Researching curriculum innovation in Australia and Ireland: a cross case comparative analysis of recent curriculum reforms.

Author(s):

Anne Looney(presenting / submitting)Jim Gleeson Valentina Klenowski

Conference:

ECER 2016

Network:

03. Curriculum Innovation

Format:

Paper

Session Information

03 SES 05, Curriculum Development: Roles of Teachers and Other Actors

Paper Session

Time:

2016-08-24

13:30-15:00

Room:

NM-A106

Chair:

Jan van den Akker

Contribution

This cross case, comparative, critical analysis investigated recent curriculum innovations in Australia and the Republic of Ireland in a context of increasing performance-based accountability characterised by high stakes testing. The empirically based analysis of the two curricula, Australian Curriculum Version 8.1 and the Irish Junior Cycle Curriculum introduced in 2015, contributes to debates regarding policy shifts to more generic, skills-based approaches, greater learner focused orientations and increased emphases on teacher autonomy (Priestley & Sinnema, 2014). The comparative analysis on which our paper is based was conducted in Australia and the Republic of Ireland as these countries share common contextual background in terms of: both countries are post-colonial states; the significant role of faith-based schools in both systems; and concerns expressed in relation to PISA performance in both. Key differences are acknowledged in terms of the status of the teaching profession in each country and the more generously funded Australian schools compared to Irish counterparts. Our study explored how in the contexts of these two cases globalisation has given rise to educational change and in particular, curriculum innovation, as key to the policy intent of economic development and national competitiveness (Yates & Young, 2010).

This study focused on how stakeholders in the two countries developed curriculum policy and practice in systems influenced by neo-liberal ideologies and market values. This exploratory study over the past year focused on how curriculum innovation developed and how the policy intent was conceptualised to promote quality education and equity for all students, and within their local communities. Given that the prominence of high stakes testing and the associated pressures of accountability have the potential for “perverse” effects (Lingard & Sellar, 2013) it was also important to consider the attempts to achieve balance between top-down and school-based curriculum development in both systems. As researchers we drew on the curriculum documents, national policy documents, research reports and articles published in peer-reviewed academic journals to answer the research questions of:

What are the dominant innovative features and intended approaches to curriculum policy in the two cases?
How has the learner been represented in the curriculum documents and what role does learner agency have in curriculum development in both systems?
What is the role of key stakeholders in curriculum innovation in both jurisdictions?

These research questions build on the findings of Priestley and Sinnema (2015) who conducted analyses of curricular documents of Scotland and New Zealand. While we have adopted a similar approach in adopting a case approach we build on their analysis by extending the study to other contexts identifying further curricular issues and policy trends.

Method

The research was designed using a case approach incorporating document analysis to examine curriculum policy texts from the two countries. Documents included formal curriculum policy paper-based documents and digital texts. This included written elements of the text as well as extra-textual features such as photographs, images, graphs and diagrams. The document analysis approach we followed focused on a meta-synthesis of actual textual content (Rapley & Jenkings, 2010). The analytic work involved analysis not only of the actual textual content but included the extra-textual content of the documents. We were interested in each case to identify shifts in curriculum policy from an explicit specification of knowledge content towards:  a more generic skills-based approach;  greater emphasis on the centrality of the learner; and  greater autonomy, or the appearance of greater autonomy for teachers in developing the curriculum at school level. The documents we selected included national policy documents, research reports and papers published in peer reviewed academic journals from 2010 – 2015. We used both quantitative and qualitative content analyses. For the former we focused on the frequency, nature and type of content as related to the heuristic of skills-based approach, centrality of the learner and autonomy for teachers. The qualitative content analysis involved two interrelated levels: a micro-level analysis of the text in terms of content using constant comparative analysis (Glaser & Strauss, 1967) to identify dominant features and values (implicit and explicit) that were unique for each system and context. At the macro-level an interpretative analysis was informed by extra-textual content of the documents, as we analysed the contextual and design features of the curriculum policy texts in terms of organization and structure. We chose the case study approach because it is “an intensive, holistic description and analysis of a single entity, phenomenon or social unit … particularistic, descriptive, and heuristic” (Merriam, 1988: 16). We wanted to explore the shift in curriculum policy from explicit specification of knowledge content. We also chose to conduct a collective case study approach, for as described by Stake (1995: 4) several cases help to form a “collective understanding of the issue of question”.

Expected Outcomes

This study will report on important contextual differences between Australia and Ireland that are grounded in cultural, political and economic differences. For example, individual states and territories in Australia have enjoyed great autonomy up until the recent introduction of a national curriculum, whereas Irish education, including curriculum, has been centrally governed and controlled since independence. Further, the impact of the identified differences on approaches to curriculum innovation in each of the two contexts and the lessons learned from each approach are analysed. This paper will contribute to conceptual understanding by elucidating how and teachers and their work are positioned in the curriculum development process in different contexts and by different formats and representations of national curricula. The nature of curriculum innovation with the emergence of key skills, competencies and capabilities as important features of curriculum policies in both systems will also be considered. A theorised account of curriculum innovation that builds on Priestley and Sinnema’s (2014) model will contribute significantly to knowledge in this field of curriculum reform that is under-researched. A framework for critical analysis of curriculum innovation will be produced that identifies the implications for teachers in contexts that claim to foreground increased teacher autonomy in curriculum but may also subject teachers to increasing accountability requirements. Where these include assessment and reporting requirements, the implications for curriculum may be significant. Evidence will include curriculum practices that involve creating a balance between different accountabilities through coherence between top-down and school-based curriculum development, developing processes that involve a partnership approach inclusive of students in a high-stakes accountability system, providing greater autonomy to teachers and school management bodies to learn about the school’s situation and directions for the future and establishing structures and processes to support the development of curriculum innovation.

References

Glaser, B.G. & Strauss, A.L. (1967). The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. New York: Aldine De Gruyter. Lingard, B. & Seller, S. (2013) ‘Catalyst data’: Perverse systemic effects of audit and accountability in Australian schooling, Journal of Education Policy, 28 (5), pp. 634-656. Merriam, S. B. (1988) Case Study Research in Education: A Qualitative Approach. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Priestley, M. & Sinnema, C. (2014) Downgraded curriculum? An analysis of knowledge in new curricula in Scotland and New Zealand, The Curriculum Journal, 25:1, 50-75, DOI: 10.1080/09585176.2013.872047 Rapley, T. & Jenkings, K. N. (2010) document analysis. In P. Peterson, E. Baker, & B. McGaw (Eds), The international encyclopedia of education (3rd ed., pp. 380-385). Oxford: Elsevier. Stake, R. E. (1995) The Art of Case Study Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Yates, L. & Young, M. (2010) Editorial: Globalization, knowledge and the curriculum. European Journal of Education, 45, 4-10. DOI:10.1111/j.1465-3435.2009.01412.x

Author Information

Anne Looney (presenting / submitting)

NCCA, Ireland

Jim Gleeson

Australian Catholic University

Education and Arts

Brisbane

Valentina Klenowski

Queensland University of Technology

Education

Bardon

Search the ECER Programme

Search for keywords and phrases in "Text Search"
Restrict in which part of the abstracts to search in "Where to search"
Search for authors and in the respective field.
For planning your conference attendance you may want to use the conference app, which will be issued some weeks before the conference
If you are a session chair, best look up your chairing duties in the conference system (Conftool) or the app.