Session Information
99 ERC SES 03 F, Teacher Education
Paper Session
Contribution
Strong expectations are associated with education in terms of preparing the next generation for social and technological change. Globally, curriculum documents are therefore being reviewed/revised (or developed where they have not yet existed) at the national level. In previous decades, however, curriculum changes were investigated mainly at the school level. My goal is to contribute to knowledge about the meso curriculum making (meso level) and its research reflection – for definition of site of activities in curriculum making see Priestley et al. (2021, p. 13).
The Czech curriculum for primary education and lower secondary education is currently being reviewed, too. In my doctoral research I analyse this process using case study conducted on the meso curriculum making. In continental Europe (as well as in the Czech republic) there is typical to have commissions (or committees) selected by the state which are reviewing national curriculum (Sivesind & Westbury, 2016).
We want to determine causal processes in physics (science education is divided into physics, chemistry and biology in the Czech Republic) subject curriculum committee because these processes appear to be under‑theorized (Dvořák, 2023). That is why we think about our case study “as the opportunity to shed empirical light on some theoretical concepts or principles” (Yin, 2018, p. 38).
Main research question of case study is “How is the process of curriculum review at the meso level in the Czech Republic carried out?”. Some possible theoretical frameworks have been already identified. The theoretical framework is based on curriculum making, which changes the understanding from ‘level’ (e. g. school or teacher) to ‘social practices‘ (e. g. production of resources) (Priestley et al., 2021). Other models describing the process of curriculum making/reviewing include Curriculum Design Coherence Model (Rata, 2021) or Modelling of Curriculum (Hajerová Műllerová & Slavík, 2020). The question arises whether and how are these models being applied.
To expand already found theories and models I have conducted a literature review. In this review I am going to looking for curriculum theories or models used on meso level in reviewing science education (ISCED levels 1–3). My goal is to continue in a work of my colleagues from Charles University in Prague (Žák & Kolář, 2018). They found in primary studies very strong criticism of traditional approach to curriculum. On the other hand, they also identified innovative approaches (e. g. Active Physics) as a reaction on traditional approach.
The main research question of the literature review is “How is the processes of curriculum reviews for primary and secondary science education at the meso level being researched or described recently?”. More specific research questions focus on 1) terminology used to describe processes; 2) theoretical frameworks of researchers; 3) research study designs. According to number of founded studies I will restrict these questions by more criteria.
The theory and theoretical propositions in case studies can be helpful in defining the appropriate research design and data to be collected. Therefore, this literature review aims to find theoretical as well as methodological aspects of studies on curriculum reviews. Based on these findings I can better develop propositions (“qualitative hypotheses”) to be examined through the case study. At the same time, I want to contribute to discovering the terminology related to curriculum reviewing/making, which appears to be inconsistent.
Method
The literature review of curriculum theories on meso level based on PRISMA statement (Page et al., 2021) was divided in three phases. In the first phase relevant keywords were identified, in the second phase systematic (literature) reviews of studies focusing on curriculum were found. Finally, in the third phase I am going to find primary studies. I looked for relevant systematic (literature) reviews in Scopus databases which were found with keywords based on occurrences in formerly found theories, studies, or reviews. The literature review is looking for studies published from 2016 to 2023. The year 2016 was chosen, because I build on previous study made by Žák & Kolář (2018). The end date is specified to avoid risk of not including the newest papers (the review was started in January 2024). Relevant keywords were identified from Žák & Kolář (2018) as well as from Scopus database by reading abstracts of papers and reviews about curriculum also from other disciplines than science education. Near curriculum, curricula or curricular (curricul*) were found keywords (sorted by occurrence in Scopus and omitted those which have less than 100 occurrences): development (3 794), design (3 303), reform* (1 598), model (824), review* (579), future (562), innovation (531), theory (442), making (352), revision (288), redesign (244), revised (226), creation (118) and others. 29 potential relevant systematic (literature) reviews in Scopus database were found based on these keywords and adding “AND ((science W/1 education) OR "STEM" OR "STEAM" OR physics) AND (systematic PRE/1 review)” to query string and looking in title, abstract, or key words. None of them are focusing on meso curriculum level itself. That is why (systematic) literature review is going to be conducted especially from primary studies. 141 primary studies were found using the same query string (without systematic PRE/1 review) and searching in titles of articles. Based on these articles, an overview of the theoretical frameworks on which the research is based (or the curriculum making process itself), the methodologies used, and the resulting findings is going to be created. Further analysis is going to be carried out according to the geographical affiliation of the works and the level of education.
Expected Outcomes
It appeared that the latest literature review on meso level of curriculum making in STEM or science was published 6 years ago (Žák & Kolář, 2018). That’s why I am going to conduct a recent literature review using PRISMA statement (Page et al., 2021) to systematically describe the context of my dissertation and fill in discovered research gap in curriculum making. It was identified that there are a lot of keywords related to the terms “curriculum”, “curricula” and “curricular” concerning curriculum making or reviewing processes. That led to identification of systematic (literature) reviews related to research question. I also found 141 potentially relevant primary studies which I am going to filter more with respect to my research questions and identify theoretical frameworks, methodological aspects and research study designs relevant for my case study. Review studies often examined specific curricular innovations of content (e.g. computer science education, sustainability) or teaching strategies (inquiry-based; STEM education; inclusive curriculum). Lots of reviews are focusing on higher education. Less represented were works that dealt with the process of the curriculum making, for exapmle a student emergent curriculum in the science classroom (Laux, 2018). The primary/empirical publications were often case studies of specific revised national or state documents, with Australian Curriculum strongly represented. Critical analysis of the power relations of the actors at macro levels was more performed than studies of meso level processes within the curriculum committees, and more studies looked at social studies / humanities rather than science subjects.
References
Dvořák, D. (2023). Curriculum development. In R. J. Tierney, R. Fazal, & E. Kadriye (Eds.), International encyclopedia of education (4th Ed., pp. 149–154). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-818630-5.03024-4 Hajerová Műllerová, L., & Slavík, J. (2020). Modelování kurikula (1. vydání). Západočeská univerzita v Plzni, Fakulta pedagogická. Laux, K. (2018). A theoretical understanding of the literature on student voice in the science classroom. Research in Science and Technological Education, 36(1), 111–129. Scopus. https://doi.org/10.1080/02635143.2017.1353963 Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., Shamseer, L., Tetzlaff, J. M., Akl, E. A., Brennan, S. E., Chou, R., Glanville, J., Grimshaw, J. M., Hróbjartsson, A., Lalu, M. M., Li, T., Loder, E. W., Mayo-Wilson, E., McDonald, S., … Moher, D. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. Systematic Reviews, 10(1), 89. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-021-01626-4 Priestley, M., Alvunger, D., Philippou, S., & Soini, T. (2021). Curriculum making in Europe: Policy and practice within and across diverse contexts (1st Ed.). Emerald Publishing Limited. Rata, E. (2021). The Curriculum Design Coherence Model in the Knowledge‐Rich School Project. Review of Education, 9(2), 448–495. https://doi.org/10.1002/rev3.3254 Sivesind, K., & Westbury, I. (2016). State-based curriculum-making, Part I. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 48(6), 744–756. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220272.2016.1186737 Yin, R. K. (2018). Case study research and applications: Design and methods (6th edition). SAGE. Žák, V., & Kolář, P. (2018). Proměny fyzikálního kurikula – první výsledky analýzy mezinárodních zdrojů. Scientia in educatione, 9(1). https://doi.org/10.14712/18047106.1034
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.