DOCUMENT RESUME

ED 331 153 EA 022 899

AUTHOR Bowers, Bruce

TITLE Teacher Involvement in Curriculum Development.
INSTITUTION ERIC Clearinghouse on Educational Management, Eugene,
Oreg.; National Association of Elementary School
Principals, Alexandria, VA.
SPONS AGENCY Office of Educational Research and Improvement (ED),
Washington, DC.
PUB DATE 91
CONTRACT OERI-R188062004
NOTE 5p.
AVAILABLE FROM National Association of Elementary School Principals,
1615 Duke Street, Alexandria, VA 22314 ($2.50;
quantity discounts).
PUB TYPE Collected Works - Serials (022) -- Information
Analyses - ERIC Clearinghouse Products (071)
JOURNAL CIT Research Roundup; v7 n3 Spr 1991

EDRS PRICE MF01/PC01 Plus Postage.

DESCRIPTORS Curriculum Design; *Curriculum Development;
Curriculum Evaluat:..on; Elementary Secondary
Education; *Instructional Development; *Participative
Decision Making; Teacher Attitudes; Teacher
Influence; Teacher Motivation; *Teacher
Participation

ABSTRACT
Four recent journal articles and one meeting paper on
teacher involvement in curriculum development are summarized in this
research bulletin. Contents include "Motivating Teacher Involvement
in Professional Growth Activities," by Ruth Wright; "Teacher
Participation in Curriculum Development: What Status Does It Have?"
by Jean Young; "The Locus of Curriculum Decision Making and Teachers'
Perceptions of Their Own Attitudes and Behaviors Toward Curriculum
Planning," by Richard Kimpston and Douglas Anderson; "The
Supportiveness of the Principal in School-based Curriculum
Development," by Laurie Brady; and "Curriculum Change from the Grass
Roots," by David Martin and Philip Saif. Ruth Wright concludes that
the most powerful motivators for teachers are intrinsic rather than
extrinsic; seeing the results of their input is a significant reward.
Jean Young also found that teachers involved in their own schools'
curriculum plans were the most committed. That teachers are more
responsive to district-level curriculum decision-making is the
conclusion of the Kimpston and Anderson study. Other factors for
successful teacher-influenced curriculum development include
preparation for a long-term process and the vital importance of
principal support, factors identified by Martin and Saif, and Brady,
respectively. (LMI)

**********************************************************************A
Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made
from the original document.
***************************************************** ***** *************
 ,esearch
VOLUME Z NUMBER 3
U 5, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
SPRING 1991 Othce c Echicatronal Research and improvement
EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION
CENTER IERIC,
document has been reproduced
reCeivee Iron, the person or orgonastion
ortgirtating $t
r Mmor changes have won macre to rrnprowe
reproduction ouahty

Points 0 v4*0 opmons awed fl III4 OCC u

mewl tIO net necelSar,ty litOresent
OE Fh pOSrtron or ponce

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PRINCIPALS

ROUNDUP
Teacher Involvement -PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE THIS
MATERIAL HAS BEEN GRANTED BY

in Curriculum Development
TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES
By Bruce Bowers INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC)

