Deliberation and school-based curriculum development —a Hong Kong case study

Lam Tak Shing John

Hong Kong Institute of Education

Abstract

Background: Deliberative mode of curriculum development has been hailed as one effective way of developing schoolbased curriculum. Its participatory, egalitarian and discursive characteristics have helped to generate the much-needed synergy and

ownership feeling among the curriculum team members that lead to curriculum success. Nevertheless there is little such research in Hong Kong and thus very little is known as to the what, why and how in doing deliberative mode of curriculum development.

Aims: This study intended to examine the patterns of curriculum development of a local primary school and how they had evolved over the span of four years.

Method: The case school was selected due to its successful curriculum innovations over the years. Two site visits were made to the case school, one in 2003 and one in 2007. Eight teachers and the principal were interviewed and some lesson observations were made.

Results: It was found that the success of the school’s curriculum development pattern is similar to Decker Walker’s ‘naturalistic model’ which is premised on the notion and practice of deliberation. It is also found that the school’s ethos, organizational arrangements and professional relationships contribute to the success of the school’s deliberative mode of curriculum development.

Conclusion: With the knowledge gained in this study as to the what, why and how of doing a deliberative curriculum development, it is hoped that it will illuminate for local teachers, school administrators and school curriculum development personnel the kind of personal, organizational and social context in order that deliberative curriculum development can thrive and sustain.

Key words: deliberation school-based curriculum development

teachers’ professional knowledge

課程慎思與校本課程發展--一香港個案研究

林德成

香港教育學院

摘要

背景：「課程慎思」式 (或稱「課程審議」模式) 在課程發展學術文獻中，常被推崇為其中一種有效的校本課程發展模式。因其講求平等、共同參與及鼓勵老師同儕對話的特色，能產生校本課程發展必需的[老師擁有感] 及[協同作用] ，有助課改成功。但本港教育界及學術界對此之研究及論說不足，未能令人對「課程慎思」模式之理

論、實踐方法及好處有充份之認知。

目的：本研究旨在探討個案小學學校課程發展之模式及階段發展，及其曆經四年之變遷情况。

方法：本研究以個案研究方式進行，探討一間本地課改表現出色的小學之課程發展之模式。研究由兩次場地考察組成，一於2003年進行，另外一次乃於2007年進行。學校場地考察中，訪問了校長及老師共八人，並作了若干課堂觀察，以收集資料。

結果：研究結果顯示，該校之校本課程發展模式呈現類似瓦克 (Walker) 所倡議之一種慎思課程模式--「寫實模式」。研究亦發現該校之學校/校長之文化特質、組織行事方式，及老師同儕間之合作關係，乃促成課程慎思模式成功落實之因素。

總結：研究所得對有興趣試行「課程慎思」模式的老師及學校有啟示作用，使其對於「課程慎思」之功用、本質特色及行事模式有更深刻之認知。

關鍵詞：課程慎思、校本課程發展、老師專業知識

Reference

Axley, S. R. (1996). Communication at work: Management and the

communication-intensive organization, Westport, CT: Quorum Books

Banathy,B.H. (1987). Instructional systems design. In R. M. Gagne (Ed.) Educational

technology: Foundations. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 85-112.

Blumer, H. (1969). Symbolic Interactionism, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall

Chan, K. K. (1998). Curriculum reform and school change: a case study. In Philip

Stimpson & Paul, M. (ed.) Curriculum and assessment for Hong Kong: Two components, one system. Hong Kong: Open University of Hong Kong Press, pp. 291—310.

Cheng, Y.C. (1994). Effectiveness of curriculum change in school: An organizational

perspective. In International Journal of Educational Management, 8(3), pp. 26-34.

Dahrendorf, R. (1959). Class and class conflict in industrial society. Stanford:

Stanford University Press.

Darling-Hammond, L. (2000). How teacher education matters. Journal of Teacher

Education, 51(3), 166-173.

Darling-Hammond, L. (2006). Securing the right to learn: policy and practice for

powerful teaching and learning. Educational Researcher, 35(7), 13-24.

