Before the full implementation of the 12-Year Basic Education Program, the National Academy for Education Research (NAER) had undertaken a large-scale, integrated research project on the learning content of the 12-Year Basic Education.
According to the 12-year Compulsory Education Curriculum System Constructing Program—Sub-Project Two: the 12-year Compulsory Education of Foreign Language Curriculum (Chang, et al., 2013), an expert group was formed to conduct a pilot study to discuss the possible problems regarding teaching and learning English and second foreign languages in Taiwan. It investigated the current trend of language curricula in
14
other countries, explored the principles and objectives of the 12-Year Basic Education, and planned for the organization and the key points of the 12-year Curriculum Guidelines. With the suggestions provided in the pilot study, the policy makers decided that the 12-year Curriculum Guidelines for English should have the following six key features: (a) making students the key participants in learning, with an emphasis on adaptive learning and learners’ affective factors; (b) valuing the functionality of language communication and interaction and highlighting the role of the English language as an instrument to acquire new knowledge; (c) developing students’ ability and habits of autonomous and lifelong English learning; (d) guiding students to think independently, and to cultivate the ability to process and use
information; (e) helping students explore foreign cultures and perform cross-cultural reflection through language learning, with a view to facilitating their social
participation and cultivating their international perspectives; and (f) developing students’ ability to think logically, and stimulating their creativity (Chang et al., 2013;
MOE, 2014d; MOE, 2018, p.3).
In addition to the six key features, the core competences identified for senior high school English also suggested that English teachers should help students “form an active attitude and exploratory spirit, take the initiative to explore extracurricular knowledge, expand English proficiency development (learning outside of the
classroom), improve individual English language ability, utilize various resources to strengthen independent learning, and lay the foundation for lifelong learning”
(National Academy for Education Research, 2018).
With the six key features as the foundation and the core competencies as the main axis, five curriculum objectives were set: (a) to foster students’ English listening, speaking, reading, and writing skills for daily communication; (b) to
promote students’ interest in learning English and cultivate a positive learning attitude
15
toward knowledge of various fields; (c) help students develop effective learning strategies and improve their capability of self-studying, to lay the foundation of lifelong learning; (d) to provide students with multiple perspectives that help them comprehend and respect different cultures, and in turn develop a global vision and the vision of sustainable development; and (e) to cultivate students’ abilities to think logically, to analyze, to integrate, and to innovate in English.
To attain the curriculum objectives and to provide guidance in teaching and learning, two important components of the new English Curriculum Guidelines were formed: “learning performance items” and “learning contents.” “Learning contents”
comprise the main content of the English course, while “learning performance items”
describe what students can accomplish or develop through English learning. There are four themes under “learning contents”: language knowledge (linguistic knowledge and skills), communicative ability/function, culture and custom/cultural
understanding, and thinking ability/critical thinking. “Learning performance items”
are categorized into nine categories: (1) listening, (2) speaking, (3) reading, (4) writing, (5) Integrated Skills s, (6) interest in and attitude toward learning English, (7) methods and strategies in learning English, (8) cultural understanding/culture and custom, and (9) Logical Thinking, Judgement, and Creativity. “Learning performance items” are the core of the curriculum guidelines, for they serve as the reference for teachers to evaluate students’ learning, and as the guidance for their own teaching and lesson planning.
Each learning performance item has a three-digit code that separates it from others. The first digit uses an Arabic numeral to represent “category.” Arabic
numerals 1–5 represent listening, speaking, reading, writing, and Integrated Skills s.
Arabic numeral 6 stands for interest in and attitude toward learning English; Arabic numeral 7 for methods and strategies in learning English; Arabic numeral 8 for
16
cultural understanding/culture and customs; and Arabic numeral 9 for Logical Thinking, Judgement, and Creativity. The second digit uses Roman numerals to indicate “learning stage.” Specifically, II represents the second learning stage (the 3rd and 4th grades at elementary school level); III means the third learning stage (the 5th and 6th grades at elementary school level); IV is for the fourth learning stage (the 7th to 9th grades at junior high school level); and V stands for the fifth learning stage (the 10th to 12th grade at senior high school level). The third digit is the serial number for the order of the learning performance item under each category. Furthermore, in order to assist students’ personalized talent development and to embody the spirit of holistic education, *(asterisk) and ◎(bullseye) are utilized to stand for two different
meanings. If a “learning performance item” is marked with *, it indicates that the stated “learning performance item” is much more advanced and more difficult. For those “learning performance items” marked with *, teachers can develop different kinds of teaching materials according to students’ individual proficiency level and school resources for adaptive learning. If a “learning performance item” is marked with◎, it means that the stated “learning performance item” is going to reappear at different learning stages. Since the process of learning English often involves
broadening the scope of learning, deepening the knowledge and learning experience, and making spiraling progress in improving one’s knowledge and skills, the “learning performance items” marked with ◎ are those that will reappear in different stages of learning, but with deeper or broader scope. Furthermore, if a “learning performance”
item is marked with both * and ◎, it means that it will reappear in different learning stages at an increasingly advanced level.
