Investigating Estonian Teachers’ Expectations for the General Education Curriculum

• Authors: Piret Viirpalu , Edgar Krull , Rain Mikser
• Languages of publication: EN

Abstracts

EN

Finding a balance between a centralised and decentralised curricular policy for general education and seeing teachers as autonomous agents of curriculum development is a recurrent issue in many countries. Radical reforms bring about the need to investigate whether and to what extent different parties – and first of all, teachers – are ready to accept and internalise the new policies and roles as curriculum leaders to ensure the sustainability of curriculum development. The purpose of this paper is to describe the development of a questionnaire for investigating Estonian teachers’ curricular work and preferences and to introduce the results of its piloting. The main topics covered by the questionnaire are teachers’ experience and autonomy in using and developing curricula, their preparation for curriculum development and preferences and expectations for the best curricular solutions. The developed questionnaire can be used for investigating teachers’ curricular work and preferences in different national contexts, thus enabling comparative studies across countries with different practices regarding curriculum policy.

Keywords

EN

Curriculum; curriculum development; teachers’ autonomy; general education; questionnaire

• Publisher: Sciendo
• Journal: Journal of Teacher Education for Sustainability
• Year: 2014
• Volume: 16
• Issue: 2
• Pages: 54-70

Dates

published

2014-12-01

online

2015-03-11

Contributors

author

Piret Viirpalu

• University of Tartu, Estonia

author

Edgar Krull

• University of Tartu, Estonia

author

Rain Mikser

• Tallinn University, Estonia

References

• Catlaks, G. (2003). Curriculum development and teacher training in Latvia. In Teacher training and curriculum reform in the South Caucasus religion. From vision to practice. Retrieved April 15, 2013, from
• Cheung, D., & H. Wong. (2002). Measuring teacher beliefs about alternative curriculum design. The Curriculum Journal, 13(2), 225–48.
• Craig, C. J. (2006). Why is dissemination so difficult? The nature of teacher knowledge and the spread of curriculum reform. American Educational Research Journal, 43(2), 257–293.[Crossref]
• Drake, C., & Sherin. M. G. (2006). Practicing change: Curriculum adaptation and teacher narrative in the context of mathematics education reform. Curriculum Inquiry, 36(2), 153–187.[Crossref]
• Eesti põhi – ja keskhariduse riiklik õppekava [Estonian national curriculum for basic and secondary education]. (1996). Retrieved July 4, 2014, from
• Eash, M. J. (1991). Curriculum components. In A. Lewy (Ed.), The international encyclopedia of curriculum (pp. 67–69). Oxford: Pergamon Press.
• Egelund, N. (2005). Educational assessment in Danish schools. Assessment in Education, 12(2), 203–212.
• Ennis, C. D., & Hooper, L. M. (1988). Development of an instrument for assessing educational value orientations. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 20, 277–280.[Crossref]
• Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency P9 Eurydice. (2007). School autonomy in Europe. Policies and measures. Retrieved May 29, 2014, from
• Fraenkel, R. F., & Wallen, E. N. (2010). How to design and evaluate research in education (7th ed.). Boston: McGrow-Hill.
• Handler, B. (2010). Teacher as a curriculum leader: A consideration of the appropriateness of that role assignment to classroom-based practitioners. International Journal of Teacher Leadership, 3(3), 32–42.
• Jenkins, S. B. (2009). Measuring teacher beliefs about curriculum orientations using the modified-curriculum orientations questionnaire. The Curriculum Journal, 20(2), 103–120.
• Karlsen, G. E. (2000). Decentralized centralism: Framework for a better understanding of governance in the field of education. Journal of Education Policy, 15(5), 525–538.[Crossref]
• Kennedy, K. J. (2010). School-based curriculum development for new times: A comparative analysis. In E. H. F. Law & N. Nieveen (Eds.), Schools as curriculum agencies. Asian and European perspectives on school-based curriculum development (pp. 3–20). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
• Kirk, D., & MacDonald, D. (2001). Teacher voice and ownership of curriculum change. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 33(5), 551–567.[Crossref]
• Krull, E., & Trasberg, K. (2007). Changes in Estonian general education from the collapse of the Soviet Union to EU entry. Tartu: Tartu University.
• Lam, C. C., & Yeung, S. S. Y. (2010). School-based curriculum development in Hong-Kong: An arduous journey. In E. H. F. Law & N. Nieveen (Eds.), Schools as curriculum agencies. Asian and European perspectives on school-based curriculum development (pp. 61–82). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
• Law, E. H. F., Galton, M., & Wan, S. W. Y. (2007). Developing curriculum leadership in schools: Hong Kong perspectives. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 35(2), 143–159.
• Lundahl, L. (2002). Sweden: Decentralization, deregulation, quasi-markets – and then what? Journal of Education Policy, 17(6), 687–697.[Crossref]
• Lundahl, L. (2005). A matter of self-governance and control. The reconstruction of Swedish education policy: 1980–2003. European Education, 37(1), 10–25.
• McNeil, J. D. (1992). Curriculum organization. In M. C. Alkin (Ed.), Encyclopedia of educational research (6th ed.) (Vol 1., pp. 273–279). New York: Macmillan.
