The paper has tried to answer the following questions.

1)      Do different groups of educators in a Scottish local authority differ in their curricular narratives?

2)      Which factors influence educators’ curricular narratives?

The answers to these questions are important in order to understand the conditions (global, local, institutional, personal) that shape curricular narratives among different groups of teachers. Since teachers are the key players in curricular enactment (Alvunger et al., 2017), it is important to study their curricular narratives. The findings of this study have implications for teachers’ professional development in Scotland as well as other countries, especially where curricular standards focus on developing students’ competencies (abilities, skills, dispositions).

The past two decades witness an increased focus on learning skills in schools. This can be seen internationally, for example in OECD concept notes ‘OECD Future of Education and Skills 2030 (OECD, 2019), ‘Curriculum for Excellence’ (2010) and ‘The Statement of National Education and Learning Priorities and Tertiary Education Strategy’, New Zealand (Ministry of Education, 2020). This new focus has led to a renewed discussion, in many parts of the world, on the purpose and content of curriculum (Priestley, 2011; Wheelahan, 2015; Young, 2008).

There is no consensus among curriculum scholars on the purpose of curriculum.  Cheung and Wong (2002) argue that the purpose of the school curriculum is to “provide each student with intrinsically rewarding experiences that contribute to personal liberation and development. Integration of students’ affective domain (emotions, attitudes, values) with the cognitive domain (intellectual knowledge and abilities) is the top priority” (Cheung & Wong, 2002, p.227). On the other hand, Young (2014) sees the role of school curriculum beyond promoting well-being and human flourishing. He believes that well-being and human-flourishing can be promoted by the institutions of family and businesses (that do not have a curriculum). To him, the purpose of school curriculum is to provide all students access to powerful knowledge (Young, 2014), a knowledge that brings intellectual power to those who have access to it (Young, 2008).

Powerful knowledge has emerged as a key debate in curriculum theory in recent years. Contradictory to the knowledge of the powerful which is ahistorical and decontextualized, ‘social realism’ recognizes that knowledge is historical and “is produced within forms of sociality that are enduring and extensive in time and space and have their own distinctive structures, powers and limitations” (Moore, 2013, p.346). Knowledge-based curriculum impacts the content of school subjects whereas the curriculum rooted in student interests, or social demands (work skills, safety, values) involve content-free process (Yates & Miller, 2016). Subject-based curriculum is pivotal in generating powerful knowledge. Unlike everyday concepts, the concepts associated with a subject-based curriculum are not tied to specific contexts; rather they are linked to each other and the subject related theories (Young, 2013). Rooted in ‘social realist’ school within the sociology of education (Moore, 2013; Muller, 2022; Wheelahan, 2015; Young, 2013, 2014), this study explores narratives about curriculum purpose among different groups of educators.

Biesta et al. (2017) note that teachers’ talk of curriculum and pedagogy is influenced by a number of factors such as generation effect, responsibilities/ roles and trends in educational discourse. Our study further tries to understand the diversity of factors that shape educators’ curricular narratives. The study particularly explores if role diversity (headship role, principal teacher role, primary teacher role, secondary teacher role) and educators’ personal practical or professional knowledge shape curricular narratives. Biesta et al. (2017) label teachers’ personal practical knowledge as teachers’ ‘stock of knowledge’ and argue is “gained from a range of sources and experiences, including teachers’ ongoing engagement with the practice of teaching itself” (p. 38).

This qualitative study is a part of a larger project that intends to develop a framework to support schools in a Scottish local authority to engage with professional learning around curriculum. The study comprised 49 participants altogether. The findings presented at this stage of the bigger research project have come from the analysis of the interview transcripts of six head teachers, seven promoted teachers and seven unpromoted teachers. The participants professional experience varied from six months to 32 years in primary or secondary schools. Instrumentation The interview protocol was developed by the research team in the light of literature (Biesta et al., 2017; Priestley, 2011; Young, 2013) to explore participants’ curriculum narratives. “Narrative refers to thinking, knowledge, and finding meaning” (Shkedi, 2009). The protocol included questions about participants’ conceptions of curriculum, their understating of the relationship between curriculum, pedagogy and assessment, and influences on their understanding of curriculum. The interview also included questions about the role of the participant in the school, years of experience, and the school context (urban or rural) because teachers’ curriculum narratives are concerned with a teacher’s life-experiences (Shkedi, 2009). The interview protocol was finalized by the research team after detailed discussions. Interviewers asked prompting questions where needed. Data Collection The data collection started after the ethics approval from the University of Dundee. The names of the participants were suggested by the educational administration of the local authority (where the study was done). The participants were sent a participation request form to complete and a research information sheet. Participant interviews were scheduled in May 2022 and June 2022. On average, each interview lasted for 45 minutes. All interviews were held using secure Teams link. All interviews were transcribed for analysis. Data Analysis The data were analysed in four stages. In stage one, the research team collectively analysed two interview scripts and identified broad categories and sub-categories. In stage 2, the analysis further examined categories with the data (Strauss & Corbin, 1990) to see if the data were supporting the category labels. Some changes in the sub-categories were made at this stage. In stage 3, more transcripts were analysed in the light of the identified categories. Some new categories also emerged over the course of the data analysis. All new categories were also included in the analysis. In stage four, a theoretical explanation about educators’ curricular narratives was constructed.

