The purpose of this study is to examine the relationship between teacher’s curriculum reconstruction and teaching efficacy in South Korea. One of the reasons for exploring South Korea (referred to as Korea throughout) is because they have recently changed from a highly standardized and centralized curriculum to decentralization of curriculum (W.-P. Hong & Youngs, 2014; Seth, 2002). Since the national curriculum was adopted since 1950s after the Korean Wars, the quality of school education has been questioned. Many scholars argued that Korean students are burdened with intense academic stress the extreme stress and that education system is at the forefront of pushing away talented teens (Kim at el, 2012; Kim, 2014; Lee, 2014).

As a response to this social demand, the recent educational reform discourses of Korean education emphasize more teachers’ autonomy and diversity in classrooms (Shin, 2009). For instance, the Sixth National Curriculum which had been adopted since the year of 1992 deals with development of school-based curriculum and the role of teacher as a curriculum development (Jung & Lee; 2011). Teachers are expected to play an active role in designing and shaping their own curriculum connecting their curriculum to students’ interests and local conditions (Bang, 2014; Shin, 2009). In other words, it could say that they are asked to play an active role in reconstructing the curriculum (Kim et al, 2012).

The scholars had different definition about teacher’s curriculum reconstruction. Teacher’s curriculum reconstruction is generally defined as “activities that teachers reinterpret and revise curriculum contents, teaching methods, evaluation based on National Curriculum to provide a quality education for students.”(Kwan, 2008; Lee, 2007; Jung, 2007). However, all agreed that the role of teacher is the key to successful reconstruct curriculum.

Even the Korean government and scholars emphasized the significance of teacher’s autonomy and teacher’s curriculum reconstruction, the reform does not seem to work properly. According to many scholars, they argued that most of teachers has gone through difficulties in reconstructing curriculum (Kim, 2005; Kim, 2015; Bang, 2014). Heavy burden of an extra workload, an uncooperative attitude from co-teacher, an obsession of students and parents on university entrance exam were the reasons why they could not focus on reconstructing curriculum.

There are many studies about teacher’s curriculum reconstruction. However, most of studies focus on revealing teacher’s experiences and difficulties when they reconstruct curriculum (Kim, 2014; Kim, 2012; Park, 2006). Some studies were done to explore ways to activate curriculum reconstruction through teachers’ interviews and participant observation (Kim, 2005; Kim, 2015; Bang, 2014). Other studies tried to investigate curricular factors such as teachers, learners, subjects and environment that compose a class (Kim, 2005; Min, 2003; Lee, 2006). However, they dealt with the external traits such as the highest level of education of teachers, the number of training session they attend and basic background information.

However, I thought teaching efficacy could be one of main factors that influence to teacher’s curriculum reconstruction instead of teacher’s basic personal information. Teacher efficacy means faith in his/her own capacities that he/she can be a positive influence on the students.

Teachers with high efficacy tend to experiment with methods of instruction, seek improved teaching methods, and experiment with instructional materials (Ashton, 1984; Kim, 2006; Park, 2012; Robin, 2001).

Therefore, one of the major goals of this research is examining the relationship between teacher’s curriculum reconstruction and teaching efficiency through quantitative method to help teachers and give an implementation to policy makers to provide more quality education to students.

Hong, W.-P., & Youngs, P. (2014). Why are teachers afraid of curricular autonomy? Contradictory effects of the new national curriculum in South Korea. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 1-14. Paik, S. (2015). Teachers’ Attention to Curriculum Materials and Student Contexts: The Case of Korean Middle School Teachers. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 24(1), 235-246. doi: 10.1007/s40299-014-0175-4 Kim, Y.-S. (2015). A Study on the Current Curriculum Reorganization and Perceptions of Its Activation Plans among Middle School Home Economics Teacher, Graduate School of Korea National University of Education Chung-Buk, Korea. Bang, G. Y., & Kang, H.-S. (2014). Analysis of factors to obstruct curriculum reconstruction: Based on the grounded theory. Education Research, 12(3), 23-54.