With the “competence indicators” in the 2010 Guidelines as the foundation, some fine adjustments have been made and some new contents added into the
“learning performance items.” A detailed comparison table is given in Appendix C.
17
First, many “competence indicators” are more confined to textbooks, since the keyword “textbooks” is frequently used in the indicators, but learning performance items do not refer to “textbooks.” Second, affective factors are valued in the “learning performance items” but not seen in the “competence indicators,” as shown in ◎1-Ⅴ-13 (“Can differentiate the emotions and attitudes conveyed by different tones of voice”). Furthermore, the idea of embracing the concept of developing a global perspective to respect and embrace different peoples and races is better conveyed in the “learning performance items” in the 12-year Curriculum Guidelines, such as with
*1-Ⅴ-15 (“Can understand on hearing the main contents of conversation between English speakers in different accents / from different language backgrounds”). Also, 13 “competence indicators” that are classified as advanced level are identified as basic (not advanced) in the “learning performance items.” For example, the statement “Can use lexical structure, context, sentence structure, and text organization to infer the meaning of a word or the content of a sentence” is classified as advanced in
“competence indicator” (reading-advanced-1); however, it is classified as a basic
“learning performance item” (3-Ⅴ-12). Moreover, many statements of the
“competence indicators” are modified and reconstructed into better or more concise statements in the “learning performance items.” For instance, culture-basic-1 (“Can know the main festivals, customs, and cultures in foreign countries”) and culture-advanced-1 (“Can understand and appreciate foreign customs and culture”) of the
“competence indicator” are combined into 8-Ⅴ-4 (“Can understand, respect, and appreciate foreign customs”) in the “learning performance items.” Last but not least, new items are added to the “learning performance items”, such as 3-Ⅴ-14 (“Can use pictures, graphics, or context to infer the meaning of a word or the content of a sentence”), 8 (“Can appreciate the beauty of English songs and rhymes”), *6-Ⅴ-9 (“Can appreciate the features of English words and the beauty of various literary
18
works”), 7-Ⅴ-5 (“Can make use of structural features of the text (such as transitional devices, presentation order, etc.) to facilitate comprehension”), and 7-Ⅴ-6 (“Can read extensively or explore on the same topic to reinforce the depth and breadth of English learning”).
In addition to the revision of the “learning performance items,” it is also stated in the 12-Year Basic Education Curriculum Guidelines for Senior High School English that each high school should provide elective courses focusing on English listening, speaking, and writing. The goal of the elective courses is to broaden and deepen students’ English learning. It is also noted that “learning performance items” for listening, speaking, and writing in the new curriculum guidelines provide a useful reference for guiding the design and lesson planning of the elective courses (National Academy for Education Research, 2018).
The present study aims to investigate the “learning performance items” of the fifth stage of education. With different levels of “learning performance items” assisted with learning contents, teachers may help develop students’ learning and assist them in fulfilling their potential. Teachers, as the medium between the curriculum and the students, may directly affect the implementation of the policy. Therefore, how teachers perceive and interpret the “learning performance items” may directly influence the teaching in the classroom. The present study thus aims to investigate teachers’ understanding and interpretations of the “learning performance items”.
Factors Influencing Curriculum Implementation
Countries around the world have constantly undertaken educational reforms and the process of developing and implementing new curriculums, in order to meet the needs and demands of their cultures, their society, and the expectations of their citizens. For the goal of a successful educational program to be achieved, curriculum
19
development and the educational reform process must continually undergo review, revision, and constant change (Johnson, 2001). “Curriculum” in education refers to
“all the relevant decision-making processes of all the participants” (Johnson, 1989, p.1). Therefore, for the curriculum to be coherent, the decisions made during the initiation, implementation, and continuation phases should be consistent and compatible. In the initiation phase, the decisions made involve drafting policy statements, selecting learning objectives and the means to accomplish them, guiding and facilitating teacher training and materials/resources development, among others.
