• 沒有找到結果。

高中教師對〈十二年國民基本教育英語文課課程綱要〉高中學習階段表現條目的看法

N/A
N/A
Protected

Academic year: 2021

Share "高中教師對〈十二年國民基本教育英語文課課程綱要〉高中學習階段表現條目的看法"

Copied!
208
0
0

加載中.... (立即查看全文)

全文

(1)國立臺灣師範大學文學院英語學系 碩士論文 Department of English, College of Liberal Arts. National Taiwan Normal University Master’s Thesis. 高中教師對〈十二年國民基本教育英語文課課程綱 要〉高中學習階段表現條目的看法 Teachers’ Perceptions of the Learning Performance Items in the 12-year Basic Education Curriculum Guidelines for Senior High School English 王淑寬 Wang, Shu-Kuan 指導教授 Advisor: 程玉秀 博士. 中華民國 109 年 9 月 September 2020.

(2) ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS. First and foremost, I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my advisor, Dr. Yuh-show Cheng. Whenever I encountered any difficulties in my research or writing, she always steers me in the right direction and provides instructions with patience. I would also like to acknowledge Dr. Vincent Chang and Dr. Jiun-jie Tseng as the committee members. Their insightful comments and valuable advice are great assistance in improving my study. Second, I want to thank all the senior high school English teachers who participated in the study and all the friends who helped me with the distribution of the questionnaires. They were so kind to go through the items in the questionnaire patiently. Without their cooperation, it is impossible to complete my thesis. Finally, my heartful gratitude goes to my loving parents and my fiancé. They provided me with constant support and encouragement throughout the years of study and through the process of completing this thesis. Without their support, it would not have been possible for me to accomplish all the degree requirements.. i.

(3) 摘要 《十二年國民基本教育英語文課程綱要》自 2019 年實施。因為教師在教 育政策成功實施上扮演重要的角色,了解教師對於新課綱的看法極為重要。因 此,本研究針於高中教師對《十二年國民基本教育英語文課程綱要》中的核心 元素-學習表現條目的看法進行問卷調查。 一共有 207 名高中英语教師參與問卷調查研究。教師在五點量表問卷中 的各項學習表現條目,分別圈選其重要性以及可行性的程度。問卷調查中設計 了四題開放式問題以探討教師對學習表現條目想法、實踐上的困難和挑戰,以 及他們對新課綱的建議。在本項研究中,研究者使用了描述性統計、t 檢定、 ANOVA 以分析教師對於每項學習表現條目重要性和可行性的看法,分析教師教 學經驗和學校所在區域對於學習表現條目的重要性和可行性之影響。開放式問 題所得的質性資料則採用了文本分析法分析。 研究結果顯示,教師普遍認為各學習表現條目的重要性高於其可行性。 有不同教學經驗和來自不同學校所在區域的教師對某些學習表現條目的看法有 明顯差異。教師在開放式問題裡的回應顯示他們遍認為《十二年國民基本教育 英語文課程綱要》中的表現條目非常詳細,但他們認為課堂授課時間不足(新課 綱授課時數縮減)、工作量過多、學生英文程度低、缺乏學習動機、城鄉差距以 及以考試為導向的學習氛圍都可能阻礙新課綱的實行。再者,教師建議有關當 局在推行新課綱的時候應支持教師專業發展,如提供符合新課綱理念的教學方 法、課程設計和評量相關的工作坊或研習。除此之外,教師也認為有關當局應 提供包含所有學習表現條目的教材。而至於對高中英語教師的建議,他們鼓勵 所有教師合作進行共同備課。根據本研究發現,研究者對有關當局、高中英語 教師和未来的研究者提供具體建議。. 關鍵字:高中英语、十二年國民基本教育、英語課程綱要、學習表現條目. ii.

(4) ABSTRACT. The 12-Year Basic Education Curriculum Guidelines for Senior High School English was launched in 2019. As teachers play a key role in successful implementation of educational policies, it is important to understand their perceptions of the new Curriculum Guidelines. Thus, the present study conducted a survey to investigate teachers’ perceptions of the core element of the Curriculum Guidelines: the learning performance items. A total of 207 senior high school English teachers participated in the survey. Teachers assigned a perceived importance values as well as feasibility values to each learning performance item on a five-point Likert scale. Four open-ended questions were designed to explore teachers’ opinions of the learning performance items, difficulties and challenges of implementing the items, and their recommendations for the 2019 Curriculum Guidelines for Senior High School English. Descriptive statistics, t-tests, and ANOVA were used to analyze teachers’ perceived importance and feasibility of the learning performance items as well as the effects of years of teaching experience and school location on their perceived importance and feasibility of the learning performance items. Text analysis procedures were taken as the means to analyze teachers’ responses to the open-ended questions. Results of the present study show that teachers generally assigned significantly higher scores to the importance of the learning performance items than to their feasibility. Teachers with different teaching experience and from different school locations differ significantly in their perceptions of certain learning performance items. Teachers’ responses to the open-ended questions showed that they generally considered the learning performance items of the 2019 Curriculum Guidelines for Senior High School English to be comprehensive; however, they thought insufficient iii.

