Teachers’ Acceptance of Curriculum Reform in the Czech Republic: One Decade Later
Keywords:
curriculum reform, teachers’ attitudes, acceptance, resistance, curriculum documents
Abstract
Similarly to other Visegrád Group countries, the most recent curriculum reform in the Czech Republic brought substantial changes in the curriculum documents for schools. The purpose of this study is to investigate Czech primary and lower secondary teachers’ current attitudes towards curriculum reform. The results of a survey (n = 701) indicate that teachers have adopted rather negative attitudes. The acceptance of reform tends to increase among the teachers who use curriculum documents regularly and among the teachers with higher self-efficacy. In addition, teachers with system-centred/curriculum-oriented approaches are willing to accept the reform. There is no significant difference between teachers’ gender, their length of teaching experience, and their involvement in school management. Within the general frame of the Concern-Based Adoption Model (CBAM), the study draws on data from one country, but the implications for further educational development are potentially applicable across countries with similar educational policy backgrounds.
Downloads
Download data is not yet available.
References
Altinyelken, H. K. (2010). Curriculum change in Uganda: Teacher perspectives on the new thematic curriculum. International Journal of Educational Development, 30(2), 151–161.
Anderson, S. E. (1997). Understanding teacher change: Revisiting the concerns based adoption model. Curriculum Inquiry, 27(3), 331–376.
Ball, S. J. (2003). The teacher's soul and the terrors of performativity. Journal of Education Policy, 18(2), 215–228.
Ball, S. J., Maguire, M., Braun, A., & Hoskins, K. (2011). Policy actors: Doing policy work in schools. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 32(4), 625–639.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York, NY: Freeman.
Bantwini, B. D. (2010). How teachers perceive the new curriculum reform: Lessons from a school district in the Eastern Cape Province, South Africa. International Journal of Educational Development, 30(1), 83–90.
Becheikh, N., Ziam, S., Idrissi, O., Castonguay, Y., & Landry, R. (2010). How to improve knowledge transfer strategies and practices in education? Answers from a systematic literature review. Research in Higher Education Journal, 7, 1–21.
Berkovich, I. (2011). No we won't! Teachers' resistance to educational reform. Journal of Educational Administration, 49(5), 563–578.
Bîrzea, C. (2003). Reforming the Romanian system of education: The agenda ahead. In J. P. Anchan, M. Fullan, & E. Polyzoi (Eds.), Change forces in Post-Communist Eastern Europe (pp. 96–115). London, UK: Routledge.
Broadhead, P. (2001). Curriculum change in Norway: Thematic approaches, active learning and pupil cooperation – from curriculum design to classroom implementation. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 45(1), 19–36.
Charalambous, C. Y., & Philippou, G. N. (2010). Teachers’ concerns and efficacy beliefs about implementing a mathematics curriculum reform: Integrating two lines of inquiry. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 75(1), 1–21.
Cheung, D., & Yip, D. Y. (2004). How science teachers' concerns about school-based assessment of practical work vary with time: The Hong Kong experience. Research in Science & Technological Education, 22(2), 153–169.
Christou, C., Eliophotou-Menon, M., & Philippou, G. (2004). Teachers’ concerns regarding the adoption of a new mathematics curriculum: An application of CBAM. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 57(2), 157–176.
Commission of the European Communities. (2000). A Memorandum on Lifelong Learning. Brussels: SEC.
Czech School Inspectorate. (2013). DotaznÃk pro uÄitele. 2. stupnÄ› ZÅ a nižšà roÄnÃky vÃceletých gymnázià [Questionnaire for teachers of lower secondary and grammar schools]. Paris: OECD.
Fullan, M. (1982). The meaning of educational change. Ontario: The Ontario Institute for Studies in Education.
Fullan, M., & Miles M. B. (1992). Getting reform right: What works and what doesn’t. Phi Delta Kappan, 73(10), 744–752.
Fullan, M. (2014). Leading in a culture of change. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons.
George, A. A., Hall, G. E., & Stiegelbauer, S. M. (2013). Measuring implementation in schools: The stages of concern questionnaire. Austin, TX: SEDL.
Gitlin, A., & Margonis, F. (1995). The political aspect of reform: Teacher resistance as good sense. American Journal of Education, 103(4), 377–405.
