Curriculum change in teachers’ experience: the social innovation perspective

Abstract

This article analyses teachers’ experience in the period of educational change in Estonia from 1989 to 2010. We review the introduction of the new national curricula and national exams. We show how, in the teachers’ experience, the period of change can be divided into two distinct periods. Firstly, the period of freedom and chaos in the early 1990s and, secondly, the period of tightening regulations and decreasing autonomy after the introduction of the national exams in 1997. Based on life history interviews with 24 teachers, we identify seven different responses to educational innovation. We assume that for a new educational policy to be successful, or to create social innovation, it has to be accepted by teachers not only on the regulative level but also on the normative level of values and social roles. We look at which of these responses can be classified as social innovation and assess the usefulness of the theory of social innovation in education studies.

Keywords:

• social innovation
• curriculum change
• life history
• teachers’ experience
• post-socialism

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Meril Ümarik, Külliki Tafel-Viia, David Pepper and Tero Autio for commenting on the earlier drafts of this article. This article has been prepared and accomplished within the research projects funded by the Estonian Research Council ‘Education Change as Social Innovation’ (SF0130018s09) led by senior researcher and Head of the Centre of Educational Research at Tallinn University, Krista Loogma and by the programme of the European Structural Fund ‘Eduko’.

Notes

1. (1) There was increased freedom both for teachers and students. For teachers, there was freedom to choose the teaching methods, to design their courses more independently. For students, there was freedom to choose between subjects, to plan their time and freedom to express themselves. (2) The development of certain competencies like responsibility, planning, decision making were highlighted. (3) The emphasis on co-operation. (4) The increased internal motivation both for teachers and pupils (Silla 2002).

2. ‘In PE you cannot follow the curriculum very strictly anyway. For example, in the subject plan it says that we should already be outdoors, doing outdoor sports but we were still indoors the day before yesterday. It is cold and raining, children get cold. You put on a jacket but it is still cold. But this year there was such ideal skiing weather that we did more skiing lessons than required. Our management is understanding enough to recognise that the main goal is the health of children, that they would grow, move and develop. So it is not so important whether I do more skiing lessons and therefore less basketball.’

3. ‘When a fifth-grade student has to learn biology on a scientific level, it is ridiculous. It is not worth anything. For a contemporary child who finds so many things of interest, it is very important that the interest in a subject be maintained, for example, to use a lot of technical solutions. But if it is a school and class where this does not happen and everything else in the world including the internet is so interesting, it is even more important for the child that their interest in the subject be maintained. Seriously, we need to change a lot of things’ (Psychology teacher, Tallinn).