• März, V., & Kelchtermans, G. (2013). Sense-making and structure in teachers’ reception of educational reform. A case study on statistics in the mathematics curriculum. Teaching and Teacher Education, 29, 13–24.
• Nieveen, N., & Kuiper, W. (2012). Balancing curriculum freedom and regulation in Netherlands. European Educational Research Journal, 11(3), 357–368.[Crossref]
• Nilsen, S. (2010). Moving towards an educational policy for inclusion? Main reform stages in the development of the Norwegian unitary school system. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 14(5), 479–497.[Crossref]
• Olek, H. (1998). Educational research in Central and Eastern Europe: A diverging tradition. Educational Research and Evaluation, 4(1), 78–93.
• Osei, G. M., & Brock, C. (2006). Decentralisation in education, institutional culture and teacher autonomy in Ghana. Journal of Education Policy, 21(4), 437–458.[Crossref]
• Polyzoi, E., & Cerna, M. (2001). A dynamic model of forces affecting the implementation of educational change in the Czech Republic. Comparative Education Review, 45(1), 64–84.[Crossref]
• Priestley, M., Edwards, R., & Priestley, A. (2012). Teacher agency in curriculum making: Agents of change and spaces for manoeuvre. Curriculum Inquiry, 42(2), 191–214.[Crossref]
• Põhikooli ja gümnaasiumi riiklik õppekava [National curriculum for basic schools and gymnasia]. (2002). Retrieved July 4, 2014, from
• Põhikooli riiklik õppekava [National curriculum for basic schools]. (2011). Retrieved September 3, 2013, from
• Schubert, W. H, Hansen, D. T., Wulf, C., Kliebard, H. M., Lawton, D., Connell, W. F., & Zhang, L. (1998). Curriculum history: National profiles. In T. Husén, T. N. Postlethwaite, B. R. Clark & G. Neave (Eds.), Education: The complete encyclopedia. Oxford: Elsevier Science Ltd.
• Shawer, S. F. (2010). Classroom-level curriculum development: EFL teachers as curriculum developers, curriculum makers and curriculum-transmitters. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26, 173–184.
• Shkedi, A. (1998). Can the curriculum guide both emancipate and educate teachers? Curriculum Inquiry, 28(2), 209–229.[Crossref]
• Shkedi, A. (2006). Curriculum and teachers: An encounter of languages and literatures. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 38(6), 719–735.[Crossref]
• Shriner, M., Schlee, B. M., & Libler, R. (2010). Teachers’ perceptions, attitudes and beliefs regarding curriculum integration. The Australian Educational Researcher, 37(1), 51–62.[Crossref]
• Silberstein, M., & Ben-Peretz, M. (1987). The concept of teacher autonomy in curriculum materials: An operative interpretation. Journal of Curriculum and Supervision, 3(1), 29–44.
• Sivesind, K. (2013). Mixed images and merging semantics in European curricula. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 45(1), 52–66.[Crossref]
• Sloan, K. (2006). Teacher identity and agency in school worlds: Beyond the all-good/all-bad dscourse on accountability – explicit curriculum policies. Curriculum Inquiry, 36(2), 119–152.[Crossref]
• Taba, H. (1962). Curriculum development. Theory and practice. New York: Harcourt, Brace and World.
• Tyler, R. W. (1949). Basic principles of curriculum and instruction. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
• Unt, I., & Läänemets U. (Eds.). (1992). Põhikooli õppekava [Curriculum for basic schools]. Tallinn: Eesti Hariduse Arenduskeskus.
• Unt, I., & Läänemets U. (Eds). (1993). Keskkooli õppekava [Curriculum for secondary schools]. Tallinn: Eesti Hariduse Arenduskeskus.
• Van Driel, J. H., Bulte, A. M. W., & Verloop, N. (2007). The relationships between teachers’ general beliefs about teaching and learning and their domain specific curricular beliefs. Learning and Instruction, 17, 156–171.[Crossref]
• Van Driel, J. H., Bulte, A. M. W., & Verloop, N. (2008). Using the curriculum emphasis concept to investigate teachers’ curricular beliefs in the context of educational reform. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 40(1), 107–122.[Crossref]
• Vulliamy, G., Kimonen, E., Nevalainen, R., & Webb, R. (1997). Teacher identity and curriculum change: A comparative case-study analysis of small schools in England and Finland. Comparative Education, 33(1), 97–115.[Crossref]
• Wallace, C. S., & Priestley, M. (2011). Teacher beliefs and the mediation of curriculum innovation in Scotland: A socio-cultural perspective on professional development and change. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 43(3), 357–381.[Crossref]
• Wermke, W., & Höstfält, G. (2014). Contextualizing teacher autonomy in time and space: A model for comparing various forms of governing the teaching profession. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 46(1), 58–80.[Crossref]
• Wolf, R. M. (1997). Questionnaires. In John P. Keeves (Ed.), Educational research methodology, and measurement: An international handbook (2nd ed.) (pp. 422–427). New York: Pergamon.
• Wong, J. (2006). Control and professional development: Are teachers being deskilled or reskilled within the context of decentralization? Educational Studies, 32(1), 17–37.[Crossref]
• Wong, J. (2008). How does the new emphasis on managerialism in education redefine teacher professionalism? A case study in Guangdong Province of China. Educational Review, 60(3), 267–282.[Crossref]
• Zogla, I. (2001). Democratisation in Latvian Education: Teachers’ attitudinal change. European Journal of Teacher Education, 24(2), 143–156.[Crossref]

Identifiers

DOI

10.2478/jtes-2014-0011