Greger, D., & Walterová, E. (2007). In pursuit of educational change: The transformation of education in the Czech Republic. Orbis Scholae, 1(2), 11–44.
Ha, A. S., Wong, A. C., Sum, R. K., & Chan, D. W. (2008). Understanding teachers’ will and capacity to accomplish physical education curriculum reform: The implications for teacher development. Sport, Education and Society, 13(1), 77–95.
Hamot, G. E. (1997). Civic education in the Czech Republic: Curriculum reform in democratic citizenship. Bloomington, IN: ERIC. Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED410178.pdf
Haney, J. J., Czerniak, C. M., & Lumpe, A. T. (1996). Teacher beliefs and intentions regarding the implementation of science education reform strands. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33(9), 971–993.
Huberman, A. M. (2002). Moving towards the inevitable: The sharing of research in education. Teachers and Teaching, 8(3), 257–268.
JanÃk, T., Janko, T., PeÅ¡ková, K., Knecht, P., & Spurná, M. (2018). Czech teachers’ attitudes towards curriculum reform implementation. Human Affairs, 28(1), 54–70.
Kwok, P. W. (2014). The role of context in teachers’ concerns about the implementation of an innovative curriculum. Teaching and Teacher Education, 38, 44–55.
Law, W. W. (2014). Understanding China’s curriculum reform for the 21st century. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 46(3), 332–360.
Lee, J. C., & Yin, H. B. (2011). Teachers’ emotions and professional identity in curriculum reform: A Chinese perspective. Journal of Educational Change, 12(1), 25–46.
Liou, Y. H., Moolenaar, N. M., & Daly, A. J. (2016). Developing and assessing educator beliefs about the common core. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 28(4), 377–404.
Meyer, J. W. (2010). World society, institutional theories, and the actor. Annual Review of Sociology, 36, 1−20.
Noyes, A., Wake, G., & Drake, P. (2013). Time for curriculum reform: The case of mathematics. The Curriculum Journal, 24(4), 511–528.
Park, M., & Sung, Y. K. (2013). Teachers' perceptions of the recent curriculum reforms and their implementation: What can we learn from the case of Korean elementary teachers? Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 33(1), 15–33.
PeÅ¡ková, K., Spurná, M., & Knecht, P. (2017). Teoretický model pro výzkum vnÃmánÃ
kurikulárnÃch zmÄ›n uÄiteli ZÅ [Theoretical model for research of lower secondary school teachers’ perceptions of curriculum changes]. Orbis scholae, 11(2), 99–124.
Porubský, Š., Trnka, M., Poliach, V., & Cachovanová, R. (2015). Curricular reform in Slovakia regarding the attitudes of basic school teachers. Pedagogická orientace, 25(6), 777–797.
Reichman, R. G., & Artzi, S. (2012). "The Road Not Taken" – Israeli Teachers' Reactions to Top-Down Educational Reform. The Qualitative Report, 17(33), 1–29.
Roggenbrodt, G. (2008). Akzeptanz komplexer Schulentwicklungsprozesse bei schulischen Akteuren, aufgezeigt am Beispiel des Schulversuchs ProReKo [Acceptance of complex school development processes in school participants, illustrated on the example of the school experiment ProReKo]. Theoretische Grundlagen und empirische Befunde. Bildung und Erziehung, 61(3), 321–352.
Sandholtz, J. H. (2002). In-service training or professional development: Contrasting opportunities in a school/university partnership. Teaching and Teacher Education, 18(7), 815–830.
Sannino, A. (2010). Teachers' talk of experiencing: Conflict, resistance and agency. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26(4), 838–844.
Spilková, V. (2005). Rámcový vzdÄ›lávacà program pro základnà vzdÄ›lávánà v kontextu transformace Äeského Å¡kolstvà [Framework Educational Programme for Basic Education in the context of the transformation of Czech education]. Pedagogika, 55(1), 20–25.
Spillane, J. P. (2002). Managing in the middle: School leaders and the enactment of accountability policy. Educational Policy, 16(5), 731–762.
Sargent, T. C. (2011). New curriculum reform in implementation and the transformation of educational beliefs, practices, and structures in Gansu province. Chinese Education and Society, 44(6), 47–72.