(5) classroom instruction time, unreasonable workloads, students’ low English proficiency and lack of motivation, the urban-rural gap, and the examination-oriented atmosphere in Taiwan might impede the implementation of the new Curriculum Guidelines. Furthermore, teachers suggested that the authorities concerned should support teachers’ professional development in implementing the new Curriculum Guidelines by offering workshops or training programs on teaching methods, course design, and assessments in consistent with the Guidelines. Since textbooks are still the dominant instructional materials, teachers also saw the need for the authorities concerned to offer teaching materials incorporating all the learning performance items. As for teachers themselves, they encourage all teachers to prepare lessons collaboratively. Based on the findings of the present study, the researcher provided suggestions to the authorities concerned, senior high school English teachers, and future researchers.. Keywords: Senior High School English, the 12-year Basic Education, English Curriculum Guidelines, Learning Performance Items.. iv.

(6) TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................................................................ i CHINESE ABSTRACT .................................................................................................ii ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................... v LIST OF TABLES .......................................................................................................vii CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION ............................................................................. 1 Research Background ............................................................................................ 1 Significance of the Study ....................................................................................... 7 Research Questions ................................................................................................ 8 Organization of the Thesis ..................................................................................... 9 CHAPTER TWO LITERATURE REVIEW ............................................................... 10 The General Curriculum Guidelines of 12-Year Basic Education ....................... 10 The 12-Year Basic Education Curriculum Guidelines for Senior High School English ................................................................................................................. 13 Factors Influencing Curriculum Implementation................................................. 18 CHAPTER THREE METHOD ................................................................................... 30 Participants ........................................................................................................... 30 Instruments ........................................................................................................... 33 Data Collection Procedures.................................................................................. 33 Data Analysis Procedures .................................................................................... 34 CHAPTER FOUR RESULTS ...................................................................................... 35 Questionnaire Results .......................................................................................... 35 Teachers’ Perceptions of the Learning Performance Items on Listening ..... 35 Teachers’ Perceptions of the Learning Performance Items on Speaking ..... 38 Teachers’ Perceptions of the Learning Performance Items on Reading ...... 41 Teachers’ Perceptions of the Learning Performance Items on Writing ....... 44 Teachers’ Perception of the Learning Performance Items for Integrated Skills ............................................................................................................ 47 Teachers’ Perception of the Learning Performance Items for Interest in and Attitude Toward Learning English ............................................................... 51 Teachers’ Perception of the Learning Performance Items for Methods and Strategies in Learning English ..................................................................... 55 Teachers’ Perception of the Learning Performance Items for Cultural Understanding .............................................................................................. 59 Teachers’ Perception of the Learning Performance Items for Logical Thinking, Judgement, and Creativity ........................................................... 63 Teachers’ Perception of the Learning Performance Items on Different v.

(7) Learning Categories ..................................................................................... 68 How Teachers’ Background Information Affects Their Perceptions of the Learning Performance Items ........................................................................ 69 How Years of Teaching Experience Affects Teachers’ Perceived Importance of Learning Performance Items on Different Categories ............................. 70 How Years of Teaching Experience Affects Teachers’ Perceived Feasibility of Learning Performance Items on Different Categories ............................. 85 How School Location Affects Teachers’ Perceived Importance of Learning Performance Items on Different Categories................................................. 99 How School Location Affects Teachers’ Perceived Feasibility of Learning Performance Items on Different Categories............................................... 107 Open-Ended Question Results ........................................................................... 116 Research Question 2.1: What are teachers’ general impression of the learning performance items? ...................................................................... 116 Research Question 2.2: What problems or difficulties do teachers foresee arising during the realization of the learning goals which accompany the learning performance items? ...................................................................... 118 Research Question 2.3: What recommendations do teachers have concerning the learning performance items? ............................................. 120 CHAPTER FIVE DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION ........................................... 124 Discussion of Major Findings ............................................................................ 125 Teachers’ Perceptions of the Importance and Feasibility of Learning Performance Items ..................................................................................... 125 Teachers’ Opinions of the Learning Performance Items ............................ 133 Implications of the Present Study ...................................................................... 135 Limitations and Suggestions for Future Research ............................................. 137 References .................................................................................................................. 138 Appendix A ................................................................................................................ 146 Appendix B ................................................................................................................ 161 Appendix C ................................................................................................................ 174. vi.