Historically school teachers have been viewed as rul- What are some of the variables influencing teacher
ers of their own tiny fiefdoms, their classrooms, and involvement in curriculum development, and how is that
as having little or no contact with anyone but their students. involvement translated into successful implementation in
In recent decades, however. this "isolationist" perspective the classroom?
has gradually been diminished, largely because of the Ruth Wright concludes that the most powerful moti-
proliferation of teacher committees generated by collec- vators for teachers are intrinsic rather than extrinsic. Extra
tive bargaining agreements between teacher unions and pay or release time for participation in curriculum com-
school districts. Such agreement% have altered the overall mittees is viewed favorably by most teachers, but the
climate of educational decision-making: teachers have expectation that their involvement will result in a signifi-
emerged from the classroom to collaborate with their cant improvement in the existing curriculum is more criti-
colleagues and with administrators to influence a wide cal to continued teacher participation.
range of educational polici,zs. Support for such a view is found in Jean Young's
This trend in decision-making has been most obvious assessment of how Canadian teachers value their experi-
in the area of curriculum. After all, teachers are the ence in curriculum development. Teachers working on
ultimate arbiters of curriculum because they implement it. curriculum at the local level generally felt that the curriculu
The question is, to what extent should they be involved in materials under development were likely to be usedin their
the development of curriculum prior to its arrival in the schools and classrooms.
classroom? Some argue that teachers are not trained to do Richard Kimpston and Douglas Anderson conclude.
this, and, besides, their days are so filled with the nuts and however, that teachers are more likely to follow or attend
bolts of preparing lessons, teaching, and grading that they to curriculum decisions made at the district level, as
have little time or energy left for the painstaking effort opposed to the school or classroom level. The researchers
required to develop new curricula. explain that teachers tend to respect a district's well-
Those in favor of greater teacher involvement in crafted curriculum development program. When curricu-
curriculum development argue persuasively, however, that lum decisions emanate from the district, it is usually
to the extent teachers feel they own the curriculum, they because the district has historically placed a high priority
will be more competent and enthusiastic about implement- on curriculum development.
ing it. As for the problem of teachers being too busy, As for factors that influence successful implementa-
proponents assert that extra time can, and is, being carved tion of a teacher-generated curriculum, Laurie Brady points
out for teacher participation in school or district curriculum to the active support of the school principal as critical to
committees. overall satisfaction with school-based curriculum devel-
opment. In addition, say David Martin and Philip Saif,
Prepared by ERIC Clearinghouse on Educational Management, Univer.
only by preparing for a "long haul" where years, not
sity of Oregon, which commissioned Bruce C. Bowers, Ph.D research months, are spent on curriculum development can change
analyst and writer. be successfully implemented in the school curriculum.