Straková, J., & Simonová, J. (2013). Assessment in the school systems of the Czech Republic. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 20(4), 470–490.
Švecová, J. (2000). Privatization of education in the Czech Republic. International Journal of Educational Development, 20(2), 127–133.
Tůmová, A. (2012). Effects of age and length of professional experience on teachers’ attitudes to curriculum reform. Central European Journal of Public Policy, 6(2), 84–99.
Tunks, J., & Weller, K. (2009). Changing practice, changing minds, from arithmetical to algebratic thinking: An application of the concerns-based adoption model (CBAM). Educational Studies in Mathematics, 72(2), 161–183.
Van Driel, J. H., Beijaard, D., & Verloop, N. (2001). Professional development and reform in science education: The role of teachers’ practical knowledge. Journal of Research in Science teaching, 38(2), 137–158.
Van Veen, K., Sleegers, P., & Van de Ven, P. H. (2005). One teacher's identity, emotions, and commitment to change: A case study into the cognitive-affective processes of a secondary school teacher in the context of reforms. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21(8), 917–934.
Vanderlinde, R., & van Braak, J. (2011). A new ICT curriculum for primary education in Flanders: Defining and predicting teachers' perceptions of innovation attributes. Educational Technology & Society, 14(2), 124–135.
Vollstädt, W., Tillmann, K. J., Rauin, U., Höhmann, K., & Tebrügge, A. (1999). Lehrpläne im Schulalltag. Eine empirische Studie zur Akzeptanz und Wirkung von Lehrplanen in der Sekundarstufe I [School programmes in school everyday life. An empirical study on the acceptance and effect of school programmes in lower secondary schools]. Opladen: Leske + Budrich.
Vrabcová, D. (2016). Developing Czech teachers’ attitudes to contemporary school curricular reform: Comparison. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 217, 303–312.
VÚP. (2007). Framework Education Programme for Elementary Education. Retrieved from http://www.vuppraha.cz/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/RVP_ZV_EN_final.pdf
Wallace, C. S., & Priestley, M. (2011). Teacher beliefs and the mediation of curriculum innovation in Scotland: A socio-cultural perspective on professional development and change. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 43(3), 357–381.
Young, M. (2013). Overcoming the crisis in curriculum theory: A knowledge-based approach. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 45(2), 101–118.
Anderson, S. E. (1997). Understanding teacher change: Revisiting the concerns based adoption model. Curriculum Inquiry, 27(3), 331–376.
Ball, S. J. (2003). The teacher's soul and the terrors of performativity. Journal of Education Policy, 18(2), 215–228.
Ball, S. J., Maguire, M., Braun, A., & Hoskins, K. (2011). Policy actors: Doing policy work in schools. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 32(4), 625–639.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York, NY: Freeman.
Bantwini, B. D. (2010). How teachers perceive the new curriculum reform: Lessons from a school district in the Eastern Cape Province, South Africa. International Journal of Educational Development, 30(1), 83–90.
Becheikh, N., Ziam, S., Idrissi, O., Castonguay, Y., & Landry, R. (2010). How to improve knowledge transfer strategies and practices in education? Answers from a systematic literature review. Research in Higher Education Journal, 7, 1–21.
Berkovich, I. (2011). No we won't! Teachers' resistance to educational reform. Journal of Educational Administration, 49(5), 563–578.
Bîrzea, C. (2003). Reforming the Romanian system of education: The agenda ahead. In J. P. Anchan, M. Fullan, & E. Polyzoi (Eds.), Change forces in Post-Communist Eastern Europe (pp. 96–115). London, UK: Routledge.
Broadhead, P. (2001). Curriculum change in Norway: Thematic approaches, active learning and pupil cooperation – from curriculum design to classroom implementation. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 45(1), 19–36.
Charalambous, C. Y., & Philippou, G. N. (2010). Teachers’ concerns and efficacy beliefs about implementing a mathematics curriculum reform: Integrating two lines of inquiry. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 75(1), 1–21.
Cheung, D., & Yip, D. Y. (2004). How science teachers' concerns about school-based assessment of practical work vary with time: The Hong Kong experience. Research in Science & Technological Education, 22(2), 153–169.
Christou, C., Eliophotou-Menon, M., & Philippou, G. (2004). Teachers’ concerns regarding the adoption of a new mathematics curriculum: An application of CBAM. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 57(2), 157–176.
