Introduction

What purposes education ought to serve has been an ongoing debate (Noddings, 2016). Educational policies and measures of accountability have been criticized in recent years for narrowly focusing on educational quality (i.e. measured by performances on standardized test) (Biesta, 2010; 2015; Nussbaum, 2010; Verger & Curran, 2014). As a result, schools and teachers are increasingly expected to develop curricula and teaching practices that strive for goals reflecting a broader understanding of student development.

This study was conducted to support teachers in the development of such teaching practices. The aims were to gain insights in the usefulness of the tools and exercises developed for supporting teachers’ reflections on the goals underlying their practices and helping them conceptualize abstract theories on the one hand, and gain insights in how teachers’ goals and conceptualizations relate to the theoretical framework regarding educational purposes (i.e., curriculum orientations (Eisner & Vallence, 1971; Kliebard, 2004; Schiro, 2013) and goal domains (Biesta, 2012; 2015)) on the other hand.

Curriculum orientations and goal domains

Debates about what purposes education ought to serve, have been, and will be relevant because of its importance to society. Since the 1970s scholars distinguished four orientations that have guided these debates (Eisner & Vallence, 1974; Kliebard, 2004; McNeil, 1977; Schiro, 2013). The Scholar Academic orientation views education as initiator of individuals into the culture of the society they live in. The cultural-historically developed knowledge preserved within the academic disciplines provides the starting point for education. The Social Efficiency orientation advocates education that is focused on developing skills and competencies that allow individuals to participate in society constructively, both socially and economically. The Learner Centered orientation focuses on adapting education to meet the needs of each student and support the development of their unique intellectual, social, emotional and physical characteristics. Finally, the Social Reconstruction orientation views education as the mechanism to address the social, economic and environmental issues society faces.

Besides curriculum orientations, goal domains (Biesta, 2010; 2015) also provide a framework to consider educational purposes. The qualification domain involves the transmission of knowledge, skills and dispositions that allow individuals to do something (Biesta, 2010). The socialization domain refers to the initiation of individuals into the norms, values, behaviors and motivations of a social group or social order (Biesta, 2010; 2015). Finally, the third domain entails the personal development of individuals. It refers to the development of autonomous and independent ways of being and thinking. Each goal domain can be elaborated in relation to curriculum orientations. That means that each curriculum orientation has indicators for what they aim to achieve regarding the qualification-, socialization-, and personal development domain.

Goal systems

Teachers’ teaching goals were the primary focus of this study. Goals can be defined as the aimed outcomes one wishes to accomplish through their actions (Janssen, Westbroek, Doyle, & Van Driel, 2013). In general, people tend to achieve multiple goals in a specific context (Kruglanski et al., 2015). Goal systems compactly represent what people do in a representative situation (e.g., teaching) and why they act accordingly (Janssen et al., 2013). Moreover, they are a hierarchical visualization of goals and means. Consequently, goal systems are considered as a starting point for teachers’ reflections.

Data were gathered between February and June 2020. One group of six teachers participated in a program, which consisted of four two-hour meetings and one or two additional interviews which were recorded. During the first two meetings the teachers engaged in activities, among which developing goal systems, which helped them reflect upon the goals underlying to their teaching practices and conceptualize new goals they wished to strive for. During the third meeting teachers were asked to reflect upon an integrated framework of curriculum orientations and goal domains. They received a table in which each goal domain was elaborated for each curriculum orientation. The goal systems and conceptualizations provided the basis for these reflections. During the final meeting, the exercises and tools were evaluated. Additional interviews were held between the second and third meeting. Unfortunately, there was no possibility for teachers to put these insights into practice because at the time of data collection there was no on-site education due to lockdowns. Analysis: To gain insights in the aims described above, a qualitative data analysis will be conducted. All data were transcribed. The combined framework of curriculum orientations and goal domains will be used to gain insights in teachers’ goals and how they can be positioned within the framework. The curriculum orientations provide the themes, and the goal domains are the codes. Teachers’ goal systems, goals and conceptualizations, and the dialogues during the meetings will be analyzed.

The expected outcomes may provide interesting insights in the usefulness and points of improvement for the tools and exercises developed for this study. During the meetings teachers were able to articulate goals and translate them to concrete teaching activities, which, as stated before, could not be put into practice at that time. Moreover, the data is expected to provide insights in teachers conceptualizations of abstract goals regarding student development. Finally, during the third meeting teachers were capable of reflecting upon their goals and positioning themselves within the combined framework of curriculum orientations and goal domains. It is expected that the outcomes of their reflections will match the outcomes of the qualitative coding analysis. All the insights will be used to further develop these tools and exercises for future teacher professional development in relation to the complex topic of educational purposes.

Biesta, G. 2010. Good Education in an Age of Measurement: Ethics, Politics, Democracy. Boulder, CO: Paradigm Publishers. Biesta, G. (2015). What is education for? On good education, teacher judgement, and educational professionalism. European Journal of Education, 50(1), 75-86. doi: 10.1111/ejed.12109 Eisner, E. & Vallence, E. (1974). Conflicting conceptions of curriculum. Berkeley, CA: McCutchan Janssen, F., Westbroek, H., Doyle, W., & van Driel, J. (2013). How to make innovations practical. Teachers College Record, 115(7), 1-43. Kliebard, H. (2004). The struggle for the American curriculum: 1893-1958. New York: Taylor & Francis Kruglanski, A. W., Chernikova, M., Babush, M., Dugas, M., & Schumpe, B. M. (2015). The architecture of goal systems: Multifinality, equifinality, and counterfinality in means end relations. In A. J. Elliot (Ed.), Advances in motivation science (pp. 69– 98). Cambridge, MA: Academic Press. McNeil, J. D. (1977). Curriculum: A comprehensive introduction. Boston: Little, Brown. Noddings, N. (2016). Philosophy of Education. New York: Routledge Nussbaum, M. C. (2010). Not for Profit: Why Democracy Needs the Humanities. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press Schiro, M. S. (2013). Curriculum Theory: Conflicting Visions and Enduring Concerns. Thousand Oaks, USA: SAGE Publications, Inc.