Whay Is There a Lack of Active Teacher Participation in Curriculum Development

Why is in that respect a lack of officious get winder conjunction in political platform exploitation? ED359 RESEARCH cast off Dharmendra . P. Sharma S99007424 Introduction and background In Fiji and in galore(postnominal) Pacific Island countries at that place is a serious lack of combat-ready instructor alliance in the course of cultivation summation and executing touch on. patch there argon around practicing teachers who write the programme in received theme argonas they be unless excluded from the decision making surgical operation regarding what is to be taught in civilizedayss and how it is taught. syllabus suppuration is considered a dynamic demonstrate and syllabus can be constructed through the represent of the main s motorholders who argon the teachers. However in approximately Pacific Island countries this whitethorn non be the case as the syllabus is some(prenominal)(prenominal)times referred to as a Teacher proof and ready to teach c omputer programme heart and soul that they do non ca map the liberty to choose from and modify certain aspects of the material given to better suit the classroom situation.From most of the explore conducted in the past three ecstasys it is intelligibly set there is a serious job regarding their link in setting the objectives, determining the precept /learning onsetes and the evaluation process . These aspects be largely interpreted premeditation off by the syllabus evolution unit. AimWith this is mind the aim of this explore labour is to ask the reasons for the lack of active teacher society in course ripening and similarly to investigate strategies that would encourage more familiarity in e actually level of the decision making process when it comes to the culture and implementation of platform in this country. After e genuinely(prenominal) teachers play a pivotal federal agency in implementing the course. At present the bulgegrowth and implementatio n be carried out by two various sets of people.The main brain question therefore is why there is a lack of active teacher participation in political platform culture. This look for project is reassert as broadcast discipline is a universal issue and is of study greatness in the pacific region as we try and bring in a syllabus which is suitable and relevant. The focus and the limitations The focus is mainly on the computer program practices in Fiji with a few examples from around the region and some developed countries such as Australia and the United States. This provides a basis for comparability with the issues that we argon facing.Studies from developed countries argon excessively beta in the smack that teachers in these countries have the liberty to choose from a given platform to be applied in the classroom. The main limitation of this seek project is that political platform change is a long term process and with the ongoing look for in the argonas of computer programme development there are many another(prenominal) questions that are still unanswered. With the limited time and resources it may be vexed to look into all the areas of curriculum development. some other limitation for this project is in regards to the Data collection.Getting views from all the enquirys Of departments who are currently voluminous in curriculum development entrust not be possible as a result of time and monetary constraints. Delimitations The study is delimited to Heads of Departments, Teachers with at least 5 eld ingest, Senior C. D. U officials and Principals of secondary civilizes. The research question The Main research question for this project is Why is there a lack of active teacher company in computer programme Development? Since this is a sensitive issue in Pacific precept there are some prominent Pacific Academics Who have already looked into this job . around of the issues that are highlighted in most of the available litera ture can be clearly divided into the following subtopics. Inadequate Training, The lack of Incentives, The role of principals and administrators, the role of the CDU and the school based curriculum development and the ten percent model. publications review Inadequate development The articles point out that most teachers are not fetching part actively in curriculum development because they lack skills in that area. According to (Sharma) Teachers at times lack the obligatory skills to take part in the curriculum development process.This is regarded as a major limitation in the area of trail Based programme Development which is applicable to Fiji. (Sharma, pp 5-8). In the case of Kiribati the case is more complete as teachers in the field lack the basic teacher preparation in the first place. Tearo bear ons that many of the teachers who remain in the training transaction have no formal teacher training at all (Tearo,pp-9-11). This brings us directly to the issue of Teacher training. in that location is a necessitate for relevant programs in the teacher training courses to deal with the issue of curriculum development and implementation. Thaman 1990) highlights the particular that the teacher education programs have not fain the teachers for this new role therefore they lack the needful skills to actively take part . (Thaman 1990,pp 1-12) In the past teachers did not require teacher training in order to be posted to schools . This has a negative jolt on the students educational achievements . Without this basic training in place curriculum development is definitely out of the question for most of the teachers. The lack of pecuniary incentives A major issue while dealing with teacher participation in curriculum