(8) LIST OF TABLES Table 1: The Competency Framework of the 12-year Curriculum Guidelines (MOE, 2014d) .......................................................................................................................... 13 Table 2: Distribution of the Participants ...................................................................... 31 Table 3: Background Information of Participants ........................................................ 32 Table 4: T-test Results on Teachers’ Perceived Importance and Feasibility of Learning Performance Items on Listening .................................................................................. 36 Table 5: T-test Results on Teachers’ Perceived Importance and Feasibility of Learning Performance Items on Speaking .................................................................................. 39 Table 6: T-test Results on Teachers’ Perceived Importance and Feasibility of Learning Performance Items on Reading .................................................................................... 42 Table 7: T-test Results on Teachers’ Perceived Importance and Feasibility of Learning Performance Items on Writing ..................................................................................... 45 Table 8 : T-test Results on Teachers’ Perceived Importance and Feasibility of Learning Performance Items for Integrated Skills ...................................................................... 48 Table 9: T-test Results on Teachers’ Perceived Importance and Feasibility of Learning Performance Items for Interest in and Attitude Toward Learning English .................. 51 Table10: T-test Results on Teachers’ Perceived Importance and Feasibility of Learning Performance Items for Methods and Strategies in Learning English ........................ 56 Table 11: T-test Results on Teachers’ Perceived Importance and Feasibility of Learning Performance Items for Cultural Understanding ........................................... 60 Table 12: T-test Results on Teachers’ Perceived Importance and Feasibility of Learning Performance Items for Logical Thinking, Judgement, and Creativity ......... 64 Table 13: T-test Results of Teachers’ Perceived Importance and Feasibility of Different Learning Categories ..................................................................................... 68 Table 14: ANOVA Results of Teachers’ Perceived Importance of Learning Performance Items by Years of Teaching Experience.................................................. 71 Table 15: Post Hoc Analysis (Scheffe) Results of Teachers’ Perceived Importance of Learning Performance Items by Years of Teaching ..................................................... 84 Table 16: ANOVA Results of Teachers’ Perceived Feasibility of Learning Performance Items by Years of Teaching Experience.................................................. 87 Table 17: Post Hoc Analysis (Scheffe) Results of Teachers’ Perceived Feasibility of Learning Performance Items by Years of Teaching ..................................................... 98 Table 18: ANOVA Results of Teachers’ Perceived Importance of Learning Performance Items by School Location ..................................................................... 100 Table 19: ANOVA Results of Teachers’ Perceived Feasibility of Learning Performance Items by School Location ..................................................................... 108 vii.

(9) CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION. Research Background Under the influence of globalization, English, as a global lingua franca, has long been considered by many as a tool to connect individuals, communities, or countries with others around the world. A good mastery of English is regarded to be a way to bolster economic and international competitiveness. Therefore, English has long been considered an important part of educational investment. Many EFL countries, Taiwan included, have taken English as a required subject from elementary schools to senior high schools. English is also a main test subject in both senior high school and college entrance exams in Taiwan. Due to the high stakes of high school and college entrance exams, teachers pay most of their attention to test preparation and often set testrelated skills as teaching goals. Before the introduction of the communicative language teaching (CLT), promoted in the 9-year National Curriculum Guidelines for English, grammar-based and examination-oriented instructions had long dominated English teaching in secondary schools (Hsu et al., 1998; Hsu, 2001). In spite of the advocacy of CLT in the 9-year National Curriculum Guidelines, the results have left much to be desired. Under the pressure of getting high scores in the entrance exams, most teachers and students put much stress on developing the main English language skills and knowledge assessed in the exams (Chang, 2001; Wang, 2008; Yeh, 2001). Indeed, the test-oriented atmosphere has led English teachers in Taiwan to focus more on certain competences over others (Chuang, 2017; Chen, 2012). Such imbalanced teaching might result in Taiwanese students’ limited capability of oral communication and low ability to apply English to real life tasks. In order to redress the imbalance of teaching and to create a learner-centered environment, several efforts have been made to reform English teaching in Taiwan. 1.

(10) The most important ones involve entrance exams and the National Curriculum Guidelines. In terms of college entrance exams, besides testing whether students acquire the basic competences for college education and sufficient knowledge and skills for the tested subjects, the development of exams focus more and more on testing students’ ability to understand, interpret, and apply the knowledge to real-life scenarios (Chian, et. al., 2007). In 2012 and 2013, the high school English listening test was implemented. Since the year 2014, the high school English listening test has been adopted as one of the criteria for college admission. On the other hand, the Minister of Education (MOE) in Taiwan also planned a series of educational reforms and revamped the General Curriculum Guidelines for Senior High school several times. With the extension of the compulsory education from nine years to twelve years, the curriculum guidelines for senior high school English also went through several changes with four versions: the 1995 version, the 2006 version, the 2010 version, and the 2019 version. Among them, the 2019 (and also the latest) version of Curriculum Guidelines is the first curriculum guidelines developed for the 12-year Basic Education. It was released in 2014 and put into practice year by year according to different stages of education (1st graders, 7th graders, and 10th graders) in 2019. The national curriculum guidelines have an important impact on teaching in the following aspects. First, the national curriculum guidelines determine the distribution of instruction hours of each academic subject. In addition to instruction hours, textbooks are compiled according to the national curriculum guidelines. As the main source of teaching materials in class, the textbooks, in turn, determine what most teachers are to teach and what most students are to be taught. The last but not least, the assessment of students’ learning are assumed to be based on the “competence indicators” or “learning performance items” stipulated in the curriculum guidelines. Therefore, the curriculum guidelines become the most important reference for setting 2.

