This overview study has been commissioned by the Netherlands Initiative for Education Research (NRO) with the overall aim of collecting evidence for the design of a curriculum change strategy that aligns with the current review of the Dutch curriculum frameworks. This comprehensive review is taking place of all curriculum frameworks for all subjects and learning areas in Dutch primary and secondary education. The review has a twofold aim: (i) to provide a substantive update of and more coherence in and among the curriculum frameworks, and (ii) to offer clearer guidance and better support to teachers, school leaders and other stakeholders for curriculum enactment efforts in schools and classrooms.

To support the review process, our study sought answers to the following overarching research question: What fundamental tensions and trade-offs should be taken into account when designing a theory of change for the upcoming Dutch curriculum review? In order to answer this overall question, the following sub-questions have been posed:

SQ1: What are, in general, potentially effective (elements of) large-scale curriculum change processes in basic education (age 4-18 years)?

SQ2: How do, in general, large-scale curriculum change processes (in particular regarding integrated curriculum revisions) develop in basic education (age 4-18 years), both at the national level and at the school level?

SQ3: For the Netherlands, what are potentially effective interventions to promote and realize curriculum change in schools and classrooms? 

The overview study consisted of a systematic literature review (SQ 1 and SQ 2) and (international) expert panels (SQ 3). For the literature review- a search query was drafted based on the most important concepts of the research question, using a thesaurus to find synonyms in both English and Dutch. In total, 917 articles were identified. It was decided that the unit of analysis would be the curriculum reform. The final corpus included 86 studies that could be included in the systematic literature review, on nine reforms in nine countries: Australia, China, England, Finland, Indonesia, South Africa, Taiwan, Turkey, USA. Each reform was first analyzed by two researchers and, upon consensus, summarized in poster format and a three-page snapshot of the context of the reform, the intentions, processes and outcomes of the reform and what the studies reveal about the reform. Based on the country briefs, a list of overarching themes were identified has been developed. This was done by the full team of researchers together. All researchers read the materials and thought about any salient similarities or differences between two or more reforms. The team members first worked individually, followed by a share-out in which each team member wrote observations on the whiteboard, followed by an explanation. This led to a plenary discussion and a review of the themes. The six themes that were identified based on the literature study and the cross case analysis, were presented to the experts in three expert panels. All experts were invited based on their track record and expertise regarding large-scale curriculum change. We explicitly asked the experts to give advice for the Dutch context.

Data analysis showed that most articles reported on small-scale mainly qualitative studies. As a main finding, we concluded that curriculum change as a social practice implies that all actors in the system need to take their responsibilities and achieve agency in the change process. This notion has several implications. In short: 1. Sense-making (need for system/holistic approach and time to build common vision and language); 2. Teacher professional development (teachers are creating, not implementing; need for a differentiated approach and teacher networks); 3. School leader professional development (facilitate curriculum making in schools, including vision-building and coherence-making); 4. Address (mis-)alignment (do not produce complexity by mis-aligned (support) initiatives; too much detail will take away responsibility); 5. Address (in-)equity (collect data in all schools and allocate resources according to needs); 6. Cyclical approach during the curriculum change process (invest in research program and feedback system that is responsive to problems). The tentative theory of change needs to be understood against the background of the Dutch (policy) context and the comprehensive review of the curriculum frameworks for primary and secondary education.

Clarke, D., & Hollingsworth, H. (2002). Elaborating a model of teacher professional growth. Teaching and Teacher Education, 18(8), 947-967. Coburn, C.E. (2003). Rethinking scale: Moving beyond numbers to deep and lasting change. Educational Researcher, 32(6), 3-12. Fullan, M., & Pomfret, A. (1977). Research on curriculum and instruction implementation. Review of Educational Research, 47(1), 335-397. Goodlad, J.I., Klein, M.F., and Tye, K.A. (1979). The domains of curriculum and their study. In J.I. Goodlad and Associates (Eds.), Curriculum Inquiry: The study of curriculum practice (pp. 43-76). New York: McGraw-Hill. Greene, J. C. (2018). Logic models. In B.B. Frey (Ed.), The SAGE encyclopedia of educational research, measurement, and evaluation (pp. 990-994). SAGE. doi:10.4135/9781506326139 Jones, N. D. & Rosenberg, B.D. (2018). Program theory of change. In B. B. Frey (Ed.), The SAGE encyclopedia of educational research, measurement, and evaluation (pp. 990-994). SAGE Publications. doi:10.4135/9781506326139 Kuiper, W., Nieveen, N., & Berkvens, J. (2013). Curriculum regulation and freedom in the Netherlands: A puzzling paradox. In W. Kuiper & J. Berkvens (Eds.), Balancing curriculum regulation and freedom across Europe. CIDREE Yearbook 2013 (pp. 139-162). Enschede: SLO. Leat, D., Livingston, K. & Priestley, M. (2013). Curriculum deregulation in England and Scotland - Different directions of travel? In: W. Kuiper & J. Berkvens (Eds.), Balancing Curriculum Regulation and Freedom across Europe. CIDREE Yearbook, 2013 (229-248). Enschede, the Netherlands: SLO Netherlands Institute for Curriculum Development. McKenney, S. (2017). Een infrastructuur voor de professionele groei van docenten. (Oratie). Enschede: Universiteit Twente. Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., & Altman, D.A. (2009). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement. The PRISMA Group. Nieveen, N., Sluijsmans, L., & Van den Akker, J. (2014). Encouraging curriculum change in the Netherlands: The next episode. In F. Nyhamn & T.N. Hopfenbeck (Eds.), From political decisions to change in the classroom. CIDREE Yearbook 2014 (162-183). Oslo: The Norwegian Directorate for Education and Training. Stenhouse, L. (1975). An introduction to curriculum research and development. London: Heinemann. Taba, H. (1962). Curriculum development: Theory and practice. New York, NY: Harcourt, Brace and World Van den Akker, J. (2003). Curriculum perspectives: An introduction. In J. van den Akker, W. Kuiper, and U. Hameyer (Eds.), Curriculum landscapes and trends(pp. 1-10). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Weick, K.E. (1995). Sensemaking in organizations. Thousand Oaks: Sage.