The chapter discusses the key factors that form national curricula and
the interplay among the nature of social values, goals, cultures, tradition and
curriculum change. Though curricular change is commonly viewed as evolutionary to
respond to the surrounding political and academic settings, there is no international
trend evidently noticeable. Different nations aim in different directions due
to different premises about the nature of thinking and learning. Focusing on curricular
trends in the United States, the chapter briefly mentions changes in other 6
countries, including 4 European nations and two Asian countries.
The anecdote in the chapter cleverly catches differences in values and
goals between Western and Eastern nations: a Korean student questioned an
American teacher’s approach of class discussion by asking why she was listening
to other students, even though “the teacher knows best”. To my understanding,
national pedagogical styles differ more greatly than the capacity of students.
For example, in China, it is the teachers’ sole responsibility to unpack mathematical
concepts and to deliver lessons with clarity and depth, while it is the students’
responsibility to acquire the information and understand it in class and after
class if necessary. Not surprisingly, we witness at the same time different
outcomes and ideas about teaching and learning in TIMMS and PISA assessments.
Another interesting discovery made by the author showed that teaching
trends in England are oscillatory and bounced between problem-solving and basic
skills approaches. The current (I found online)curriculum adopted many surprising changes to
mathematics teaching which East Asian countries have started to phase out:
- · Five-year-olds will be expected to learn to count up to 100 (compared to 20 under the current curriculum) and learn number bonds to 20 (currently up to 10)
- · Simple fractions (1/4 and 1/2) will be taught from KS1, and by the end of primary school, children should be able to convert decimal fractions to simple fractions (e.g. 0.375 = 3/8)
- · By the age of nine, children will be expected to know times tables up to 12x12 (currently 10x10 by the end of primary school)
- · Calculators will not be used at all in primary schools, to encourage mental arithmetic
Question: Many countries adopt other countries’
curricula. For example, California has promoted Singapore math; Japan is inspired
by the problem-based curriculum from the United States. However, according to
the author, curriculum is only a tool in teachers’ hands, and its success
depends on its successful integration with the culture. How do we prepare
ourselves to teach “foreign” curriculum borrowed from other countries?
Your research is interesting - this new curriculum seems like a bit of a gong show in many ways. Last week, I was at a meeting of 12 math teachers who were charged with the task of planning a day for all of VSB's math teachers to learn about the new curriculum. The problem was, none of us knew much about it!!! The intentino of the new curriculum to be teacher driven and open to interpretation takes it one step further than being a 'tool in teachers' hands, and might mean that teachers really don't know what to do with it at all! I think a a bit more direction would be a good thing!
ReplyDeleteAs I know, TIMSS and PISA studies are partly aimed to reveal best teaching practices in the world. So participating countries can compare their result to other contiries and change their curriculum in accordance to countries with the highest results. But I see two problems here. Firstly, there could be several factors that have an effect on students' achievements. In other words, even if we would change our curriculum it still can't be a guarantee of improving students' results, as long as we do not control other factors.
ReplyDeleteSecondly, I am sure that every country has to adapt foreign curriculum to their culture. And as far as I like the idea of centralised and unified curriculum, I think that people in educational policy have to do it, not teachers in schools. However, that is not a proper answer to your question:)
Thanks Ting for sharing!
ReplyDeleteI think it is important to understand the educational context from which the curriculum is borrowed from, and be aware of the similarities and differences, as well as possible adaptations rather than wholesale adoption. The purpose of the various aspects of the curriculum and assessment borrowed also needs to be clearly understood, so as to ensure whether the aims fit with the nation's aims.
As for who should be involved, as with any policy change in education, the various key stakeholders need to be involved - this is no small feat and it will be time-consuming. But this is essential.
So while policy-makers in countries with centralised curriculum need to strongly encourage, they also need to have thought through the process of policy change thoroughly, for example, is there adequate support in terms of training and resources for teachers and students? Does the assessment align well with what is taught? Are the details of the policy change clearly communicated, and how much room is left for teacher interpretation? Can the teachers and other stakeholders be involved in dialogue to seek their inputs and buy-in earlier on in the process, before the policy is set in stone? These are all questions to think about, definitely no easy answers!