Secondary science teachers as curriculum makers: Mapping and designing Scotland's new Curriculum for Excellence

Abstract

Scotland is one of several countries to have recently implemented a new national curriculum to highlight 21st century educational priorities. Teachers have been mandated to follow the new curriculum guidelines, known as Curriculum for Excellence (CfE), since the fall of 2010. The purpose of this study was to use a phenomenological lens to investigate how Scottish secondary science teachers are experiencing their work of curriculum development, including daily lesson design and more broadly, curriculum mapping within the context of reform (Remillard [1999], Curriculum Inquiry, 29: 315–342). We probed seven science teachers’ experiences to create both a composite profile of conscious thoughts about curriculum design and individual profiles that highlight interactions between the curriculum mandates, beliefs, and agentic orientations. The study indicated that changes to curriculum development required accepting new cognitive commitments including: (i) analyzing the CfE document to discern the most significant principles underlying change; (ii) reflecting on the ways that science teacher curriculum development is a problem‐solving endeavor; (iii) undertaking the complex processes of curriculum mapping, from primary school all the way through national qualification exams; and (iv) recognizing that the epistemological frame for students’ science learning has changed and providing opportunities for students to create and apply knowledge. Two significant findings include the unpacking of these cognitive activities as part of a transformation toward a new epistemology of pedagogy, and the assertion that official curriculum documents can promote change, albeit with caveats concerning individual beliefs, agentic orientations, and possibilities for agency within school contexts. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Res Sci Teach 54: 324–349, 2017

Teacher agency in enacting physical education in a period of curriculum change and reform in Ireland

“…By conceptualising the teachers as policy actors (Ball et al ., 2011) and locating them in an interdependent web of relationships with others, we can gain a deeper exploration of their pedagogical actions in their respective individual school contexts (Brown & Penney, 2018). Teachers as policy actors have the responsibility to decipher and convert these learning outcomes (and the curriculum) into teachable learning experiences for their students (Wallace & Priestley, 2017). Within this translating process (from learning outcomes to learning experiences), the teachers ‘have quite a degree of autonomy in how they choose to enact curricular policies’ (O’Sullivan et al ., 2020, p. 207).…”

Tensions in current curriculum reform and the development of teachers’ professional autonomy

“…The implementation of the new curriculum should not be rushed, because this means that teachers may be working ‘on‐the‐hoof’ rather than in a considered manner. Curriculum implementation needs to be the focus of on‐going and periodic review (Wallace & Priestley, ). This can involve, among other strategies, classroom observations and conversations with teachers and would allow gaps between curricular plans and instructional realities to be monitored, responsive forms of support to be provided, and any necessary adjustments to the curriculum to be made.…”

Industry, science education, and teacher agency: A discourse analysis of teachers' evaluations of industry‐produced teaching resources

“…Since we are interested in how agency is achieved in practice by teachers when evaluating teaching resources we find the model especially suitable. This model of teacher agency draws on sociological and pragmatist perspectives and has been used successfully in previous science education research (e.g., Fu & Clarke, 2019b; King & Nomikou, 2018; Rivera Maulucci et al, 2015; Wallace & Priestley, 2017; Wild et al, 2018). In this study, the ecological approach to teacher agency is used to conceptualize teachers' policy work when negotiating the usability of specific teaching resources produced and offered by industrial actors.…”