Commission of the European Communities. (2000). A Memorandum on Lifelong Learning. Brussels: SEC.
Czech School Inspectorate. (2013). DotaznÃk pro uÄitele. 2. stupnÄ› ZÅ a nižšà roÄnÃky vÃceletých gymnázià [Questionnaire for teachers of lower secondary and grammar schools]. Paris: OECD.
Fullan, M. (1982). The meaning of educational change. Ontario: The Ontario Institute for Studies in Education.
Fullan, M., & Miles M. B. (1992). Getting reform right: What works and what doesn’t. Phi Delta Kappan, 73(10), 744–752.
Fullan, M. (2014). Leading in a culture of change. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons.
George, A. A., Hall, G. E., & Stiegelbauer, S. M. (2013). Measuring implementation in schools: The stages of concern questionnaire. Austin, TX: SEDL.
Gitlin, A., & Margonis, F. (1995). The political aspect of reform: Teacher resistance as good sense. American Journal of Education, 103(4), 377–405.
Greger, D., & Walterová, E. (2007). In pursuit of educational change: The transformation of education in the Czech Republic. Orbis Scholae, 1(2), 11–44.
Ha, A. S., Wong, A. C., Sum, R. K., & Chan, D. W. (2008). Understanding teachers’ will and capacity to accomplish physical education curriculum reform: The implications for teacher development. Sport, Education and Society, 13(1), 77–95.
Hamot, G. E. (1997). Civic education in the Czech Republic: Curriculum reform in democratic citizenship. Bloomington, IN: ERIC. Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED410178.pdf
Haney, J. J., Czerniak, C. M., & Lumpe, A. T. (1996). Teacher beliefs and intentions regarding the implementation of science education reform strands. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33(9), 971–993.
Huberman, A. M. (2002). Moving towards the inevitable: The sharing of research in education. Teachers and Teaching, 8(3), 257–268.
JanÃk, T., Janko, T., PeÅ¡ková, K., Knecht, P., & Spurná, M. (2018). Czech teachers’ attitudes towards curriculum reform implementation. Human Affairs, 28(1), 54–70.
Kwok, P. W. (2014). The role of context in teachers’ concerns about the implementation of an innovative curriculum. Teaching and Teacher Education, 38, 44–55.
Law, W. W. (2014). Understanding China’s curriculum reform for the 21st century. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 46(3), 332–360.
Lee, J. C., & Yin, H. B. (2011). Teachers’ emotions and professional identity in curriculum reform: A Chinese perspective. Journal of Educational Change, 12(1), 25–46.
Liou, Y. H., Moolenaar, N. M., & Daly, A. J. (2016). Developing and assessing educator beliefs about the common core. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 28(4), 377–404.
Meyer, J. W. (2010). World society, institutional theories, and the actor. Annual Review of Sociology, 36, 1−20.
Noyes, A., Wake, G., & Drake, P. (2013). Time for curriculum reform: The case of mathematics. The Curriculum Journal, 24(4), 511–528.
Park, M., & Sung, Y. K. (2013). Teachers' perceptions of the recent curriculum reforms and their implementation: What can we learn from the case of Korean elementary teachers? Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 33(1), 15–33.
PeÅ¡ková, K., Spurná, M., & Knecht, P. (2017). Teoretický model pro výzkum vnÃmánÃ
kurikulárnÃch zmÄ›n uÄiteli ZÅ [Theoretical model for research of lower secondary school teachers’ perceptions of curriculum changes]. Orbis scholae, 11(2), 99–124.
Porubský, Š., Trnka, M., Poliach, V., & Cachovanová, R. (2015). Curricular reform in Slovakia regarding the attitudes of basic school teachers. Pedagogická orientace, 25(6), 777–797.
Reichman, R. G., & Artzi, S. (2012). "The Road Not Taken" – Israeli Teachers' Reactions to Top-Down Educational Reform. The Qualitative Report, 17(33), 1–29.
Roggenbrodt, G. (2008). Akzeptanz komplexer Schulentwicklungsprozesse bei schulischen Akteuren, aufgezeigt am Beispiel des Schulversuchs ProReKo [Acceptance of complex school development processes in school participants, illustrated on the example of the school experiment ProReKo]. Theoretische Grundlagen und empirische Befunde. Bildung und Erziehung, 61(3), 321–352.
