Curriculum Development Program in a privately-managed public preschool in Taiwan: overcoming difficulties and establishing a process pattern
Tóm tắt
Preschool curriculum reform is currently underway in Taiwan. Privately-managed public preschools (PMPPs) currently play the role of bellwethers because they stand halfway between public and private preschools, and serve as testing grounds for curriculum reforms promoted by the government. This study originated from Curriculum Development Program (CDP) which is one of Taiwan government’s policies toward PMPPs. The researcher and the research subject consisted of the expert and case school participating in this program. The main objective of this article was to discuss the course about a privately-managed public preschool how to overcome difficulties and establish a process pattern of CDP. This paper employed the qualitative research methods; it included focus group, interviews, and action research. Then, the study made use of grounded theory and conducted data analysis in the three stages of open coding, axial coding, and selective coding. Based on the results of this study, the CDP exerted a mediating effect that harmonized the tensions between external impact and internal resistance. The difficulties for the external impact of CDP included: educational policy reforms, competition in the education market, and parents’ right to choose. The internal resistance of CDP included: changes in the curriculum power structure, limitations on in-school resources, and conflicts of interest among organization members. The process pattern included: use of curriculum guidance experts and action research; integration of interested parties’ resources and organization of a specialist curriculum development team; responding to internal and external needs by establishing a compromise between school-based curriculum vision and assessment approach; harmonizing external impacts and internal resistance to complete the school-based curriculum; and cyclic reflection on and revision of action plan. This study provided practical insights and offered an integrated solution of how an assistance approach with experts’ participation can be combined with curriculum policy and academic research.
Tài liệu tham khảo
Argyris, C., & Schon, D. A. (1974). Theory in practice: increasing professional effectiveness. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Baldwin, P. (2007). A way forward with the new social sciences curriculum: Approaches to planning programmes for schools. Paper is based on a presentation made at the National Biannual Conference for Sciences Educators (pp. 1–8). Auckland.
Ball, S. J. (1987). The micropolitics of the school: Towards a theory of school organization. London: Methuen.
Blasé, J. (1988). The everyday political perspective of teachers: Vulnerability and conservatism. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 1(2), 125–142.
Blasé, J., & Anderson, G. (1995). The micropolitics of educational leadership: From control to empowerment. London: Cassell.
Bowe, R., Ball, S. J., & Gold, A. (1992). Reforming education and changing schools: Case studies in policy sociology. London: Routledge.
Busher, H. (2006). Understanding educational leadership: People, power and culture. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Carr, W., & Kemmis, S. (1986). Becoming critical: Education, knowledge, and action research. London: Falmer.
Carr, W., & Kemmis, S. (2005). Staying critical. Education Action Research, 13(3), 347–357.
Dickson, G., & Green, K. (2001). The external researcher in participatory action research. Educational Action Research, 9(2), 243–260.
Elliott, J. (1987). Education theory, practical philosophy and action research. British Journal of Educational Studies, XXXV(2), 149–169.
Elliott, J. (2007). Assessing the quality of action research. Research Papers in Education, 22(2), 229–246.
Harris, A. (2003). Distributed leadership and school improvements. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 32(1), 11–24.
Heikkinen, H. L. T., Huttunen, R., & Syrjala, L. (2007). Action research as narrative: Five principles for validation. Education Action Research, 15(1), 5–19.
Henderson, J. G., & Hawthorne, R. D. (2000). Transformative curriculum leadership (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Johnson, B. L, Jr. (2003). Those nagging headaches: Perennial issues and tensions in the politics of education field. Education Administration Quarterly, 39(1), 41–67.
Kelchtermans, G., & Ballet, K. (2002). The micropolitics of teacher induction: A narrative-biographical study on teacher socialization. Teaching and Teacher Education, 18, 105–120.
Kennedy, K. (1992). School-based curriculum development as a policy option for the 1990’s: An Australian perspective. Journal of Curriculum and Supervision, 7(2), 180–195.
Kennedy, K., & Lee, J. (2008). Changing schools in Asia: schools for the knowledge society. London: Routledge Falmer.
Lacireno-Paquet, N., Holyoke, T., Moser, M., & Henig, J. (2002). Creaming versus cropping: Charter school enrollment practices in response to marker incentives. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24(2), 145–158.
Lather, P. (1986). Research as praxis. Harvard Education Review, 56(3), 257–277.
Lee, C. K., & Dimmock, C. (1999). Curriculum leadership and management in secondary schools: A Hong Kong case study. School Leadership & Management, 19(4), 455–481.
Lin, C. F. (2011). Theory and practices of service marketing in cultural and educational industries: Examples of Chinese preschool edu-care institutions. Taipei: Psychology Press.
Lin, C. F., & Lee, C. K. J. (2013). Preschool principal’s curriculum leadership indicators: A Taiwan perspective. Asia Pacific Education Review, 14(4), 569–580.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Macpherson, I., & Brooker, R. (2000). Positioning stakeholders in curriculum leadership: How can teacher educators work with teachers to discover and create their place? Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 28(1), 69–85.
Malen, B. (1995). The micropolitics of education: Mapping the multiple dimensions of power relations in school politics. In J. D. Scribner & D. H. Layton (Eds.), The study of educational politics (pp. 147–167). Bristol, PA: Falmer Press.
McMahon, T., & Jefford, E. (2009). Assessing action-research projects within formal academic programmes: Using Elliott’s context-related criteria to resolve the rigor versus flexibility dilemma. Educational Action Research, 17(3), 359–371.
McNiff, J., & Whitehead, J. (2009). Doing and writing action research. London: Sage.
Milliken, J. (2001). Surfacing’ the micropolitics as a potential management change frame in higher education. Journal of Higher Policy and Management, 23(1), 75–84.
Ministry of Education. (2014). Education statistics. January 1, 2013. From: http://www.edu.tw/Default.aspx?ID=31d75a44-efff-4c44-a075-15a9eb7aecdf.
Park, P. (1993). What is participatory research? A theoretical and methodological perspective. In P. Park, M. Brydon-Miller, B. Hall, & T. Jackson (Eds.), Voices of change: Participatory action research in the United States and Canada (pp. 1–19). London: Bergin & Garvey.
Phillips, D. (2005). Policy borrowing in education: Frameworks for analysis. In J. Zajda (Ed.), International handbook on globalization, education and policy research—Global pedagogies and policies (pp. 23–34). Amsterdam: Springer.
Salleh, H. (2006). Action research in Singapore education: Constraints and sustainability. Educational Action Research, 14(4), 13–23.
Somech, A. (2002). Explicating the complexity of participative management: An investigation of multiple dimensions. Educational Administration Quarterly, 38(3), 341–371.
Somekh, B., & Zeichner, K. (2009). Action research for educational reform: Remodeling action research theories and practices in local contexts. Educational Action Research, 17(1), 5–21.
Stillings, C. (2005). Charter schools and no child left behind: Sacrificing autonomy for accountability. Journal of Education, 186(2), 51–70.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Winter, R., & Badley, G. (2007). Action research and academic writing: A conversation. Educational Action Research, 15(2), 253–270.
Wood, P., & Butt, G. (2014). Exploring the use of complexity theory and action research as frameworks for curriculum change. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 46(5), 676–696.
Woods, P. (2000). Teaching for survival. In S. J. Ball (Ed.), Sociology of education: Major themes, Vol. III: Institutions and processes (pp. 1339–1359). London: Routledge Falmer.
Wrigley, T. (2003). Is “school effectiveness” anti-democratic? British Journal of Educational Studies, 51(2), 89–112.