Teacher and Curriculum Materials Application: A Scheme for Understanding Curriculum Enactment in the Classroom

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

1 student PhD of Kharazmy University

2 Faculty of Kharazmi University

3 Faculty of Education

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to analyze the concepts and ideas related to the role of the teacher in the design and use of curriculum materials in the interpretative paradigm. The method of this research was based on qualitative research in order to understand the teacher's role regarding the curriculum materials in the classroom. Five sections including: a) decision making in curriculum, b) enacted curriculum paradigms and patterns; c) concept of curriculum materials; d) concept of curriculum materials design; and e) how to use curriculum materials, were investigated. In order to provide a model, the relationship between teacher and curriculum materials was discussed with regard to the educational settings. The findings indicated that the application of materials in a classroom by a teacher is based on reading, interpreting, and evaluating his curriculum and his interactions in the classroom. Teachers' decision-making and action will adapt the curriculum to the classroom, pedagogy content knowledge and facilitate the student's learning process.

Keywords


Ben-Peretz, M. (2011). Teacher knowledge: what is it? How do we uncover it? What are its implications for schooling, Teaching and Teacher Education, 27, 3-9.
Beth. H (2010), Teacher as Curriculum Leader A Consideration of the Appropriateness of that Role Assignment to Classroom-Based Practitioners. International Journal of Teacher Leadership, Volume 3,  Number 3, Winter 2010.
Brown, M. W. (2002). Teaching by design: Understanding the interactions between teacher practice and the design of curricular innovation. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Northwestern 1University,Evanston, IL.
Brown, M. W., & Edelson, D. C. (2010, April). Teaching by design: Curriculum designas a lens on
 instructional practice. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Seattle, WA.
Connelly, F. M., & Clandinin, D. J. (1986). On narrative method, personal philosophy, and the story of
 teaching. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 23,293–310.
Collopy, R. (2003). Curriculum materials as a professional development tool: How a mathematics textbook
 affected two teachers’ learning. Elementary School Journal, 103 (3) , 287.
Davis, A. (2017).Educative curriculum materials and the Next Generation Science Standards. University of Michigan, A paper prepared for the Board on Science Education's workshop on the Design, Selection, and
 Implementation of Instructional Materials for the Next Generation Science Standards, June 2017.
 Davis, E. A. (2004). Knowledge integration in science teaching: Analyzing teachers’ knowledge development. Research in Science Education, 34 (1) , 21–53.
Davis, E. A., & Krajcik, J. (2005). Supporting inquiry-oriented science teaching: Design heuristics for educative curriculum materials. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American EducationalResearch Association, San Diego.
Davis, E. A., Palincsar, A. S., Arias, A., Bismack, A., Marulis, L., & Iwashyna, S. (2014).Designing
 educative curriculum materials: A theoretically and empirically driven process. Harvard Educational
 Review, 84 (1) , 24-52.
Eisner, Elliot W. (1994). The Educational Imagination. New Yourk: Macmillan College Publishing Company.
Dow, P. B. (1991). Schoolhouse politics: Lessons from the Sputnik era. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
 University Press.
Keiser, J. M., & Lambdin, D. V. (1996). The clock is ticking: Time constraint issues in mathematics
 teaching reform. Journal of Educational Research, 90 (1) , 23–30.
Kimpston, R. & Anderson, D. (1986). The Locus of Curriculum Decision Making and Teachers’
 Perceptions of Their Owen Attitudes and behaviors toward Curriculum Planning. Journal of Curriculum and Supervision. Vol. 1, No. 2, 100-110.
Manouchehri, A., & Goodman, T. (1998). Mathematics curriculum reform and teachers:Understanding
 the connections. Journal of Educational Research, 92 (1) , 27–41.
Putnam, R., & Borko, H. (2000). What do new views of knowledge and thinking have to sayabout research
 on teacher learning? Educational Researcher, 29 (1) , 4–15.
Remillard, J. T. (2005). Examining Key Concepts in Research on Teachers' Use of Mathematics Curricula.
 Review of Educational Research, Vol. 75, No. 2 (Summer, 2005) , pp. 211-246.
Remillard, J. T. (1999). Curriculum materials in mathematics education reform: A framework for examining
 teachers’ curriculum development. Curriculum Inquiry, 29 (3) , 315–342.
 Schon, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York: Basic Books. (Reprinted in 1995).
Schwab, J. J. (1978). The practical: A language for curriculum. In I. Westbury. & N. J. Wilkof. (Eds.).
 Science, Curriculum, and Liberal Education: Selected Essays (pp. 287-321).
Schwab, J. (1983). The Practical 4: Something for Curriculum Professors to do. Curriculum Inquiry. V.13,
 No3. P.257.
Sherin, M. G., & Drake, C. (2004). Identifying patterns in teachers’ use of areform-basedelementary  mathematicscurriculum. Manuscript submitted for publication.
Walker, D. & Soltis, J. (2004). Curriculum and Aims. New York & London. Teacher College Press.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.