The curriculum at the initiation phase is later referred to as documents prescribed by the authorities. As for the implementation phase, it focuses on putting the curriculum into practice, which “is considered a critical phase in educational reform” (Fullan, 1992). It is necessary for researchers and policy makers to understand what is happening during the implementation phase, in order to identify the underlying reasons why the educational innovations and reforms fail. The decisions made by the participants in the implementation phase include the actions of the teachers in the classroom, the actions of the students in the classroom, pragmatic considerations of the teachers (such as time and resources), and pragmatic considerations of the students (such as academic pressure), etc.
Curriculum implementation, as a complex and dynamic process that involves many participants and their decision-making, is affected by various factors, which researchers have investigated for many years (Altricher, 2005; Fullan, 2001; Johnson, 1989). For instance, Altricher (2005) elaborated thoroughly on the various factors involved in the process of curriculum implementation by providing an overview and dividing them into four categories: (1) characteristics of the innovation/curriculum itself (need, clarity about goals and means, complexity, quality, contextual suitability, and practicality); (2) local characteristics (regional administration, such as school
20
district, community characteristics, and contextual ability); (3) organization (management, teachers’, students’, and other participants’ competencies and
attitudes); and (4) government and external agencies (quality of relationship between central and local actors, resource support, and training). As stressed by Altricher,
“factors affecting successful implementation are in a systemic relationship,” and a
“set of factors ‘form a system of variables that interact to determine success or failure’” (2005, as cited in Altricher & Fullan, 1994, p.2840). For example, Nguyen (2011) investigated the implementation of the August 2010 pilot English language policy in two primary schools, one private and the other public, in Hanoi, Vietnam.
The private and the public school that were chosen for this study had different approaches to implementing the new curriculum policy. The private school was established in 2006; it enrolled 2000 students and taught English from Grades 1 to 5.
A special EFL advisor, who was a senior lecturer in TESOL, supervised all the
professional activities of the teachers and provided advice to the school principal. The other school chosen to be investigated was a long-established public school that taught English starting at Grade 3. The principal was in charge of all the professional activities of the teachers. Nguyen (2011) employed a qualitative research approach to explore and describe the EFL teachers’ and supervisors’ experiences and perceptions while implementing this new language policy. In addition to the variation found in the implementation of English education at two different types of primary schools, the study also suggested that a number of the language planning issues that had been raised regarding the previous curriculum remained largely unresolved. These problems included teacher supply, methods, materials, training, and professional development, and thereby hindered the effectiveness of the new English language policy implementation. The results of the study showed that there was a gap between policy and practice. Hence, without government authorities’ support for sufficient
21
training and resources to allow teachers to develop their ownership and identities, it is impossible to implement a curriculum reform successfully.
Ahmad (2014) investigated the implementation of the 2013 Curriculum (K-13), and the possible factors that affected its effectiveness, by studying teachers’ and policy makers’ perspectives at four senior secondary schools in Makassar, South Sulawesi, Indonesia. From the viewpoints of the policy makers, the shift from the previous curriculum to K-13 was concluded as a result of combing the perspectives of problems that occurred in the past implementation. As stated in Ahmad’s findings, the policy makers in Indonesia firmly believed that “every curriculum change is subjected to the failure of the former curriculum, anticipation of the world projections of
Indonesia in the future and benefits offered within the change” (Ahmad, 2014). As for the perspectives of the teachers regarding the K-13 curriculum, teachers perceived the newly implemented curriculum in terms of six dimensions: (a) the view of
practicality; (b) the students’ acceptance; (c) learning activities; (d) learning materials;
(e) scientific approach; and (f) authentic assessment. The main trends found in teachers’ perceptions toward the K-13 curriculum were: (1) viewing the curriculum reform as a positive, innovative, and creative change in the English teaching practice for the future of Indonesia; and (2) regarding the curriculum as something superficial and conceptual, which would be likely to have the same effects as the previous curriculum changes. As for teachers’ interpretations regarding the concepts of the curriculum reform, they tended to have a correct and comprehensive understanding of the general concepts of the K-13 curriculum; however, they tended to have a partial, less comprehensive idea of the applicative conceptions, due to teachers’ inadequate proficiency, lack of procedural knowledge, and the convenience of the application offered by the newly implemented curriculum. When implementing K-13 in their classroom practice, the teachers were found to stick to their old practices and
22
traditional view of learning. That is, they met challenges in implementing the new curriculum, and therefore resorted to their old practices in teaching. The challenges that the teachers met mainly concerned designing the teaching plan, teaching process (in the classroom), and the assessment process. The syllabus and learning materials previously designed by the teachers in the former curriculum had been taken over by the government authorities in an attempt to minimize teachers’ administrative tasks.