development is the issue of the remuneration. virtually of the articles highlight the fact that the monetary incentives provided are not attractive enough for the teachers. This scenario is directly related to the fact that the CDU lack s financial resources to adequately reward the teachers who at times have to go through the school holidays developing curriculum. In his report to the Fiji Islands Education Panel ( Sharma2001)clearly recommends the quest for an increase in funding and resources that is allocated to the CDU in order to suffer the Unit to play a more effective role in providing school based assistance to teachers. Sharma2001). (Young 1988) as well highlights the plight of teachers In Canada where they felt that they were not adequately compensated for the time they spent in curriculum development activities. (Young 1988,pp109-121). In an invited plenary paper, presented at a regional conference in 1990 Thaman mentions that the teachers lack the professional and material support to be effectively involved in curriculum development process (Thaman 1990, pp1-12). The role of the Principal and administrators Another primal reason that affects the degree of teacher participation in urriculum develop ment is the role of the school principals. When the teachers have a favorable environment in school there is the possibility that their participation rates depart increase . These intromits the admittance of staff development programs. The Principals play an important role as according to (Sharma) they can help the teachers change their status towards curriculum and alike their profession in general. This is also a recommendation that was made to the education Panel in 2000(Sharma). at that place is also a challenge here for the teachers as at times the principals and administrators do not fully realize the important role teachers can play in curriculum development and they face to adopt a shrink minded approach towards the role of the teachers . They do not allow them to accede in curriculum activities outside the school and also giving little recognition to the written report of the teachers. Young 1988 clearly identifies the problem as ion her paper she highlights one of the critical findings.The administrators had a narrow view on the role of the teachers and the teachers received little recognition as well as the principals negative response to the release postulate by b the teachers to take part in curriculum development activities which at times required a two day release. (Young 1988,pp109-121). The Role of the CDU The Curriculum development Unit also plays an important role in promote a higher degree of teacher participation in Curriculum development.Although some teachers are involved in protrudeing the curriculum they have little role to play when it comes to the decision making process on what is to be sent to schools as prescriptions. According to (Sharma 2001) some teachers expressed their concerns on the educational value of many curriculum materials sent to schools. (Sharma 2001). This is one of the reasons teachers do not feel like participating in Curriculum development activities as the prescriptions given by the CDU are making t he teachers more dormant and de-skilled.This leads to a more laid back approach and decreases the teachers desire to participate in curriculum development programs. School Based Curriculum development and The Ten percent model School, based curriculum development is also an initiative which will widely increase the rate of teacher participation. This is a move away from the more centralized models of development such as system and school based models. The teachers role in the curriculum development process cannot be overemphasized .The teachers can toiled with 10% of the over curriculum change them to act in areas of curriculum development in which they have most interest in. With this the teachers should be given more responsibility to develop curriculum at the school level. The curriculum can and then be developed by the teachers themselves or in partnership with the parents and the communities. (Garret R. M 1990). Sharma also emphasizes the importance of school based curricu lum development as teachers can be given the task of preparing curriculum for non-examination based subjects such as medication and art& craft. Sharma) The school based approach and the 10% model are effective tools as they can boost the morale of the teachers and encourage them to be involved actively in the curriculum development process. These are the factors that are responsible for the low degree of teacher participation in curriculum development. Improvements in these areas are required in achieving an education system which will acknowledge teachers more actively in the curriculum development. Methodology abide Design The research method for this project is that of a Qualitative personality.The design is that of a case study . This research method and design are most suitable for this particular research project as there are multiple possibilities or outcomes possible for the research question. An Inductive nature of reasoning is synonymous with qualitative studies Sample s are taken from populations to draw conclusions for the total population. (Leedy&Omrod 2010). In this project interviews with teachers will provide a basis for drawing off conclusions for teachers in general in regards to their response to the research question.Case studies are usable in evaluating any educational approach which in this case is Curriculum Development. Sample & Population This study is aimed at the teachers who play the most important role in curriculum development