Fireston, W.A. & Louis, K. S. (1999). Schools as cultures. In J. Murphy & K. S.

Louis (Eds.) Handbook of research on educational administration, 2, 297-322. San FranciscoL Jossey-Bass.

Fullan, M. (1991). The new meaning of educational change. New York: Teachers’

College Press

Garfinkel, H. (1967). Enthnomethodology, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Goldenberg,C. & Gallimore, R. (1991). Changing teaching takes more than a one shot

workshop. Educational Leadership, 49(3), 69—72.

Harris, a. (2005). Leading or misleading? Distributed leadership and school

improvement. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 37(3), 255—265.

Hodkinson, P., Biesta, G. & James, D. (2008). Understanding learning culturally:

overcoming the dualism between social and individual views of learning. Vocations and Learning, 1, 27-47.

Jurasaite-Harbison, E. (2009). Learning in and from practice: Opportunities and

implications for teachers’ learning in informal contextsin Lithuania and the United States. Saarbruken, Germany: Verlag Dr. Müller, AG & Co.KG.

Jurasite_Harbison, E. & Rex, L. A. (2009). School cultures as contexts for informal

teacher learning. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26, 267-277.

Kessels, J. & Plomp, T. (1999). A relational approach to curriculum design. In

Journal of Curriculum Studies, 31(6), pp.679-709.

Knight, P. T. (2002). Learning from schools, Higher Education, 44, 283-298.

Lee, C.K.John, Dimmock, C and Au Yeung, T.Y. (2009).Who really leads and

manages the curriculum in primary schools?—a Hong Kong case study. The Curriculum Journal, 20(1), 3-26.

Leithwood, K. & Aitken, R. (2000) Making schools smarter: A system for monitoring

school and district progress. Newbury Park, CA: Corwin.

Lieberman, A. (2000). Networks as learning communities shaping the future of

teacher development. Journal of Teacher Education. 51(3), 221-227.

MacGilchrist,, B., Mortimer,P. Stedman, J. & Beresford, C.R. (1995). Planning

matters: The impact of development planning in primary schools. London: P. Chapman Pub.

Marsh, C.J. & Willis, G. (1999). Curriculum: Alternative approaches, ongoing issues.

(2nd. Ed.). NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.

McCutcheon, G. (1995).Developing the curriculum: solo and group deliberation.

White Plains, NY: Longman Publishers

Miller, J. (1990).Creating spaces and finding voice: Teachers collaborating for

empowerment. Albany: SUNY Press.

Mitchell, C. (1995). Teachers learning together: Organizational learning in an

elementary school. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon.

Morris, P. and Adamson, B. (2010). Curriculum, schooling and society in Hong

Kong Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press.

Mulford, B. (2005). Organizational learning and educational change. In A.

Hargreaves (ed.) Extending Educational Change, The Netherlands: Springer, pp. 336-361.

Reid, W. (1978). Thinking about the curriculum. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

Schein, E.H. (1992). Organizational culture and leadership (2md. Ed.) . San

Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Schwab, J.J. (1978). The practical: A language for curriculum. In I. Westbury & N.J.

Wilkof (Eds.) Science, curriculum , and liberal education. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Senge, P. (1990). The fifth discipline. New York: Doubleday.

Spillane, J. P., Diamond, J. B. and Jita, L. (2003). Leading instruction: the distribution

of leadership for instruction. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 35(5), 533—543.

Spillane, J. P., Halverson, R. and Diamond, J. B. (2004). Towards a theory of

leadership practice: a distributed perspective. Journal of Curriuclum Studies, 36(1), 3—34.

Walker, D. (1971). A naturalistic model for curriculum development. School Review,

80, I, pp. 51—65.

Westbury, I. (1994). Deliberation and the improvement of schooling. In J.T. Dillon

(ed.) Deliberation in education and society. New Jersey: Ablex Publishing Corporation, pp. 37—66.

Received: 14.3.11, accepted 6.5.11, revised 12.5.11