(11) teaching and learning goals. 12-year Basic Education Curriculum Guidelines for Senior High School English (the 2019 version) are basically the same as the previous (2010) version with some moderate modification and necessary adjustments. The two most significant adjustments are (a) replacing the Chinese term néng li (能力) with sù yǎng (素養) and (b) modifying and converting the “competence indicators” in the 12-year Basic Education Curriculum Guidelines into “learning performance items” and “learning content”. First of all, the 12-year Basic Education General Curriculum Guidelines specifies nine core “competencies” as the basis of curriculum development for all subjects, including English. The concept of competency is referred to as Sù yǎng (素 養) in Chinese. According to MOE (2014b), Sù yǎng (competency) encompasses the particular knowledge, skills, and attitudes that are essential for individuals to cope with the complex scenario in real life situation in the “new economy era” and “information society”. The “nine core competencies” are even regarded as the DNA of the 12-year Basic Education curriculum reform (Tsai, 2012). Note that in the 2010 Guidelines, the term used to refer to “competence” in Chinese is “néng li” (能力). The Chinese term is criticized as too limiting. Since Néng li in Chinese tends to be interpreted as ability or skill, the term addresses more the cognitive and psychomotor domains and less the affective domain in Benjamin Bloom’s theory of three areas of learning (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001; Chen & Huang, 2017). In contrast, by promoting the concept of “competency” (Sù yang;素養), 12-year Basic Education Curriculum Guidelines aims to include Bloom’s all three domains of learning (cognitive, psychomotor, and affective domain) as the goals of basic education (NAER, 2015, p.17). 12-year Basic Education Curriculum Guidelines for Senior High School English also modified and transformed the “competence indicators” in the 2010 Curriculum 3.

(12) Guidelines for English into two parts: “learning performance items” and “learning content.” As pointed out in Chen’s (2012) study on the 2010 Curriculum Guidelines for Senior High School English, the competence indicators are the core of the 2010 Curriculum Guidelines, which specify the language skills students should acquire during senior high school level and thus provide guidance for teachers and textbook editors. Similarly, according to MOE (2018), the “learning performance items” are the core of 12-year Basic Education Curriculum Guidelines for English (p.8). In 12-year Basic Education Curriculum Guidelines, the “learning performance items” are divided into nine categories, including five different language competencies (listening, speaking, reading, writing, and Integrated Skills s), learning interest and attitude, learning methods and strategies, cultural understanding, and critical thinking ability. Credited as the reference of teaching and assessment, the “learning performance items” are supposed to guide teachers’ instruction, lesson planning, and design of teaching activities, though what is considered important or feasible by the policy makers may not be considered so by the teachers and thus would not be given the priority in classroom teaching. Thus, a deeper look at how teachers perceive these indicators is important. To successfully carry out a curriculum policy in the classroom, the practitioners’ full understanding and support are indispensable. Teachers, as key implementers of an education policy, determine the extent and ways of translating a curriculum policy into actual practice in the classroom. They thus play a crucial role in curriculum reform (Allen, 2002; Ricento & Hornberger, 1996; Richard, 2001; Wang, 2008; Yook, 2010). The more the teachers understand and accept a new curriculum policy, the more likely for the new curriculum to be successfully implemented. For the last two decades, several reforms of English education have been undertaken in Taiwan. One of the most significant reforms was incorporating the 4.

(13) concept of communicative approach in the national curriculum guidelines for junior and senior high school English in 1994 and 1995 respectively (Shih, 1998; Shih, 2001). Though communicative language teaching (CLT) has been recognized as the trend for English teaching in Taiwan and over the world, many studies revealed that teachers encountered difficulties when implementing CLT in the classroom (Chang, 2001; Hung, 2015; Liao, 2003; Yang, 2009; Yeh, 2011). The challenges of implementing CLT, as listed in Littlewood’s (2013) article, included difficulties in classroom management due to the large class size, teachers’ limited English abilities and organizational skills of activities, students’ inadequate language proficiency, the negative washback of public examinations, and the traditional idea of seeing teachers as a knowledge transmitter rather than a facilitator of learning. Another important reform is the inclusion of thinking skills and learning strategy as teaching/learning goals in the 2010 Curriculum Guidelines for Senior High School English. However, according to a study by Cheng, Yeh, and Su (2011, as cited in Cheng & Yeh, 2019), though the incorporation of “critical and creative thinking” into English teaching was considered as one of the prominent features of the 2010 Guidelines, many teachers held concerns over its feasibility and the possible resistant from students. From the concerns raised by teachers participating in the study, the reasons for their reservations were cutting down of the teaching hours (from 5-6 hours class periods per week to 4-5 periods) and inadequacies of teachers’ professional training regarding incorporating “critical and creative thinking” into English teaching. In addition to the constraint of teaching hours and teachers’ professional competence, the test-oriented culture in Taiwan is also found to negatively impact teachers’ intention to teach thinking skills in the classroom, as promoted in the curriculum guidelines (Cheng, Yeh, & 2011; Cheng & Yeh, 2019). Similarly, in Chen’s (2012) study, regardless of the fact that “cultivating critical and creative thinking” is considered one of the two 5.