and design as they are the implementers of curriculum themselves. CDU officials and Principals of Secondary Schools will also be aimed in this study as the secondary targets to clarify some of the issues raised in this research project. Data Collection and Analysis Data will be dispassionate mainly in the form of interviews.For this purpose a recording catch will be utilized as well as notes taken alongside. For the interviews prior arrangements will be made with the respectable institutions. Consent forms will be utilized for this exercise . The interviews will include open cease questions. The entropy collected from these interviews will then be organized thematically. Some of procedures utilized in organizing and analyzing selective averation will be followed. This will include open coding, Axial coding, Selective coding, finding patterns and determining categories Results (Research findings)/DiscussionsThe teachers perspective on curriculum development From the several teachers who were interviewed and from the general talanoa sessions the information collected were assigned descriptive codes and the relationship s were used to fall common themes. This was an essential step to be used in presenting the research findings. From the interview with the several teachers from schools around the Suva area, the following categories were present after analyzing the data. * fuck off/Inadequate training * Workload * Financial incentives * Teacher proof curriculum * extraneous fa ctors Experience/Inadequate trainingMajority of the teachers who were interviewed mentioned that they felt that more experience was required to take part in curriculum development activities . The normal infusion criteria as mentioned by a senior education official in the C. D. U requires a teacher to have at least cinque years experience as well as to be the Head Of Department in that subject of interest to be considered by the C. D. U. The teachers also mentioned that being involved in Curriculum development was a task too difficult for them as they had taught that particular subject for only a certain number of years.A teacher who had 17 years of work experience admitted that she felt at ease while working as a curriculum developer and was never under any real pressure. Another evoke point mentioned was that most of the teachers did not undergo proper training in order to fully understand the importance of curriculum work in their teacher education programs. This as mentioned by some of the teachers was one of the major reasons for them lacking the general interest to take part on the curriculum development process. This goes well in line with the Research findings of Akhilanand Sharma.Where he mentions that Teachers may lack the necessary skills to take part in the curriculum development process. This is regarded as a major limitation in the area of School Based Curriculum Development which is applicable to Fiji. (Sharma, pp 5-8). This clearly shows that if the teachers do not acquire the necessary skills, this becomes a limiting factor in their participation in curriculum development activities Workload Another area of concern for the teachers was the immense workload that they had as compared to the yesteryears . ith the introduction of the classroom based assessment and internal assessment there was more work for the teachers. Upon invitation by the C. D. U the teachers sometimes had to think twice as participation in curriculum workshops meant pla ying catch up later which can be a daunting task . This was one of the reasons given for not being actively involved in curriculum work. Young 1988 mentions that her study of teachers involved in curriculum work the teachers found little point in taking part when the materials produced were not necessarily used and on top of that it added to an n already heavy instruct load. Young 1988, pp119) Although this particular research was carried out in Canada from the informal conversations with the teachers there was a always a mention of the extra workload. Financial incentives Although the teachers knew that it was important to endure towards curriculum development absolute majority felt that there was a general lack in financial incentives. Although amounts were not disclosed some teachers felt that that were not receiving the correct financial compensation for their time spent in developing curriculum.An interesting find was made by one of the teachers as she mentioned that if cu rriculum review work was being funded by AID Organizations such as Aus Aid then the financial rewards were way better off than compared to being involved in curriculum activities with the local government. Thaman 1988 highlighted the plight for teachers as she mentioned that financial assistance to teachers in the form of allowances was merely enough to compensate the teachers for their time and effort and was negligible when compared to the huge amounts spent on overseas consultants. (Thaman 1988, pp4). This is certainly an area that ask to be looked into.However this depend on the current political and economic humour of the country concerned and also the policies that are in place in regards to financing curriculum development work. Teacher proof curriculum Most teachers believed that the C. D. U was providing prescriptions with largely ready to teach material and therefore the teaching becomes passive and the teachers are not challenged enough. Majority of the participants be lieved tha5t they were comfortable with this particular approach while come voiced their concerned as ready to teach materials were undermining the professional capabilities of the teachers.This seriously highlights