2 FEST COPY MAIM

 prime motivators for teacher involvement in curriculum
(1) Wright, Ruth. "Motivating Teacher involve- development.
ment In Professional Growth Activities." The Many of Young's teachers, especially those doing
Canadian Administrator 24,5 (February 1985): 1-6. local committee work, seemed to resent the.lack of funds
EJ 313 717. for release time or extra pay ft'r their work. One teacher
thought so few colleagues were involved in curriculum
What motivates teachers to go beyond the normal call committee work "because you're not getting paid for it."
of duty and become involved in "professional growth However, other teachers gave a different point of
activities"? Ruth Wright turns to the literature on expect- view, one more congruent with Wright's. One teacher
ancy theory. which has its roots in studies of motivation in responded to the question of motivation by saying. "I was
industry. The basic premise of expectancy theory is that going to mention the fi nancial reward, but I honestly
people are motivated to act if they believe the outcome will believe that it is insignificant for teachers. Otherwise, they
be good. wouldn't be teaching."
Wright wanted to know what kinds of outcomes would More support for Wright's findings was evident when
motivate teachers to become involved in curriculum devel- the teachers were asked about potential use of the cur-
opment. She asked 640 randomi y selected full-time teacher riculum materials produced. Teachers at the provincial
members of the New Brunswick (Canada) Teachers As- level expressed almost universal skepticism that the mate-
sociation to list in rank-order ten incentives for each of rials they were developing would in fact be used. They
seven different tasks in curriculum development. Wright blamed a lack of resolve at the provincial administrative
then determined the relative importance of each i ncenti ve level and teacher resistance at the local level. Their lack of
across tasksto produce an overall ranking of the ten top motivation can be attributed to the more intrinsic factor of
incenti ves. feeling unappreciated.
The most startling finding was that only one of the ten But such was not the case among teachers working on
incentives. "provision of materials for use in your school." curriculum committees within their own schools. Since
could be considered an extrinsic reward. It was in sixth those committees had been formed specifically to deal with
place. Conspicuously absent from the list were such problems within their schools, the committee work had
extrinsic reinforcers as extra pay, release time, or other immediate and concrete application in the classroom, a
income-related items. Instead, at the top of the list of ten form of intrinsic reinforcement.
preferred items were ( I) opportunity to improve the existing A recurring theme among the teachers in this study
curriculum, (2) increased effectiveness as a teacher. (3) was the perceived lack of support by administrators for
fmling that one's contributions and suggestions are help- professional growth activities generally. As one teacher
ful. and (4) satisfaction from participating in decision- noted, -That's always a problem in education.., the reluc-
making that affects one's own work. tance to actually give time or recognize professional devel-
From these findings Wright concludes that, in order opment."
for administrators to motivate teachers to become involved Young also poses what she considers the three most
in curriculum development, they must convince teachers critical questions principals must ask themselves when
that their involvement will make a significant and recog- they begin to assess the potential for teacher involvement
nized contribution to the educational development of in curriculum development:
children. By demonstrating that teacher participation is I . To what extent do they perceive the teacher's role
genuinely sought and by assuring teachers that the results
of their efforts will be implemented in their classrooms,
administrators can obtain strong teacher support for, and About ERIC
participation in, curriculum development. The Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC' is a
national information system operated by the Office of Educa-
tional Research and Improvement (OERI). ERIC seives
educators by disseminating research resifts and other resource
information that can be used in developing more effective
(2) Young, Jean, "Teacher Participation In educational programs.
Curriculum Development: What Status Does It The ERIC Clearinghouse on Educational Management, one of
Have?" Journal of Curriculum and Supervision 3, several such units in the system, was established at the
University of Oregon in 1966.
2 (Winter 1988): 109-21. EJ 363 405. This publication was prepared by the Clearinghouse with
funding from OERI, w-Unerd of Education, under
Young interviewed thirty-one full-time teachers in the contract no. OERI-RINO. The opinions expressed in this
repwl do not necessarily reflect the positions or policies of
province of Alberta. Canada, who were heavily involved in NAESP or the Department of Education. No federal funds were
curriculum committee work: fifteen at the local level and used in the printing of this publk:ation.
sixteen at the provincial level. On the surface her findings
occasionally contradict those of Wright, who concluded LER= Cleartnpeuse on Educational Management,
University of Oregon, 1787 Agate SI., Eugene, Oregon 97403.
2 that intrinsic rather than extrinsic incentives were the
as confined to the classroom or a extending beyond it?
2. Do principals see participation in curriculum devel- (4) Brady, Laurie. "The Supportiveness of the
opment as a desirable way for teachers to grow profession- Principal in School-based Curriculum Develop-
ally? ment." Journal of Curriculum Studies 17, 1
3. In what ways do principals' attitudes toward teacher (January-March 1985): 95-97. EJ 319 061.
participation in curriculum development affect the feasi-
bility and quality of that participation? In her analysis of school-based curriculum develop-
ment. Laurie Brady highlights the critical position of the
school principal. She surveyed 277 teachers in New South
(3) Klmpstom, Richard, and Douglas Anderson. Wales, attempting to test the claim that school-based
"The Locus of Curriculum Decision Making and curriculum development is not successful in a supportive
Teachers' Perceptions of Their Own Attitudes school climate.
and Behaviors Toward Curriculum Planning." Brady used the Organizational Climate Description
1, 2 (Winter
Journal of Curriculum and Supervision Questionnaire (OCDQ) to see how teachers perceive school
1986): 100-10. EJ 331 287. organization, the behavior of the school principal, and the
nature of staff interaction. She correlated the results with
Kimpstom and Anderson investigated the question of other results obtained from separate measures of a school's
whether teachers' attitudes toward their school curriculum curriculum decision-making. Finally she measured teacher
varied according to the locus of curriculum decision- satisfaction with different approaches to school-based
making. Would it be different if that locus were at the curriculum development.
district level, rather than the school or classroom level? Brady's results suggest that the key factor behind
Kimpston and Anderson used the Curriculum Decision- teacher satisfaction with school-based curriculum devel-
Making Inventory (CDI) to classify fifty-seven school opment was the degree of principal support. Where the
districts according to their toe us of decision making. They principal focused more on school operations and supervi-
then employed a stratified random sampling strategy to sory responsibilities, teacher satisfaction with curriculum
select two districts from each of three classifications for an development was low. But where the principal was involved
indepth study, six disuicts in all. more with the personal and professional welfare of the
Data were collected from superintendents, curriculum instructional staff, teacher satisfaction with curriculum
personnel, principals, and a random sample of teachers in development was high.
all six districts. Most teachers in the six districts were given Further, the more supportive the principal seemed to
the Teacher Self-Analysis Inventory (TSAI). which mea- be, the more likely were the teachers to view curricular
sures teachers perceptions of their behavior toward their decisions as group-based. In a supportive climate, teachers
schools' curricula, and the Curriculum Attitude Inventory were a more cohesive staff and individual teachers felt less
(CAI). which measures teacher attitudes toward curricu- isolated about their own roles in curriculth.: development.
lum use and planning. These findings reinforce the conclusions of an earlier
Results suggest that when the district is the locus of Research Roundup (April 1990), which cited the pivotal
curriculum decision-making, teachers are likely to follow role of a "highly motivated, goal-oriented individual"
the curriculum formulated for their district. However. (usually the principal) in initiating fundamental change in
when the school is the locus of curriculum decision- schools.
making, teachers are less inclined to follow district formu-
lated curricula. And in schools where the classroom is the
locus of curriculum dedsion-making. teachers are least (5) Martin, David, and Philip Saif. "Curriculum
likely to follow curriculum guidelines handed down from Change from the Grass Roots." Paper pre-
the district. sented at the Annual Meeting of the Association for
Can these findings be made consistent with Young's Supervision and Curriculum Development (Chi-
conclusion that teachers are more likely to respond to cago, IL, March 22-26, 1985). ED 254 913.
curricula developed within their own school? A closer
observation of the districts examined in Kimpston and "The office shelves of school administrators and the
Anderson's sample reveals why, in some districts, teachers bottom drawers of teachers' desks are strewn with unused
are more likely to respect district-initiated curricula. In the and dust-covered copies of 'new' curriculum guides in-
two districts where the locus of decision-making was at the tended to truly change school programs. Why have so
district level, there existed well-established curriculum many paper products come to such inglorious ends after
development programs having their own directors. The apparently so much hard work of well-meaning curriculum
authors say that in these two districts "curriculum concerns change agents?" Martin and Saif attempt to answer this
were raised to a greater level of importance and visibility question by pointing to the one factor that may make the
than was the case in the remaining four districts." difference: teacher "ownership" of that curriculum.

