Advertisement

THE CO-AUTHORED CURRICULUM: HIGH-SCHOOL TEACHERS’ REASONS FOR INCLUDING STUDENTS’ EXTRA-CURRICULAR INTERESTS IN THEIR TEACHING

  • Galit Hagay
  • Ayelet Baram-TsabariEmail author
  • Ran Peleg
Article

ABSTRACT

There is increasing evidence of a gap between curricular requirements and what students actually want to know. One of the factors influencing what is taught in the classroom is teachers’ attitudes towards integrating their students’ interests. This study investigated what prompts high-school teachers who prepare students for national matriculation examination to adjust the curriculum to match their students’ interests. In the first stage of the study, 350 students’ biology questions that are not covered by the Israeli biology curriculum were presented to 15 experienced biology teachers. These teachers provided 19 reasons why they would or would not address these questions in their teaching. In stage 2, these 19 reasons were presented to another 175 high-school teachers from different disciplines. These teachers were asked to rank the importance of each reason in deciding whether to include or exclude topics raised by the student which are not required by the curriculum. Based on these answers, the 19 reasons were classified into four groups: civic literacy, curricular compatibility, topic suitability, and curricular limitations. The findings show that demographic factors such as gender, experience, and sector, as well as the subject taught by the teacher, all influence decisions. Thus, many teachers are aware of the interest gap, but the solutions and the attention given to this problem vary.

KEY WORDS

enacted curriculum intended curriculum interest-based teaching students’ questions student’s voice teachers’ attitudes teachers’ curriculum adaptation 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Supplementary material

10763_2012_9343_MOESM1_ESM.docx (17 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 16 kb)