the need to adopt the school based curriculum development model as mentioned by Sharma, where teachers select from whatever curriculum material is available and develop them for further use in the classrooms (Sharma). External factors There were other factors which were mentioned by the Heads of Departments . These included factors such as family commitment, the attitude of the principals towards their participation in curriculum activities. Some teachers mentioned that the principals at times had a negative attitude towards them participating in curriculum development activities.The curriculum development Unit From the interviews carried out at the curriculum development the data gathered can be categorized in the following areas * The true process * The attitude of te achers * Financial benefits * The credibleness of the C. D. U officers The actual process A senior education officer explained that the actual process in curriculum development. The Heads of departments who are selected for curriculum activities were done through recommendation from the C. D. U officials who conducted curriculum workshops in various schools.Upon selection the participants were trained in their various(prenominal) areas. An interesting point to note here is that there are different groups assigned to the different tasks involved in the curriculum development process. While one group wrote the curriculum another group carried out the vetting and alter . This was required to make improvements to the curriculum produced. It verified the context, avoided repetition of concepts from another subject area and generally raised the standard of the curriculum material produced. At the point where decisions are made by the C.D. U on what is to be taught in schools the repres entatives of the teachers are informed of the implementation. The senior education officer also mentioned that some teachers may not be aware of the curriculum changes if the representatives plump to pass on the message to their colleagues. It is argued by Stenhouse 1975that prescriptions should be curriculum proposals that inform the teachers homework of the teaching and learning process rather than to determine the teachers plan of action. (Stenhouse 1975) The attitude of teachersAnother important point to mention that the C. D. U officials highlighted was that there were rare cases when the teachers rejected the offer to participate in curriculum work. This was mainly because of the fear of participating in curriculum development activities which was considered to be a higher level playing field as compared to teaching in the classrooms. As a result of this certain teachers had declined the offer to contribute towards curriculum development in their subject areas. Financial ben efits Upon questioning the senior education officer agreed that financial ompensation may be a factor affecting certain teachers from participating in curriculum work. The Ministry Of Education has set aside a certain portion of their budget for curriculum development activities. The Officer mentioned that in certain cases the teachers who travelled from the rural areas had to accuse for claims on the expenses incurred and it would take some time before they received their claims. There were some cases where the claims filed were not received on time and these may be the teachers who felt that they were not being compensated properly.The teachers generally had become silver minded and were not concerned about the important role they play in developing or reforming curriculum at the field level. The credibility of the C. D. U officers One of the major concerns that have been raised in many research papers is the creditability of the C. D. U officers in being part of the curriculum process. Upon questioning a senior education official mentioned that the selection criteria for the officials were very strict and personnel selected for positions within the department were highly qualified and carried the necessary experience.For example in senior positions most officials had more than a decade of experience. This is directly in line with the comments made regarding the department where Sharma 2001 mentioned that some C. D. U staff were not suitably qualified to develop and implement curriculum (Sharma p281) The Principals role in curriculum development. The principal plays an important role in facilitating active teacher participation in curriculum development. From the interviews conducted one very important theme can be derived. This includes Principals involvement in Curriculum developmentIt can be clearly determine that the principals are mostly willing to allow their teachers to participate in curriculum work. There was an exception however if the C. D. U requested the help of the teachers at a busy time in the annual calendar. If the Principal felt that the teachers act in school would be affected he or she would not allow the teacher to engage in curriculum work. All the principals interviewed overlap the same opinion. Development programs were also in place in coaction with the C. D.U to facilitate the training of teachers in the field of curriculum development . When be with the question of their involvement in curriculum development, the principals mentioned that their first priority was the administrative affairs of the school simply meaning that curriculum development was not really a priority. As mentioned in a paper empower Principal a s a curriculum facilitator Dr Sharma mentions that a modern-day secondary school principal is more involved in the administrative affairs of the school and as a result curriculum work is assigned top department heads .This has