Curriculum Alignment as a Dynamic Process of Selective Interpretation: The Question of Authorship

• In Event: 63.078 - Mathematics Curriculum Contingencies: From Authoring to Enactment via Curriculum Resources

Abstract

Objectives
This presentation contrasts curricular authorship in Australia and Israel as part of an international study of curricular alignment in mathematics and science in Australia, China, Finland and Israel. In the dynamic process of curricular alignment, authorship is a central consideration: Authorship of national curriculum documents and their state, regional and school level instantiations; authorship of assessment instruments at state, regional, school and classroom level; authorship of textbooks, teacher guides and online resources, provided commercially or by state jurisdictions or professional associations to support school and classroom level curriculum implementation; and authorship of the topic and lesson plans by which the curriculum is given performative realisation in the classroom.

Theoretical Framework
There are various interpretations of curricular alignment (see Martone and Sireci, 2009). Most of these (eg Porter, McMakem, Hwang, and Yang, 2011) treat curriculum alignment as a static condition to be measured. In our research, curricular alignment is conceived as a purposeful process of selective interpretation and strategic reconstruction, repeated iteratively along an interpretive chain that begins with the aspirations of national curriculum documents and proceeds through state, regional and school level reconstructions to the ultimate realization of the curriculum in the classroom.

Research Questions
What are the influences and values that shape each stage in the iterative reinterpretation of the mathematics curriculum? What are the documents progressively generated in this process, including textbooks, curricular guidelines and accompanying resources, assessment instruments and lesson plans, how are these authored and by whom?

Methods
Comparison across different school systems reveals local practices and assumptions. The project research design uses document analysis, interviews and classroom video observations to exploit these differences in order to identify elements critical to the implementation of any national curriculum.

Data Sources
Data sources analysed for this presentation included curriculum documents at all levels of the school system and interviews with key stakeholders (e.g. curriculum developers, policy makers, principals, school curriculum coordinators, heads of school mathematics departments, textbook publishers and authors, and classroom teachers of mathematics).

Results
The interpretation of the various accounts of curricular decision-making provided fascinating contrasts in the distribution of curricular responsibility from the state to teachers and schools. In Israel, the responsibility for determining curricular structure (what to teach and when) resides outside the school with the national curricular writing team, mediated primarily through textbook selection, and through regional mentors, who support schools in their enactment of the curriculum. A teacher’s primary responsibility is to decide not what to teach but how best to teach the prescribed content (very similar to China). Australia, by contrast, devolves substantial curricular authoring responsibility to the school (as does Finland), and expects teachers and school curriculum leaders to make significant decisions about the structure and sequencing of mathematics content.

Scholarly Significance
This presentation focuses on national curricular reform in Australia and Israel, contrasting the roles and structures operating in each country, characterized by forms of curricular authorship, and examining the consequences of these. The contrast has implications for curricular enactment in the USA and other systems.

Authors

• David J. Clarke, University of Melbourne

• Barbara G. Fresko, Beit Berl Academic College

• Einav Aizikovitsh-Udi, Beit Berl Academic College