Sandholtz, J. H. (2002). In-service training or professional development: Contrasting opportunities in a school/university partnership. Teaching and Teacher Education, 18(7), 815–830.
Sannino, A. (2010). Teachers' talk of experiencing: Conflict, resistance and agency. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26(4), 838–844.
Spilková, V. (2005). Rámcový vzdÄ›lávacà program pro základnà vzdÄ›lávánà v kontextu transformace Äeského Å¡kolstvà [Framework Educational Programme for Basic Education in the context of the transformation of Czech education]. Pedagogika, 55(1), 20–25.
Spillane, J. P. (2002). Managing in the middle: School leaders and the enactment of accountability policy. Educational Policy, 16(5), 731–762.
Sargent, T. C. (2011). New curriculum reform in implementation and the transformation of educational beliefs, practices, and structures in Gansu province. Chinese Education and Society, 44(6), 47–72.
Straková, J., & Simonová, J. (2013). Assessment in the school systems of the Czech Republic. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 20(4), 470–490.
Švecová, J. (2000). Privatization of education in the Czech Republic. International Journal of Educational Development, 20(2), 127–133.
Tůmová, A. (2012). Effects of age and length of professional experience on teachers’ attitudes to curriculum reform. Central European Journal of Public Policy, 6(2), 84–99.
Tunks, J., & Weller, K. (2009). Changing practice, changing minds, from arithmetical to algebratic thinking: An application of the concerns-based adoption model (CBAM). Educational Studies in Mathematics, 72(2), 161–183.
Van Driel, J. H., Beijaard, D., & Verloop, N. (2001). Professional development and reform in science education: The role of teachers’ practical knowledge. Journal of Research in Science teaching, 38(2), 137–158.
Van Veen, K., Sleegers, P., & Van de Ven, P. H. (2005). One teacher's identity, emotions, and commitment to change: A case study into the cognitive-affective processes of a secondary school teacher in the context of reforms. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21(8), 917–934.
Vanderlinde, R., & van Braak, J. (2011). A new ICT curriculum for primary education in Flanders: Defining and predicting teachers' perceptions of innovation attributes. Educational Technology & Society, 14(2), 124–135.
Vollstädt, W., Tillmann, K. J., Rauin, U., Höhmann, K., & Tebrügge, A. (1999). Lehrpläne im Schulalltag. Eine empirische Studie zur Akzeptanz und Wirkung von Lehrplanen in der Sekundarstufe I [School programmes in school everyday life. An empirical study on the acceptance and effect of school programmes in lower secondary schools]. Opladen: Leske + Budrich.
Vrabcová, D. (2016). Developing Czech teachers’ attitudes to contemporary school curricular reform: Comparison. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 217, 303–312.
VÚP. (2007). Framework Education Programme for Elementary Education. Retrieved from http://www.vuppraha.cz/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/RVP_ZV_EN_final.pdf
Wallace, C. S., & Priestley, M. (2011). Teacher beliefs and the mediation of curriculum innovation in Scotland: A socio-cultural perspective on professional development and change. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 43(3), 357–381.
Young, M. (2013). Overcoming the crisis in curriculum theory: A knowledge-based approach. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 45(2), 101–118.
Published
2019-06-21
How to Cite
Pešková, K., Spurná, M., & Knecht, P. (2019). Teachers’ Acceptance of Curriculum Reform in the Czech Republic: One Decade Later. Center for Educational Policy Studies Journal, 9(2), 73-97. https://doi.org/10.26529/cepsj.560
Section
FOCUS
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
- Authors are confirming that they are the authors of the submitted article, which will be published online in the Center for Educational Policy Studies Journal (for short: CEPS Journal) by University of Ljubljana Press (University of Ljubljana, Faculty of Education, Kardeljeva ploščad 16, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia). The Author’s/Authors’ name(s) will be evident in the article in the journal. All decisions regarding layout and distribution of the work are in the hands of the publisher.
- The Authors guarantee that the work is their own original creation and does not infringe any statutory or common-law copyright or any proprietary right of any third party. In case of claims by third parties, authors commit themselves to defend the interests of the publisher, and shall cover any potential costs.
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/deed.en that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work.