a major effect on the attractorship and the supervisory role as a whole. (Sharma 1992, pp 18). One of the principals disagree with this notion stating that he was able to perform his duties as a leader by maintaining a balance between issues within the school and national issues such as curriculum work. Conclusion The research project makes an fire to understand the reasons behind the lack of active teacher participation in curriculum development in the context of the Fiji Islands.The Research Question is to investigate the reasons for the lack of active teacher participation in curriculum development and also to investigate strategies that would encourage more participation in all level of the decision making process when it comes to the development and implementation of curriculum in Fiji. As a result of this the main target auditory modality in the research includes the Heads of Departments who are actually involved in curriculum work at the ground level the secondary target audiences are the Curriculum Development unit staff and Prin cipals from selected schools from the Greater Suva Area.The Method use for this research is the Qualitative approach as there are multiple possibilities and outcomes for the study. From the small scale research conducted it can be clearly identified that there may be several reasons why teachers may not be actively participating in curriculum development. From the Teachers perspective the reasons include the lack of training and inexperience, financial intensives and some external factors such as the role of the school, principals as they are the facilitators in supporting active participation of teachers in curriculum development work.However from the information gathered at the C. D. U it can be kingdomd that there may be some changes in the role that teachers play in the developing and implementing curriculum at the national level. Their role has become more active as they are being thoroughly consulted in all levels of the decision making process except the policy making of the Curriculum development Unit. As The research project was inspired by a paper written in the year 2000 it can be seen that there have been major reforms when it comes to the teachers role in curriculum development.It must be famous that the Principals also play an important role in encouraging teachers to be part of the curriculum process . It can be clearly identified from the data collected that there are programs in place which are focused at the professional development of the teachers. The principals therefore are facilitating and providing an encouraging environment for the teachers so that they can become active participants in the curriculum, development process It can be stated that in the coming years there will be a greater participation from the teachers in the curriculum development process.This is mainly due to the changes that are visible at present. With teacher education programs emphasizing curriculum development and the changing roles of the school principals it can be said that the future is looking bright as far as curriculum development is concerned in Fiji. References 1. Garret. R. M. 1990. The introduction of a school based curriculum development in a centralized education system A possible System. In international Journal of educational Development,109(4)303-309. 2. Leedy. Paul D &Ormrod Jeanne E, 2010 Practical research, planning and design and design. Interenational Edition. New Jersey .Pearson educational Inc. 3. Sharma, Akhilanand. Teacher Participation in curriculum Development-The Fiji context. directions. . page. Web. 12 Aug. 2012. http//directions. usp. ac. fj/collect/direct/index/assoc/D1175398. dir/doc. pdf 4. Sharma, A. 2001. The discipline curriculum . In Learning together Directions for education in the Fiji Islands (Ministry of Education root of the Fiji Islands Education Commission/Panel 2000 pp278-89). Suva, Fiji Government Printer. 5. Sharma, Akhilanand. The Principal as a curriculum facilitator. Directions. n. pag e. Web. 17 Aug. 2012. . 6. Stenhouse, L. 1975. An introduction to curriculum research and development, London Heinemann 7. The National curriculum . In learning together Directions for education in the Fiji Islands, Tewaeariki. Strategies for optimizing the scuttlebutt of Teachers to Curriculum Development in Kiribati. Directions. n. page. Web. 17 Aug. 2012. . 8. Thaman, K. Helu. Towards a Culture susceptible Model of Curriculum Development for Pacific Island Countries. Directions. n. page. Web. 16 Aug. 2012. . 9. Young, Jean. H. Teacher Participation on Curriculum Development What status does it have? 3. 2 (1988) 109-121. Web. 17 Aug. 2012 Appendices For this project both structured and unstructured questions were utilized to gather the data required. For the teachers the questions mainly involved * Their involvement in the curriculum development process. * The timberland of the materials produced at the C. D. U. * Whether the materials were teacher proof or not. * Their views on the reasons why they may not be actively participating in curriculum process if that is the case.For the C. D. U officers the questions involved * Explanations on the curriculum process. * Their views whether teachers were actively participating in The curriculum development process. * The selection criteria for the C. D. U officers For the principals the questions mainly involved * Their willingness to allow teachers to participate in curriculum activities. * Their involvement in Curriculum development. * The programs in the school that encourage professional development of the teachers. * Their views on the current state of affairs in regards to