References

  1. American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Ayalon, H. & Yogev, A. (1996). The alternative worldview of state religious high schools in Israel. Comparative Education Review, 40(1), 7–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Banner, I. (2011). The impact of an innovative science curriculum on studentsattitudes towards school science. Paper presented at the ESERA conference, Lyon, France.Google Scholar
  4. Baram-Tsabari, A. & Yarden, A. (2007). Interest in biology: A developmental shift characterized using self-generated questions. The American Biology Teacher, 69, 546–554.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bennett, J., Lubben, F. & Hogarth, S. (2007). Bringing science to life: A synthesis of the research evidence on the effects of context-based and STS approaches to science teaching. Science Education, 91(3), 347–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Ben-Peretz, M. (1990). The teacher-curriculum encounter: Freeing teachers from the tyranny of texts. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  7. Bent, R. K. & Unruh, A. (2006). The evolving curriculum: Theories and approaches. 285 Columbus Avenue, Boston, MA: D.C. Heath and Company.Google Scholar
  8. Blumenfeld, P., Soloway, E., Marx, R. W., Krajcik, J. S., Guzdial, M. & Palincsar, A. (1991). Motivating project-based learning: Sustaining the doing, supporting the learning. Educational Psychologist, 26, 369–398.Google Scholar
  9. Central Bureau of Statistics (CBS) (2011). Teaching staff in the education system. (In Hebrew). Retrieved from http://www.cbs.gov.il/reader/cw_usr_view_SHTML?ID=702
  10. Chen, D. (2010). Learning programs, something to talk about? A journey through the chaos of planning curriculum. [In Hebrew]. Educational echoes, 4.Google Scholar
  11. Chin, C. & Chia, L. G. (2004). Problem-based learning: Using students’ questions to drive knowledge construction. Science Education, 88(5), 707–727.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Christidou, V. (2011). Interest, attitudes and images related to science: Combining students’ voices with the voices of school science, teachers, and popular science. International Journal of Environmental & Science Education, 6(2), 141–159.Google Scholar
  13. Cuban, L. (1992). What happens to reforms that last? The case of the junior high school. American Educational Research Journal, 29, 227–251.Google Scholar
  14. Darling-Hammond, L. (2006). Constructing 21st-century teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 57(3), 300–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dori, Y. (2003). From nationwide standardized testing to school-based alternative embedded assessment in Israel: Students’ performance in the Matriculation 2000 project. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(1), 34–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Edelson, D. C. & Joseph, D. M. (2004, June 22–26). The interest-driven learning design framework: Motivating learning through usefulness. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 6th international conference on Learning Sciences, Santa Monica, CaliforniaGoogle Scholar
  17. Eisenmann, T. & Even, R. (2008). Enacted types of algebraic activity in different classes taught by the same teacher. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 9(4), 867–891.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Feinstein, N. (2011). Salvaging science literacy. Science Education, 95, 168–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Freeman, D. J. & Porter, A. C. (1989). Do textbooks dictate the content of mathematics instruction in elementary schools? American Educational Research Journal, 26, 403–421.Google Scholar
  20. Gal-Ezer, M. & Hendler, D. (2000). Exploratory study of identity and lifestyle. Retrieved from http://www.daat.ac.il/daat/kitveyet/taleley/hadatit-2.htm.
  21. Gallas, K. (1995). Talking their way into science: Hearing children’s questions and theories, responding with curricula. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  22. Gardner, H. (1991). The unschooled mind: How children think and how schools should teach. NY.Google Scholar
  23. Hagay, G. & Baram-Tsabari, A. (2011). A shadow curriculum: Incorporating students’ interests into the formal biology curriculum. Research in Science Education, 41(5), 611–634.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hagay, G. & Baram-Tsabari, A. (in press). Including students’ voices as engagement with curriculum: Perspectives from a secondary biology course. Canadian Journal for Science, Mathematics, and Technology Education. Google Scholar
  25. Hagay, G., Baram-Tsabari, A., Ametller, J., Cakmakci, G., Lopes, B., Moreira, A. & Pedrosa-de-Jesus, H. (2012). The generalizability of students’ interests in biology: The roles of gender, country and religion. Research in Science Education. doi: 10.1007/s11165-012-9289-y.
  26. Hidi, S. & Renninger, A. (2006). The four-phase model of interest and achievement of interest development. Educational Psychologist, 41, 111–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Israeli Ministry of Education (2006). Syllabus of biological studies (in Hebrew). Jerusalem: State of Israel Ministry of Education Curriculum Center.Google Scholar
  28. Jenkins, E. W. & Nelson, N. W. (2005). Important but not for me: Students’ attitudes towards secondary school science in England. Research in Science & Technological Education, 23(1), 41–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Joseph, P. B., Bravmann, S. L., Windschitl, M. A., Mikel, E. R. & Green, N. S. (2000). Cultures of curriculum. Mahwah NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  30. Kidman, G. (2009). What is an "Interesting Curriculum" for biotechnology education? Students and teachers opposing views. Research in Science Education. doi: 10.1007/s11165-009-9125-1.
  31. Krajcik, J. (2001). Supporting science learning in context: Project based learning. In R. Tinker & J. S. Krajcik (Eds.), Portable technologies: Science learning in context. Netherlands: Kluwer Publishers.Google Scholar
  32. Kwan, R. (2000). Tapping into children’s curiosity. In J. Minstrell & E. H. van Zee (Eds.), Inquiring into teaching inquiry learning and teaching in science (pp. 148–150). Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science.Google Scholar
  33. Lipstein, R. & Renninger, K. A. (2006). “Putting things into words”: 12-15-year-old students’ interest for writing. In P. Boscolo & S. Hidi (Eds.), Motivation and writing: Research and school practice. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum.Google Scholar
  34. Mar’I, S. K. (1978). Arab Education in Israel. Syracuse: Syracuse University Press.Google Scholar
  35. Maskill, R. & Pedrosa de Jesus, H. (1997). Pupils’ questions, alternative frameworks and the design of science teaching. International Journal of Science Education, 19(7), 781–799.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Mayoh, K. & Knutton, S. (1997). Using out-of-school experience in science lessons: Reality or rhetoric? International Journal of Science Education, 19, 849–867.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. McNeill, K. L. & Krajcik, J. (2008). Scientific explanations: Characterizing and evaluating the effects of teachers’ instructional practices on student learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(2), 53–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Ministry of Education (2003). The gap between Arab and Jewish teachers (in Hebrew). Jerusalem: Ministry of Education.Google Scholar
  39. National Research Council (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  40. Nevo, T. & Levin, Y. (2000). Processes of change in schools and community centers on the interdisciplinary construction of learning. [In Hebrew]. The Ministry of Education (Elementary Education Division, Department of programs and methods in Jerusalem).Google Scholar
  41. Nissan, M. (2006). Wanting the appropriate thing to want. Panim - Professional advancement foundation (In Hebrew), 36.Google Scholar
  42. O’Donnell, C. L. (2008). Defining, conceptualizing, and measuring fidelity of implementation and its relationship to outcomes in K-12 curriculum intervention research. Review of Educational Research, 78, 33–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Osborne, J. & Collins, S. (2001). Pupils’ views of the role and value of the science curriculum: A focus group study. International Journal of Science Education, 23(5), 441–467.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Polman, J. L. & Pea, R. D. (2001). Transformative communication as a cultural tool for guiding inquiry science. Science Education, 85, 223–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Porat, N. (1995). From idea to reality, in program plans. The Ministry of Education and Culture, the learning program wing, 10, 28–55 [In Hebrew].Google Scholar
  46. Posner, G. J. (1998). Models of curriculum planning. In L. E. Beyer & M. W. Apple (Eds.), The curriculum, problems, politics, and possibilities. Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  47. Remillard, J. T. (1999). Curriculum materials in mathematics education reform: A framework for examining teachers’ curriculum development. Curriculum Inquiry, 29, 315–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Richardson, V. (1998). How teachers change. Focus on Basics 2 (C):7-11Google Scholar
  49. Ryan, R. M. & Deci, E. L. (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic definitions and new directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(1), 54–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Schank, R. C., Fano, A., Bell, B. & Jona, M. (1993, 1994). The design of goal-based scenarios. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 3(4), 305–346.Google Scholar
  51. Schiefele, U. (2009). Situational and individual interest. In K. Wentzel & A. Wigfield (Eds.), Handbook of motivation at school (pp. 197–222). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  52. Shremer, A. (2010). Four stations. A journey through the chaos of planning curriculum. [in Hebrew]. Educational Echoes.Google Scholar
  53. Tal, T. & Kedmi, Y. (2006). Teaching socioscientific issues: Classroom culture and students’ performances. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 1(4), 615–644.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Tyler, R. W. (1949). Basic principles curriculum and instruction. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.Google Scholar
  55. Tyson, H. (1997). Overcoming structural barriers to good textbooks. Paper presented at the National Education Goals Panel Meeting.Google Scholar
  56. Wood, D. F. (2003). Problem based learning. ABC of learning and teaching in medicine, 326(7384), 328–330.Google Scholar
  57. Yager, R. E. & Roy, R. (1993). STS: Most pervasive and most radical of reform approaches to science education. In R. E. Yager (Ed.), What research says to the science teacher. Washington, DC: National Science Teachers Association.Google Scholar
  58. Yan, Z. & Frederick, K. S. L. (2010). Motivation and achievement: Is there an East Asian model? International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 9(5), 1189–1212.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© National Science Council, Taiwan 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Education in Technology and ScienceTechnion-Israel Institute of TechnologyHaifaIsrael

Personalised recommendations