(14) prominent features of 2010 Curriculum Guidelines, teachers valued thinking skills the least. In addition to this, teachers with different years of teaching experience, position, teacher education backgrounds, and from different school locations generally perceived the “learning performance items” as important but held different opinions on the feasibility of some items. 12-year Basic Education Curriculum Guidelines for Senior High School English still promote CLT and highlight the importance of thinking skills and language learning strategies. Whether the challenges of implementing CLT still exist under the current curriculum guidelines and whether senior high school teachers’ perceptions regarding the two highlighted aspects of learning have changed are worthy of investigating. As Cheng, Yeh, and Su (2011) suggested, by understanding the differences between the “official curriculum” and the “perceived curriculum” at an early stage, the authorities concerned could make adjustments to the reform and establish strategies to bridge the gap between the two, thus ensuring the effectiveness of the curriculum reform. “Learning performance items”, as the core of 12-year Basic Education Curriculum Guidelines, may have considerable influence on teachers’ instruction, lesson planning, and design of teaching activities. On the other hand, teachers’ years of teaching experience and school locations might influence their perceived importance and feasibility of the “learning performance items.” With the intention to get a clearer picture of teachers’ thoughts on the “learning performance items,” the researcher focuses on two dimensions: teachers’ perceived importance and feasibility of the “learning performance items,” and teachers’ individual opinions on them. By looking into teachers’ perceived importance of each “learning performance indicator,” researchers may understand to what extent that the notion included in the learning performance items is in accordance with teachers’ value systems. As for teachers’ perceived feasibility, by looking into the feasibility of each “learning 6.

(15) performance indicator,” researchers may get to know to what extent that the notion included in the “learning performance items” is feasible in classroom teaching. By looking into the effect of years of teaching experience and school location on their perceived importance/feasibility of the “learning performance items,” researchers might realize how teachers’ background influence their perceptions. By gathering teachers’ individual opinions on the “learning performance items,” researchers may get an in-depth understanding of teachers’ perceptions of the “learning performance items.” In short, the present study aims to get a throughout understanding of the “perceived curriculum” by inquiring into teachers’ perceptions of the “learning performance items” in the 12-year Basic Education Curriculum Guidelines for Senior High School English.. Significance of the Study The present study intends to look into senior high school teachers’ perceptions of the learning performing indicators in the 12-year Basic Education Curriculum Guidelines for Senior High School English. Following the framework of Chuang’s (2017) study on the 12-year Basic Education Curriculum Guidelines for Junior High School English, the present study aims at two aspects of teachers’ perceptions: teachers’ perceived importance and feasibility of the learning performance items. Perceived importance indicates the extent that the notion included in the learning performance items is in accordance with teachers’ value systems. For what is considered important by the policy makers may not be considered so by the teachers and thus would not be given the priority in classroom teaching. The idea also applies to perceived feasibility. By looking into teachers’ perceived feasibility, we get to know the extent that the notion included in the learning performance items is feasible in classroom teaching. What is seen as essential by the policy makers may seem 7.

(16) unfeasible and thus may not be chosen to be included in teaching by the teachers. In short, if there is a gap between the “official curriculum” and the “perceived curriculum,” the reform may fail to make significant impact on English teaching in Taiwan. Through questionnaire survey, the present study hopes to present a better understanding of teachers’ perceptions towards the latest curriculum guidelines for senior high school English. This study may have some significant contributions in the following aspects. Firstly, the results of the present study could draw a clearer picture of how senior high school English teachers envision the above-mentioned curriculum guidelines, helping policy makers understand practitioners’ perspectives. Furthermore, if a mismatch is found between the “official curriculum” and the “perceived curriculum,” the findings of this study could serve as the foundation to develop strategies to solve the barriers. Lastly, among the phases of “basic education,” senior secondary education has been viewed as a critical one, for the education during this high school stage serves as the foundation for next generations to find their feet in the adulthood. Findings of this study may have implications for next revision of Curriculum Guidelines for this important stage of education. The current study could also inspire more research on the new curriculum guidelines for senior high school English.. Research Questions The following research questions are addressed in this study: 1. What are senior high school English teachers’ perceptions of the importance and feasibility of learning performance items? 1.1. What are teachers’ perceptions of the importance of learning performance items?. 1.2. What are teachers’ perceptions of the feasibility of learning 8.

(17) performance items? 1.3. How do these two perceptions differ?. 1.4. How do teachers’ backgrounds influence their perceptions?. 2. What opinions do senior high school teachers hold about learning performance items? 2.1. What are teachers’ general impressions on the learning performance items?. 2.2. What problems or difficulties do teachers foresee arising during the realization of the learning goals which accompany the learning performance items?. 2.3. What recommendations do teachers have concerning the learning performance items?. Organization of the Thesis The thesis is organized as follows. The first chapter introduces the research background, rationale, research questions, and significance of the present study. The second chapter includes a brief introduction of the 12-year Basic Education Curriculum Guidelines for Senior High School English, a summary of the differences between the 9-year curriculum guidelines and the 12-year Curriculum Guidelines guidelines, and the factors that may influence the implementation of a curriculum reform. Relevant research on teachers’ perceptions of curriculum implementation is also included. Chapter three consists of details of the participants, instruments, data collection procedures, and data analysis procedures. Chapter four reveals the results of the study. Chapter five present the interpretation of the findings and provides possible implications for curriculum development and directions for future study. 9.