Hence, teachers were expected to be able to focus more on the teaching practices in the classroom. However, teachers still found it challenging to design their own lesson plans, due to a lack of procedural knowledge and skills for designing the appropriate lesson plans in English lessons. In terms of the teaching process, teachers retained the dominant role in the (teacher-centered) classroom. For the assessment process,
although the use of various types of authentic assessment (such as performance assessment, attitude assessment, self-assessment, and portfolio assessment) was recommended in the K-13 curriculum, the authentic assessments given by the teachers were superficial and did not actualize the proper assessments. The inherent constraint to successful implementation of the K-13 curriculum was found to be rooted in “the teachers as the implementer and in the implementation itself” (Ahmad, 2014).
Ab Rahman (2014) examined the effectiveness of the English language curriculum reform, which was implemented in 2011, by investigating the degree of alignment between policy and practice in the context of the Malaysian primary education system. A variety of factors concerning the curriculum implementation were closely examined and categorized into three dimensions: (1) the clarity and usefulness of the curriculum documentation; (2) the effectiveness of the curriculum dissemination process; and (3) the implementation of the curriculum in the classroom.
In order to identify if there was a gap between the curriculum and the classroom practice, the study participants included eight teachers, two curriculum trainers, two
23
District Education Officers (administrators), and one officer from the Curriculum Development Division of the Ministry of Education (MOE) in Malaysia (policy maker). The results indicated that although the intention of the English language curriculum reform was good and positively perceived, there were still several
obstacles that impeded the effectiveness of its implementation. Indeed, some of these obstacles were similar to those that had hindered the implementation of the previous curriculum, such as teachers’ concerns regarding students’ low level of language proficiency, teachers’ limited language competency, large class size, lack of
understanding of the curriculum, insufficient proper training, lack of monitoring and supervision, little time for teachers to digest and fully understand the curriculum, and teachers’ lack of pedagogical knowledge and skills. As stated by Altrichter (2005),
“implementation involves participation, ownership and development of professional identities.” In addition to teachers’ more comprehensive participation and
commitment to the curriculum reform, teachers’ “ownership” and “development of professional identities” are also indispensable for the successful implementation of a curriculum reform.
Effective implementation of a curriculum not only depends on the combination of all the aforementioned factors; it is also closely related to those who participate in the process. Therefore, through the perspectives of the participants, such as teachers, students, parents, administrators and policy makers, many studies that investigated curriculum implementation have been able to gain an insight into how the factors that influence the implementation of the curriculum interacted, and the curriculum’s effects and transformations under specific local conditions. Of all the participants in the implementation of an educational reform, teachers have always been the focus of investigation in studies that aimed to examine the effectiveness of its implementation.
In particular, teachers’ knowledge, beliefs, and perceptions play a fundamental role in
24
understanding the reform (Haney, Lumpe, & Czerniak, 2002).
As stated in Allen’s study, “the only way to realize reform and to pay attention to the new standards is by altering the way in which teachers think about teaching”
(2002, cited in Glisan, 1996, p.74). Allen (2002) investigated 613 US Midwestern foreign language teachers, in order to discern their beliefs and familiarity with constructs underlying the Standards for Foreign Language Learning in the 21st Century, and to identify the factors that influenced their beliefs. These factors included urban versus rural location, membership of professional organizations, gender, percentage of teaching assignments in a foreign language, highest educational degree earned, and private versus public school. The results of the study suggested
(2002, cited in Glisan, 1996, p.74). Allen (2002) investigated 613 US Midwestern foreign language teachers, in order to discern their beliefs and familiarity with constructs underlying the Standards for Foreign Language Learning in the 21st Century, and to identify the factors that influenced their beliefs. These factors included urban versus rural location, membership of professional organizations, gender, percentage of teaching assignments in a foreign language, highest educational degree earned, and private versus public school. The results of the study suggested