The context of a curriculum innovation

Authors

  • Vincent Pang Ah Fook

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.51200/jpp.v1i1.8136

Abstract

This paper is focused on an evaluation of the context of an implementation of the Smart School Curriculum. It was aimed at defining the conditions of the environment of the school in which the curriculum took place; the preparedness of the teachers, the participants, and the parents involved; as well as the problems and the needs of the school. Two questionnaires were used to collect data from the teachers and students. The data was analysed using Quest (Adams & Khoo,1996). The magnitude of effects (Carver; 1993; Cohen, 1988) was used to explore some of the results of Quest analyses. Data was also collected from interviews with the principal and selected teachers. Content analysis was used in analysing the qualitative data. The study found that with low familiarity of the curriculum documents, the teachers understood the first, second, and fourth objectives of the curriculum; and perceived that these three objectives were relevant to the needs of the school. It was also noted that the students with higher socioeconomic status (SES) had a more positive view of the potentials of the school in achieving the curriculum objectives whereas less ICT-competent students had a higher perception of the ability of the school in achieving the objectives. To a small extent, the parents supported the curriculum implementation. The needs of the school before the curriculum implementation were the quality and quantity of hardware and software that was provided as well as human resources.

References

Adams, R. J., & Khoo, S. T. (1996). Quest: The interactive test analysis system. Melbourne, Australia: Australia Council for Educational Research.

Carver, R. P. (1993). The case against statistical significance testing: Revisited. Journal of Experimental Education, 61(4), 287–292.

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Glass, G. V., McGaw, B., & Smith, M. L. (1981). Meta-analysis in social research. London, U.K.: Sage.

Griffin, P. E. (1994). Program development and evaluation: An overview of evaluation. Parkville, Australia: University of Melbourne.

Hambleton, R. K., & Swaminathan, H. (1985). Item response theory: Principles and applications. Boston: Kluwer-Nijhoff.

Ministry of Education Malaysia. (1997). Smart school flagship application: The Malaysian smart school: A conceptual blueprint. Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia: Government of Malaysia.

Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Stufflebeam, D. L. (1983). The CIPP model for program evaluation. In G. F. Madaus, M. S. Scriven, & D. L. Stufflebeam (Eds.), Evaluation models: Viewpoints on educational and human services evaluation (pp. 117–141). Boston: Kluwer-Nijhoff.

Wright, B. D., & Masters, G. N. (1982). Rating scale analysis: Rasch measurement. Chicago: MESA Press.

Yin, R. K. (1994). Case study research: Design and methods (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Published

2008-12-31

How to Cite

Vincent Pang Ah Fook. (2008). The context of a curriculum innovation. Jurnal Pemikir Pendidikan, 1(1), 21–37. https://doi.org/10.51200/jpp.v1i1.8136
Total Views: 10 | Total Downloads: 5