(18) CHAPTER TWO LITERATURE REVIEW This chapter examines literature relevant to the topics of the present study. The first section introduces the General Curriculum Guidelines of 12-Year Basic Education, which are currently under implementation. In this section, the researcher first presents two important educational reforms in Taiwan, the 9-Year Compulsory Education and the 12-Year Basic Education. Both of these reforms involved curriculum reforms, resulting in the 9-year curriculum and the 12-year Curriculum Guidelines, respectively. Then the main focus of this section is to introduce the purpose of and the main principles of the General Curriculum Guidelines of 12-Year Basic Education. The second section of this chapter provides a general picture of the new General Curriculum Guidelines for Senior High School English (108 Guidelines for Senior High School English) by comparing and contrasting them with the previous 2010 National Curriculum Guidelines for Senior High School English (99 Guidelines for Senior High School English). The third section reviews studies on the various factors that may influence the implementation of curricula. The final section elaborates on the influence of teachers’ perceptions on curriculum implementation.. The General Curriculum Guidelines of 12-Year Basic Education Under the impact of rapid technological advances and globalization, we are faced with numerous challenges in today’s ever-changing world. One of the purposes of education is to prepare the future generations by cultivating their ability to deal with the constantly changing environment. Throughout the history of education in Taiwan, basic education has been extended twice to meet the need to increase the citizens’ educational level, as well as to provide a more comprehensive and optimal education. The first reform extended basic education in Taiwan from six years to nine years, and the second one from nine to twelve years. 10.

(19) The first extension of basic education, the 9-Year Compulsory Education, took place in 1968. The Ministry of Education (MOE) revised the previous curriculum standards for compulsory education and designed the Grades 1–9 Curriculum for Elementary and Junior High School Education (Grades 1–9 Curriculum). In accordance with the Grades 1–9 Curriculum, the curriculum guidelines for senior high schools were also revised. The version implemented in 2006 is called the High School Provisional Curriculum Guidelines. On January 24th, 2008, the MOE issued a formal version of High School Curriculum Guidelines, which were a revision of the previous 2006 Provisional Guidelines and were implemented in 2010. According to Li (2007), several improvements were made in the 2010 Guidelines, including minimizing unnecessary curriculum overlaps by a stronger lateral integration, attempting to solve the problem of interdisciplinary instruction found in the 2006 Guidelines, and providing teachers a more comprehensive reference in terms of teaching contents (Li, 2007). As Chen and Huang (2017) indicated, the 2010 Curriculum Guidelines aimed to promote the professional autonomy of schools and teachers in developing a school-based curriculum with a view to building students’ fundamental competencies. Although the implementation of the 2010 Curriculum Guidelines signaled a paradigm shift in Taiwan’s curriculum reform, new challenges arose, including the urban-rural gap, uneven educational quality, unbalanced distribution of educational resources, and enormous academic pressure (Chen & Huang, 2017). To cope with the challenges and to further strengthen national competitiveness, he second extension of compulsory education, the 12-Year Basic Education Program, was officially implemented in September 2014, with the 12-Year Basic Education General Curriculum Guidelines put into practice in 2019 (Hong & Fan, 2015). Although both the 9-Year Compulsory Education and 12-Year Basic Education programs suggest the 11.

(20) inclusion of lifelong learning as part of the curricular vision, the 12-year Curriculum Guidelines focus more on talent cultivation and international competitiveness (Chen & Huang, 2017). The 12-year Curriculum Guidelines envision the following: success for every child, adaptive talent development, and lifelong learning. Based on the above vision, a series of curriculum goals are set: to inspire potential, to foster knowledge and skills, to advance career development, and to cultivate civic responsibility (MOE, 2014d). In order to fulfill the vision and the goals, panels of experts identified nine “core competencies,” which is translated into the Chinese term sù yǎng (素養) in the 12-year Curriculum Guidelines, to distinguish it from the term néng li (能力) used in the 9-year curriculum. The latter term had been criticized for being too limiting, as it addressed more the cognitive and psychomotor domains and less the affective domain, in terms of Benjamin Bloom’s theory of three areas of learning. However, the “core competencies” in the 12-year Curriculum Guidelines encompass all three domains in Bloom’s theory. Therefore, the term sù yǎng (素養) has been chosen by the policy makers to replace the term néng li (能力) (Chen & Huang, 2017). The core competency framework of the 12-year Curriculum Guidelines is shown in Table 1. In this framework, there are nine “core competencies” classified into three categories: self-directed action, communicative interaction, and social participation (MOE, 2014d).. 12.

(21) Table 1: The Competency Framework of the 12-year Curriculum Guidelines (MOE, 2014d) Categories. Core Competencies. A. Self-directed action. A-1 A sound body and mind and selfimprovement A-2 Systematic thinking and problem-solving A-3 Planning, implementation, and creative flexibility. B. Communicative interaction B-1 Use of symbols and communicative expression B-2 Technology, information, and media literacy B-3 Arts and aesthetic competency C. Social participation. C-1 Interpersonal relations and teamwork C-2 Multicultural and international understanding C-3 Moral practice and civic awareness. With the nine “core competencies” serving as the main axis, the 12-year Curriculum Guidelines integrate grade levels and learning subject/areas, and guide the development of curriculum goals to fulfill the concepts of the new curriculum: spontaneity, interaction, and the common good (MOE, 2014d).. The 12-Year Basic Education Curriculum Guidelines for Senior High School English 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 13.