4
 How is such ownership achieved? Martin and Sail 3. Forming subcommittees to write prerequisites and
argue that it is not through a -traditional" approach to activities and to select materials and evaluation methods
curriculum development, in which the superintendent (or 4. Obtaining feedback, not only from teachers but also
principal, at the school level) orchestrates the entire effort. from cmisultants ar-.1 from the community
They favor a "grass roots approach," in which all faculty 5. Pilot-testing the curriculum
members are involved in the curriculum. In their version, 6. Revising the curriculum based upon the pilot testing.
not all teachers, but a large enough number of teachers are 7. Conducting a final evaluation of the curriculum
involved so that the staff in gemsal has a sense of ownership 8. Implementing the curriculum on a school- or dis-
of the developing curriculum. trict-wide basis
Beyond this, the curriculum must be developed in a The entire development may take as long as several
systematic and pervasive way. That is, it is more likely to years. However, rather than the traditional, top-down ap-
be adopted if the development follows this series of critical proach. Martin and Saif suggest that the bottom-up in-
steps: volvement of a large and representative number of teachers
1. Identifying the needed change in a carefully structured, incremental process is more likely
2. Forming a committee to write the rationale and to produce a well-regarded curriculum.
objecti. vs

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF Teacher Involvement

ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PRINCIPALS in Curriculum Development
1615 Duke Street
Alexandria, Virginia 22314

Research Roundup, Vol. 7, No, 3, Spring 1991

(ISSN 87552590)
-