The study shows that there are no clear differences in curricular narratives among educators (school heads, promoted teachers and unpromoted teachers) relating to the concept of a knowledge-based curriculum (Young, 2013). All groups talked about the importance of subject knowledge in some way. Some of them thought that more focus on subject-knowledge in secondary schools make the curriculum crowded and it is difficult to plan more student-centred activities. This finding resonates with Adolfsson’s (2018) finding with Swedish teachers. Only one head teacher explicitly talked about the importance of subject knowledge as ‘powerful knowledge’ and showed concern over dilution of knowledge in ‘Curriculum for Excellence’ (CfE). Although all groups talked about development of skills as an important educational aim, unpromoted, early career teachers referred to skill development more as compared to experienced teachers. This finding is in line with Biesta et al.'s (2017) thoughts that lack of opportunity to experience and work through a series of policy- and practice-shifts lead to less opportunity to develop discursive ‘resources’. The experienced teachers, on the other hand, talked about developing students’ subject-knowledge as well as skills. Moreover, they compared CfE with the previous curriculum and inferred that although CfE has provided more flexibility and allowed more students’ choice, it is not always helpful in increasing students’ subject-knowledge and understanding. The study further indicated that school context (urban or rural) also affects educators’ curricular narratives. The educators working in rural schools talked about local versus global knowledge and wider participation of the community. Professional dialogue with other colleagues has also emerged as an influential factor in developing curricular narratives among different groups of educators. The study suggests a need for curriculum-focused professional learning opportunities for all the teachers, especially for the early career teachers to help them enhance their knowledge of curriculum and curriculum making.

Adolfsson, C. H. (2018). Upgraded curriculum? An analysis of knowledge boundaries in teaching under the Swedish subject-based curriculum. The Curriculum Journal, 29(3), 424-440. Alvunger, D., Sundberg, D., & Wahlström, N. (2017). Teachers matter–but how?. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 49(1), 1-6. Biesta, G., Priestley, M., & Robinson, S. (2017). Talking about education: Exploring the significance of teachers’ talk for teacher agency. Journal of curriculum studies, 49(1), 38-54. Cheung, D., & Wong, H. W. (2002). Measuring teacher beliefs about alternative curriculum designs. The Curriculum journal, 13(2), 225-248. Ministry of Education (2020). The Statement of National Education and Learning Priorities (NELP) & Tertiary Education Strategy (TES). https://assets.education.govt.nz/public/Documents/NELP-TES-documents/NELP-2020-Schools-and-kura.pdf Muller, J. (2022). Powerful knowledge, disciplinary knowledge, curriculum knowledge: Educational knowledge in question. International Research in Geographical and Environmental Education, 1-15. OECD (2019). OECD Future of Education and Skills 2030: A Series of Concept Notes. https://www.oecd.org/education/2030-project/contact/OECD_Learning_Compass_2030_Concept_Note_Series.pdf Moore, R. (2013). Social realism and the problem of the problem of knowledge in the sociology of education. British journal of sociology of education, 34(3), 333-353. Priestley, M. (2011). Whatever happened to curriculum theory? Critical realism and curriculum change. Pedagogy, culture & society, 19(2), 221-237. Shkedi, A. (2009). From curriculum guide to classroom practice: Teachers’ narratives of curriculum application. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 41(6), 833-854. Sottish Government (2010). Curriculum for Excellence. https://education.gov.scot/documents/All-experiencesoutcomes18.pdf Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Qualitative research. Grounded Theory; SAGE Publications Ltd.: New York, NY, USA. Wheelahan, L. (2015). Not just skills: What a focus on knowledge means for vocational education. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 47(6), 750-762. Yates, L., & Millar, V. (2016). ‘Powerful knowledge’ curriculum theories and the case of physics. The Curriculum Journal, 27(3), 298-312. Young, M. (2008). From constructivism to realism in the sociology of the curriculum. Review of Research in Education, 32, 1–32 Young, M. (2013). Overcoming the crisis in curriculum theory: A knowledge-based approach. Journal of curriculum studies, 45(2), 101-118. Young, M. (2014). What is a curriculum and what can it do?. Curriculum Journal, 25(1), 7-13.