Mei-ju Chen1 & Hsin-hsien Fan 2 & Chao-Yu Guo 3 & Jia-Ling Kang 4
1Department of Education and Learning Technology, National Tsing Hua University, Hsinchu City, Taiwan
2Center of Curriculum and Teaching, National Academy of Educational Research, New Taipei City, Taiwan
3Department of Education, National Chengchi University, Taipei City, Taiwan
4Department of Education, National Chengchi University, Taipei City, Taiwan
Abstract: This study aims to describe and offer recommendations for curriculum development and curriculum leadership. It first analyses the change from 2001 to the present. Secondly, it probes into the expectations of two school leaders and twenty-six primary teachers about the New National Curriculum (NNC). Through using 2 interviews with different primary school curriculum leaders and literature analysis, this study found that the starting points of curriculum leadership in both schools were different due to their different school cultures. However, both schools encouraged teachers to become learners, in order to better understanding the learning process, to motivate the students better, and to provide appropriate materials. The objective was to maintain flexibility, and to embrace diversified voices. In terms of the school-based curriculum, while both schools had their respective characteristics, both observed the changes in the environment and everyday school life. Teachers returned to the cultivation of student quality, gradually adjusting teaching methods based on their existing experiences, and, collaborating with each other, they were able to implement reform curriculum.
Keywords: Curriculum Reform, Curriculum Leadership, National Curriculum, School-Based Curriculum, Taiwan
Chen, M. (2007). Curriculum understanding- A study of teacher orientation. Taipei: Wo Nan.
Chen, M. & Guo, C. (2012). Post – standardization: An alternative approach to curriculum evaluation. Curriculum & Instruction Quarterly, 15 (4), 1-24.
Eisner, E. (Ed.) (1971). Confronting curriculum reform. Boston, MA: Little, Brown & Co.
Friedman, T.L. (2017). Thank you for being late – an optimist in the era of accelerating the prosperity of the guide. Liao Yuejuan, Li Fangling translation. Taipei: Common Wealth.
Fullan, M. (2011). Choosing the wrong drivers for whole system reform. Centre for Strategic Education Seminar Series, Paper No 204, Melboume, VIC.
Fullan, M. (2010). All systems go: The change imperative for whole system reform. U.K., Bloomington: Solution tree.
Fullan, M. (2007). The new meaning of educational change (4th ed.). New York: Teacher College Press.
Halinen, I.., & Holappa, A. (2013). Curricular balance based on dialogue, cooperation and trust- The case of Finland. In W. Kuiper & J.
Berkvens Eds., Balancing curriculum regulation and freedom across Europe. CIDREE Yearbook 2013, pp. 39-62. Enschede, the Netherland: SLO.
Hargreaves, A. (2003). Teaching in the knowledge society: Education in the age of insecurity. New York: Teachers’ College Press and Buckingham: Open University Press.
Kliebard, H. M. (2002). Changing course: American curriculum reform in the 20th century. New York: Teachers College Express.
Lin, B. (2016). Compentency oriented curriculum. Sharing in the December 15 Tsinghua University South Campus middle district pioneer school workshop.
Ministry of the Interior (2017). Number of babies born. Retrieved from http://www.Moi.gov tw/stat/ chart. Aspx? ChartID = S0301
Ministry of Education (2016). Statistics Newsletter of Ministry of Education, No. 49. Retrieved from http://stats.moe.gov.tw
Sahlberg, P. (2011). Finnish lessons: What can the world learn from educational change in Finland? New York: Teachers College Press.
Wong, J. (2017). I have a dream. Taipei: Common Wealth.
International Journal of Social Sciences & Educational Studies
ISSN 2520-0968 (Online), ISSN 2409-1294 (Print), March 2020, Vol.7, No.1