omanikutunde suurendamiseks on õpetajaid kaasatud õppekavaga seotud otsuste tegemisse, neile on antud õppekavaarendaja ja õppekavapoliitika kujundaja staatus. Kuid ametlikult antud autonoomse õppekavaarendaja staatus ei taga tingimata, et õpetajad tegutsevad iseseisvalt või kogevad omanikutunnet õppekava suhtes. Neoliberaalsed standardiseerimispraktikad on osutunud oluliseks takistuseks õpetajate õppekavaga seotud omanikutunde kujunemisel. Riigieksamid ja rahvusvahelised võrdlusuuringud takistavad õpetajaid tegutsemast autonoomsete professionaalidena enda tõekspidamisi arvestava õppekava loomisel ja rakendamisel. Uurimist alustati küsimustiku loomisest ja selle piloteerimisest, et uurida Eesti õpetajate kogemusi õppekavade kasutamise ja arendamisega, nende ettevalmistust õppekavaarenduseks ning ootuseid parimatele õppekavalahendustele. Järgnenud Eesti üldhariduskoolide õpetajate esindusliku valimi uuringu tulemustest selgus, et õpetajate õppekavaideaalide ja nende praktiliste ootuste vahel on vastuolu. Õpetajad ootasid suurt vabadust õppekava üle otsustamisel, kuid samas eelistasid üsna üksikasjalikke õppekavajuhiseid. Õpetajate õppekavaga seotud omanikutunne peegeldus ka nende õppekava definitsioonides. Ligi pooled vastanutest määratlesid õppekava kui kohustuslikku ettekirjutavat dokumenti, mis piirab nende omanikutunnet. Suur osa õpetajatest ei tunne õppekava kasutajate, arendajate ja lahenduste väljapakkujatena omanikutunnet õppekava suhtes. Doktoritöös antakse soovitus muuta õppekavade väljatöötamise protsess personaalsemaks – õppekava ei tohiks olla väljastpoolt loodud dokument, õpetajad peavad tundma, et nad on õppekava arendamise protsessis esindatud ja et õppekava, mida nad kasutavad, on nende oma.
Research results have shown that the success or failure of curriculum innovations largely depends on teachers’ perceptions, expectations, and ownership of these innovations. Consequently, teachers must understand the reasons for curriculum policy changes and the ideas reflected in them and feel ownership towards them. However, teachers tend to resist externally initiated innovations because they need a sense of ownership of the planned innovations. To increase teachers’ feelings of curriculum ownership, teachers have been involved in making decisions related to the curriculum; they have been given the status of curriculum developer and curriculum policy maker. However, the officially granted status of autonomous curriculum developer does not necessarily ensure that teachers act independently or experience a sense of ownership of the curriculum. Neoliberal standardisation practices have proven to be a significant obstacle in developing teachers’ feelings of curriculum ownership. State exams and international comparative studies prevent teachers from acting as autonomous professionals who create and implement a curriculum that considers their beliefs. The research started with creating a questionnaire and piloting it to study Estonian teachers’ experiences with the use and development of curricula, their preparation for curriculum development, and expectations for the best curriculum solutions. The results of the subsequent survey of a representative sample of teachers in Estonian general education schools revealed a contradiction between the teachers’ curriculum ideals and practical expectations. Teachers expected a great deal of freedom in curricular decisions but, at the same time, preferred rather detailed curriculum guidelines. Teachers’ feelings of curriculum ownership were also reflected in their definitions. Almost half of the respondents defined the curriculum as a mandatory, prescriptive document that limits their feelings of ownership. Many teachers, as curriculum users, developers and solution providers, do not feel a sense of ownership of the curriculum. In the doctoral thesis, a recommendation is made to make the curriculum development process more personal – the curriculum should not be an externally created document; teachers must feel that they are represented in the curriculum development process and that the curriculum they use is theirs.
Research results have shown that the success or failure of curriculum innovations largely depends on teachers’ perceptions, expectations, and ownership of these innovations. Consequently, teachers must understand the reasons for curriculum policy changes and the ideas reflected in them and feel ownership towards them. However, teachers tend to resist externally initiated innovations because they need a sense of ownership of the planned innovations. To increase teachers’ feelings of curriculum ownership, teachers have been involved in making decisions related to the curriculum; they have been given the status of curriculum developer and curriculum policy maker. However, the officially granted status of autonomous curriculum developer does not necessarily ensure that teachers act independently or experience a sense of ownership of the curriculum. Neoliberal standardisation practices have proven to be a significant obstacle in developing teachers’ feelings of curriculum ownership. State exams and international comparative studies prevent teachers from acting as autonomous professionals who create and implement a curriculum that considers their beliefs. The research started with creating a questionnaire and piloting it to study Estonian teachers’ experiences with the use and development of curricula, their preparation for curriculum development, and expectations for the best curriculum solutions. The results of the subsequent survey of a representative sample of teachers in Estonian general education schools revealed a contradiction between the teachers’ curriculum ideals and practical expectations. Teachers expected a great deal of freedom in curricular decisions but, at the same time, preferred rather detailed curriculum guidelines. Teachers’ feelings of curriculum ownership were also reflected in their definitions. Almost half of the respondents defined the curriculum as a mandatory, prescriptive document that limits their feelings of ownership. Many teachers, as curriculum users, developers and solution providers, do not feel a sense of ownership of the curriculum. In the doctoral thesis, a recommendation is made to make the curriculum development process more personal – the curriculum should not be an externally created document; teachers must feel that they are represented in the curriculum development process and that the curriculum they use is theirs.
Kirjeldus
Väitekirja elektrooniline versioon ei sisalda publikatsioone