Teacher autonomy and responsibility variation and association with student performance in Didaktik and curriculum traditions

Abstract

The primary objective of the study was to empirically test theoretical claims made about differences between Didaktik and curriculum traditions concerning teacher autonomy (TA) and teacher responsibility (TR). It tests the hypothesis that TA and TR are higher among Didaktik than curriculum countries. The second objective was to explore associations of TA and responsibility measures with students' science performance? Nationally representative data from 2009 Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA), collected through a two-step random selection process were used. For TA individual items Mann-Whitney rank-sum test was employed, while a difference of proportion test was used for TR items to examine the differences. Hierarchical linear modelling (HLM) was used to examine association of TA and TR items with students' science performance in PISA 2009. Overall and contrary to the initial hypothesis, teachers in curriculum countries enjoy both more autonomy and responsibility than teachers in Didaktik countries, but differences were substantively weak. Furthermore, within-country associations of autonomy and responsibility measures with students' science performance were found in a few countries. Further research is recommended to address TA and responsibility and complexities that accompany them in current stakeholder-crowded school contexts.

The unfinished business of defining competences for 21st century curricula—a systematic research review

“…During the 1990s, the curriculum-Didaktik dialogue made similarities and differences visible between what is viewed as core curriculum and core Didaktik approaches to education, primarily highlighting the reliance of the Didaktik paradigm on educational content, and of the curriculum paradigm on educational standards (Tahirsylaj 2019;Westbury et al 2000). The emphasis on standards and accompanying standards-based education reforms during the 1990s led to another major development in education contexts globally-the turn of the education discourse and reform towards competence-based education, skills-based education and/or learning outcomes.…”

Differences in teacher education programmes and their outcomes across Didaktik and curriculum traditions

“…To frame this study and to discuss its results, we rely on and borrow from the two main educational traditions in the Western world: the Didaktik-and Bildung-based education tradition, which predominates in continental and Nordic Europe; and the curriculum education tradition, which predominates in English-speaking countries (Westbury 2000;Deng and Luke 2008;Tahirsylaj 2019). In brief, the Didaktik education tradition is teacheroriented in that teachers enjoy professional autonomy and responsibility; it is contentfocused, meaning the content rather than the methods drives teaching and learning processes in the classroom; and it relies on the concept of Bildung, which is a theorisation of individuals' development through formal schooling in order that they become independent and capable of using reason on their own in their decision making (for detailed elaborations, see Westbury 2000;Hopmann 2007;Tahirsylaj, Niebert, and Duschl 2015;Tahirsylaj 2019).…”

“…These countries additionally share a similar political worldview and build upon a Christian heritage that has special relevance for education theory. It has also been suggested elsewhere that these countries represent a cultural-and language-based dichotomy, resulting in curriculum-or didactic-driven teacher education (Tahirsylaj 2019). In other words, the group consisting of Norway, Switzerland and Germany stands out as representatives of the Didaktik and Bildung tradition whereas the United States represents the curriculum culture.…”

Revisiting ‘curriculum crisis’ dialogue: in search of an antidote

“…Despite the differing views, a broad consensus is identified in the literature around four main competing curriculum ideologies, namely humanists/scholar academic, child study/learner centred, social meliorists/social reconstruction and social efficiency (Kliebard, 2004;Tahirsylaj, 2017). A summary account of how these four ideologies became mainstream as such in the US at the turn of the twentieth century and what influences played significant roles on proponents of each of them has been recently published (Tahirsylaj, 2017) as well as a comparative perspective on curriculum and Didaktik traditions (Tahirsylaj, 2019;Tahirsylaj, Niebert, & Duschl, 2015).…”