Measuring teacher beliefs about curriculum orientations using the modified-curriculum orientations inventory

Abstract

Although curriculum orientations are widely discussed in educational literature, the extent to which teachers and other educational specialists in the United States hold these curriculum orientations is neither well documented nor well known. The relationships between a teacher's beliefs and the five dominant curriculum orientations (Academic Rationalism, Behavioural, Humanistic, Social Reconstruction and Cognitive Process) are unclear. Therefore, it is difficult to discuss the nature of how these curriculum orientations influence teacher choices and their execution and implementation of educational policy. This study replicated the 2002 research of Cheung and Wong in Hong Kong. A sample of 308 teachers in the United States participated. Findings indicate that the reliability and validity of the data were weak to moderate, and gender, level, subject speciality and experience influence a teacher's value of the particular curriculum orientations. The research also indicates that the construct of complementary pluralism (a strong positive relationship between the orientations of an individual teacher) does not exist with the same level of intensity for teachers in the United States. Rather, the theoretical opposition of the curriculum orientations is a practical opposition.

Keywords:

• curriculum orientations
• measurement technique
• questionnaire
• survey
• teacher beliefs

Notes

1. Scheffe's was chosen because it is the most robust and the method applies to the set of estimates of all possible contrasts among the factor level means, not just the pair-wise differences considered by Tukey's method (NIST/SEMATECH). Scheffe also allows for complex contrasts when sample populations are unequal.

2. Fit indices: root mean square error of approximation = 0.068; goodness of fit index = 0.81; adjusted goodness of fit index = 0.78; comparative fit index = 0.81.

3. Fit indices: root mean square error of approximation = 0.073; goodness of fit index = 0.84; adjusted goodness of fit index = 0.82; comparative fit index = 0.84.