1. Tomáš Janík, Petr Najvar What schools say after new curriculum is introduced

2. It is only recently, within the two decades or so, that curriculum authorities have started to evaluate systematically what happens after a new curriculum is implemented, or how the old curriculum is doing. Before this development, newly-developed curricula came and went, without systematic testing and evaluation. At best, the authorities based their development of new curricula on more or less systematically collected hearsay and more or less educated guesses about what the old curriculum did, and what the new one might to do. (Hopmann 2003, p. 459) to begin with…

3. Aims of the research Theoretical background Methods Findings from phase 1: interviews Findings from phase 2: questionnaires Overview

4. To describe, explain and evaluate the processes of curriculum development and implementation To identify factors that influence these curricular processes. To unveil functions of curriculum with respect to planning on the school level with respect to aims and content of education. Aims of the research

5. Levels of curriculum modeling state level (macro-level) school level (mezzo-level) classroom level (micro-level) student level (individual level) Basic concepts for the research Curricular processes curriculum development curriculum implementation curriculum attainment (curriculum revision/review) Curricular documents intended curriculum (framework curriculum – FEP) implemented curriculum (school-based curriculum – SEP) attained curriculum (learned content)

6. Theoretical background for the research project „Kvalitní škola“ (quality school)

7. Research Module 1: IN-DEPTH INTERVIEWS carried out with a sample of „coordinators“ at pilot schools and at regular schools aims to investigate the processes of school curricula development and implementation Research Module 2: QUESTIONNAIRE SURVEY realised on a representative sample of schools and aimed at teachers it aims to identify factors that influence the implementation of curriculum within the context of instruction attention is paid to the differences between teachers of different school subjects. Research Module 3: CASE STUDIES analyses of school-based curricula and the processes of their development content analyses are carried out, interviews with school staff as curriculum makers. Research Module 4: VIDEO STUDIES realised on sample of video recordings of lessons (Virtual Classroom Observation) it aims at teaching and learning processes – to unveil curriculum attainment Methods

8. Modules: timeline

9. Interviews with coordinators at 19 pilot schools were carried out – their answers generated 9 problem areas that were further examined Questionnaires were collected from 1098 teachers at regular schools – their responses are being data-processed and statistically tested Research: where we are

10. Findings from phase 1: interviews Janík, T., Knecht, P., Najvar, P., Pavlas, T., Slavík, J. Solnička, D. Kurikulární reforma v rozhovorech s koordinátory pilotních a partnerských škol. Praha: VÚP, 2010.

11. The reform is seen as an opportunity for a wide range of changes Wide space for interpreting the pillar concepts of the reform (e.g. curriculum, key competences) There is no shared understanding concerning what the reforms aim to change The pilot schools succeed in combining the (bottom-up) innovative effort with (top-down) reform activities Findings. Phase 1: interviews

12. Inadequate PR of the reform, and the reasons for changes: towards the general public, academics, researchers as well as schools There is a general concern for the reform not to drown in administrative work and formalism There is a general feeling of discontent concerning the current state of schooling and especially secondary schooling, which is deeper than an expectable resistance to change Competences are implemented as the reform‘s key concept, but there is no shared understanding as to what they are: there is a dilemma between the context-boundness of competences and their cross-curricularity Evaluation is seen as an integral part of reform; however, what is missing are indicators of the degree of reformedness, which are vital for successful evaluation of reform Findings. Phase 1: interviews

13. Findings. Phase 2: questionnaires (acceptance of the reform) acceptance ↔ non-acceptance of the curricular reform The reform brings a modern conception of school education The reform makes it possible to adjust school education to changes in society The reform makes it possible to define the school‘s own profile The reform brings the danger of uncontrolled loosing The reform brings the danger of formalism The reform brings much work without the guarantee of success The reform brings the danger of diminishing pupils‘ achievement 14% of the teachers accept the reform 30% of the teachers do not accept the reform 55% of the teachers are ambivalent to the reform

14. – The questionnaire responses uncovered three ‘types‘ of teachers in the sample:  content-oriented teachers (who tend to reject the reform) ; 9,65%  pupil-oriented teachers (who tend to be more accepting) ; 72,50%  curriculum-oriented teachers (who tend to welcome the reform) ; 2,37%  (outside categories; 15,48%) Findings. Phase 2: questionnaires (curriculum orientation) content- oriented pupil- oriented curriculum -oriented outside categories I welcome the reform2343 I fear the reform4323 The new curriculum is better2343 I would prefere to work with the old curriculum 4323

15. The key role of the new curricular documents is seen in defining aims and content of education, even though many teachers see the reform as the coming of changes in teaching methods Findings. Phase 2: questionnaires (functions of curriculum) The curriculum reform is associated with:

16. Findings. Phase 2: questionnaires (functions of curriculum) 1 2 3 4 defining core content thinking about aims of education setting teaching objectives organising content of education selecting teaching methods selecting teaching aids The SEP helps me in:

17. Tomáš Janík Petr Najvar Institute for Research in School Education Faculty of Education, Masaryk University Brno, Czech Republic tjanik@ped.muni.cz Thank you for your kind attention