(22) 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 14.

(23) 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 15.

(24) 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. 16.

(25) 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-Ⅴ13 (“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 cultureadvanced-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”), *6-Ⅴ-8 (“Can appreciate the beauty of English songs and rhymes”), *6-Ⅴ9 (“Can appreciate the features of English words and the beauty of various literary 17.

(26) 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 18.

(27) 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 19.

(28) 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 20.

(29) 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 21.

(30) 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 22.

(31) 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 23.

(32) 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 that many foreign language teachers still believed in the coverage model (Chaffee, 1992), in which the content of the course is defined by the textbook. However, since the publication of the Standards for Foreign Language Learning in the 21st Century, numerous school districts within every US state had redesigned their foreign language curriculum based on the standards, and had made a shift toward standard-based instruction, which is not tied to a textbook. Furthermore, the finding also suggested that teachers were “only somewhat familiar with the standards”; this deficiency could affect teachers’ capacity to design and implement standards-based instruction, and reduce the standards’ potential impact. Prapaisit and Hardison (2009) investigated the underlying policy and implementation of the reform to English teaching in Thailand, which shifted from teacher-centered to learner-centered instruction and is focused on the development of students’ communicative ability. The study investigated the classroom practice of three English teachers of grades 5 and 6, each with 21–31 years of teaching experience. Four supervisors responsible for the training of English teachers in the public schools were also interviewed, to identify how they conceptualized the reform 24.

(33) and the changing role of the classroom teacher. The findings of the study suggest a loss of curriculum coherence. There was no evidence of communicative language use in the classroom, and teachers expressed confusion about the reforms’ principles and their application. This suggests a disconnect between curriculum policy and classroom practice, in terms of teaching principles. Teachers also mentioned concerns about their English proficiency, insufficient training, and inadequate resources and professional support; these were later inferred as being the factors that hindered the new curriculum’s implementation. Gorsuch (2000) investigated the effects of educational culture by studying the perspectives of 876 Japanese EFL teachers, and how their perception of various national-, school-, and classroom-level influences affected their implementation of the new English language education policy in Japan. The findings suggest that university entrance exam preparation had an influence on Japanese high school EFL education, and that teachers felt this influence at both the institutional and the classroom levels. The washback effect of the prevalent examination culture exists not only in Japan; the same issue can be observed in other Asian contexts. For instance, the washback effect of the national college entrance exam was also found in Korea and China. Yook (2010) surveyed 158 in-service teachers in Korea; ten were selected for interviews and observation, to investigate the relationships among the teachers’ beliefs about English language education in Korea, the sources of their beliefs, their perceptions of the new reforms in English language education, and the degree of implementation of the reforms in their classroom teaching. The findings of the study suggested that although the majority of the teachers’ beliefs were aligned with the educational reform, the main obstacles to implementing the reforms in their classroom teaching were their negative perceptions of some specific reform policies and measures; the teachers also mentioned constraints, including their inadequate speaking proficiency 25.

(34) or lack of confidence in their speaking proficiency; the washback effect of the national college entrance exam; an overload of teaching and administrative work; and large class size. Difficulties found in implementing the curriculum reform in Korea also occurred during the introduction of a new English curriculum reform in China. Yan (2012) conducted a study investigating English secondary teachers’ perceptions of and implementation of the new English curriculum reform. The findings of the study suggest that although teachers showed a high level of endorsement of the new curriculum, limited pedagogical changes occurred when implementing the new curriculum; this was due to various factors, including the teachers’ inadequate professional expertise, student resistance, the lack of school support, and most importantly, the examination culture. In Taiwan, there have been several studies on teachers’ perceptions of English curriculum policy and the constraints regarding the implementation of the curriculum. Cheng, Yeh, and Su (2011) conducted a survey investigating senior high school English teachers’ perception of the 2010 Curriculum Guidelines for Senior High School English, before the launch of the curriculum. The results indicated that teachers agreed with the rationale for the new guidelines and held positive attitudes toward the new curriculum. However, they also expressed their concerns over the implementation of the 2010 Curriculum Guidelines, including lack of facilities and teaching time, the washback effect of the college entrance examination, and challenges in employing adaptive learning and teaching critical and creative thinking in the classroom, due to their insufficient professional knowledge. In conclusion, the researchers suggested that seminars and workshops should be held frequently to promote the new guidelines, and administrative support for teachers should be provided to address the concerns they had raised. 26.

(35) After the 2010 Curriculum Guidelines for Senior High School English were implemented, Chen (2012) investigated teachers’ and students’ perceptions toward the competence indicator of the 2010 Curriculum Guidelines, in order to examine the effectiveness of the curriculum implementation. A total of 1422 students and 110 senior high school teachers were asked to assign an importance value to each competence indicator, and whether they would take the competence indicators as learning or teaching objectives. The results of the study showed that teachers and students approved the importance of the competence indicators, though they still had some concerns over some of the items. In fact, critical thinking ability, which was one of the most emphasized features in the 2010 Curriculum Guidelines, received the least importance value, and teachers and students overall showed lower willingness to adopt it as a teaching or learning goal. As part of a large-scale three-year research on the formulation and implementation of the 2010 Senior High School English Curriculum Guidelines, Cheng (2015) investigated the policy implementation of incorporating thinking skills into the senior high school English curriculum. The research was conducted through policy documents analysis, textbook analysis, classroom observations, and interviews with crucial policy stakeholders; these included key members on the National Committee of Curriculum Guidelines, writers and lead editors from four publishers for high school English textbooks, and English teachers. The findings of the study suggest that teachers held ambivalent attitudes toward developing thinking skills in English classes. Although most of the 25 teachers interviewed by the researcher acknowledged the importance of cultivating thinking skills in students, they nonetheless considered it very difficult to implement thinking-skills activities in senior high school English classes. Several concerns that teachers raised regarding the implementation of the policy included large class size, limited teaching hours, no 27.

(36) thinking-skills sections in the college entrance exams, and students’ inadequate English proficiency. From the teachers’ perspective, the implementation of the curriculum innovation, as described by Cheng, was a “beautiful, yet remote ideal” (2015, as cited in Cheng & Yeh, 2019). To bridge the gap between the ideal and the reality, Cheng and Yeh (2019) suggested that the MOE provide more class hours for the English class, and offered advice on how to conduct thinking-skill activities under time constraints, as well as how to provide extra assistance to enable low-proficiency learners to develop basic thinking skills via English. The results of Cheng’s (2015) study also revealed that teachers seemed to over-interpret the curriculum innovation, aiming much higher than the guidelines. Therefore, in order to solve the problems arising from teachers’ misinterpretations of the thinking skills in the guidelines, Cheng and Yeh (2019) also suggested that “the MOE should take measures to help English teachers more accurately interpret the thinking skills promoted in the curriculum guidelines and connect thinking skills development to English language learning” (p.170). According to the above studies, the gap between the teaching reality and official intentions has hindered the effectiveness of curriculum implementation. Developing and revising curricula can be challenging, and the curriculum implementation process is even more complex. “The involvement of all stakeholders, especially individuals who are directly involved in student instruction, is a vital piece in successful curriculum development and revision” (Johnson, 2001). With its new framework promoting the concept of “competency” (Sù yang; 素養), “Learning Performance Items”, as the core of 12-year Basic Education Curriculum Guidelines, may have considerable influence on teachers’ instruction, lesson planning, and design of teaching activities. Therefore, the present study aims to obtain a thorough understanding of the “perceived curriculum” by inquiring into teachers’ perceptions of 28.

(37) the “learning performance items” in 12-year Basic Education Curriculum Guidelines for Senior High School English.. 29.

(38) CHAPTER THREE METHOD The main focus of the current study is to investigate teachers’ perceptions of the learning performance items in 12-year Basic Education Curriculum Guidelines for Senior High School English. A questionnaire survey was conducted to gather teachers’ perceptions. The questionnaires were further divided into three parts. The first and second parts of the questionnaires gathered quantitative data that produced more generalizable findings while the open-ended questions of the third part provided deeper understanding of participants’ view. Teachers’ perceived importance and feasibility of each learning performance item was examined through questionnaire with five-point Likert scale. Teachers’ general acceptance of the curriculum, expected challenges of fulfilling the new curriculum based on the learning performance items, and recommendations to the authorities concerned were gathered through open-ended questions. The following sections elaborate on the participants, instruments, data collection procedures, and data analysis procedures.. Participants A total of 207 senior high school English teachers from fifteen cities and counties in Taiwan were involved in the study. Table 2 shows the distribution of the participants. Most of the participants came from Tainan city (19.3%), New Taipei city (15.9%), Taichung City (10.1%), Taipei City (9.7 %), and Kaohsiung City (9.2%).. 30.

參考文獻

相關文件

30 高雄市立國民中學兼行政職務教師減課標準表 國中教育科 31 高雄市國民中學教師及兼任行政職務人員每週授課節數編排要點 國中教育科 32 高雄市立國民中小學教師甄選暨介聘作業要點

周盈秀 中年級自然老師 課程設計、授課教師、資料彙整 謝佳鳳 高年級健康老師 課程設計、授課教師、資料彙整 賴秀珍 中高年級英文老師 課程設計、授課教師、資料彙整

十二年國民基本教育 課程綱要總綱已於103 年11月28日由教育部

數學是科學研究的基本工具,科技發展是臺灣保持國際競爭力的命脈。因此 當今年 2 月,教育部公佈《十二年國民基本教育課程綱要總綱

• To enhance teachers’ knowledge and understanding about the learning and teaching of grammar in context through the use of various e-learning resources in the primary

• Information on learners’ performance in the learning task is collected throughout the learning and teaching process so as to help teachers design post-task activities

1.8 Teachers should take every opportunity to attend seminars and training courses on special education to get a better understanding of the students’ special needs and

自 111 學年度開始,「身心障礙學生升學大專校院甄試數學考科」將依據 108 學年度 實施之「十二年國民基本教育課程綱要國民中小學暨普通型高級中等學校—數學領域」