Understanding the Relation of Policy Discourse and Re-Conceptualising Curriculum: A Kosovo Perspective on a New Meaning of Context
Abstract
This article is an analysis of the meaning of context in implementing curriculum reform. It uses an analysis of two Kosovo curriculum reforms in the previous two decades to elaborate on how education systems engage in the transfer of transnational ideas as well as how they face challenges in making those ideas succeed. The article uses Discursive Institutionalism and the debate between the Didaktik and Curriculum Theory Traditions as a framework for analysis to understand the form of ideas and types of discourses that are relevant for successful curriculum reform. While the Kosovo curriculum reform has been struggling to find a balance between the Didaktik and Curriculum Theory traditions, it is evident that two reform projects did not provide sufficient possibilities forcoordinative discourse among key actors in the reform implementation. For reform to succeed, education systems need to balance between both background and foreground ideas as well as communicative and coordinative discourses. In education systems whose professional capacities are limited and whose resources are scarce, such a balance gains greater importance, indicating the need for more school-based development activities. Therefore, the context should not be viewed as solely static, but needs to be assigned a new meaning regarding what it is and should be placed at the service of reform implementation by recognising the importance of critical reflection when adopting a particular curriculum policy orientation and tailoring the discourse for promoting reform ideas.
Downloads
References
Autio, T. (2014). The internationalization of curriculum research. In W. F. Pinar (Ed.), International handbook of curriculum research (pp. 17–31). New York, NY: Taylor and Francis.
Beatriz, P., Deborah, N., & Hunter, M. (2008). Improving school leadership: Policy and Practice. Paris: OECD. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/education/preschoolandschool/44374889.pdf
Brouwer, N., & Korthagen, F. (2005). Can teacher education make a difference? American Educational Research Journal, 42(1)153–224.
Chan, J. K. S. (2010). Teachers’ response to curriculum policy implementation: colonial constraints for curriculum reform. Education Research for Policy and Practice, 9(2), 93–106.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2000). How teacher education matters. Journal of Teacher Education, 51(3), 166–173.
Day, C. (2002). School reform and transition in teacher professionalism and identity. International Journal of Educational Research, 37(8), 677–692.
Goodlad, J. I., Klein, M. F., & Tye, K. A. (1979). The domains of curriculum and their study. In J. I. Goodlad (Ed.), Curriculum inquiry (pp. 43–76). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Grek, S. (2013). Expert Moves: International comparative testing and the rise of expertocracy. Journal of Education Policy, 28(5), 695–709.
Hargreaves, A., & Shirley, D. (2009). The fourth way: Inspiring future of educational change. London, UK: Sage.
Helsby, G. (1996). Defining and developing professionalism in English secondary schools. Journal of Education for Teaching, 22(2), 135–148.
Hopmann, S., & Riquarts, K. (2000). Starting a dialogue: A beginning conversation between the Didaktik and curriculum traditions. In I. Westbury, S. Hopmann, & K. Riquarts (Eds.), Teaching as a reflective practice: The German Didaktik tradition (pp. 3–11). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Hopmann, S. (2007). Restrained Teaching: The common core of Didaktik. European Educational Research Journal, 6(2), 109–124.
Huang, T. (2016). Integrating the ontological, epistemological and sociocultural aspects: A holistic view of teacher education. Teachers and Teaching 22(8), 947–964.
Lundgren, U. (2015) When curriculum theory came to Sweden. Nordic Journal of Studies in Educational Policy, 2015, (1). doi:10.3402/nstep.v1.27000
Mona M., Chinezi Ch., & Michael B. (2011). How do world’s most improved systems keep getting better? New York, NY: McKinsey & Company.
Ministry of Education, Science and Technology (MEST). (2001). Kosovo curriculum framework. Prishtina: MEST.
Ministry of Education, Science and Technology (MEST). (2011). Kosovo curriculum framework. Prishtina: MEST.
Ministry of Education, Science and Technology (MEST). (2016). Kosovo education strategic plan. Prishtina: MEST.
Organization for Cooperation and Economic Development in Europe (OECD). (2016). PISA results in focus. Paris: OECD.
Sahlberg, P. (2011). The fourth way of Finland. Journal of Educational Change, 12(2), 173–185.
Salhberg, P. (2007). Education policies for raising student learning: The Finnish approach. Journal of Education Policy, 22(2), 147–171.
Saqipi, B. (2019). Teacher education policy discourse in the midst of system reorganisation and policy transfer: Lessons for small and developing countries. International Journal of Management in Education, 13(1), 28–39.
Saqipi, B. (2014). Developing teacher professionalism and identity in the midst of large-scale education reform – the case of Kosovo (Doctoral dissertation). Jyvaskyla: University of Jyvaskyla.
Saqipi, B., & Vogrinc, J. (Eds.) (2017). The prospects of reforming teacher education. Prishtina: Libri Shkollor.
Schmidt, V. (2008). Discursive institutionalism: The explanatory power of ideas and discourse. Annual Review of Political Science, 11(1),303–326.
Schmidt, V. (2009). Putting the political back into political economy by bringing the state back in yet again. World Politics, 61(3), 516–546.
Schmidt, V. (2010). Taking ideas and discourse seriously: Explaining change through discursive institutionalism as the fourth ‘new institutionalism’. European Political Science Review, 2(1), 1–25.
Smeed, J., Bourke, T., Julie, N., & Corsbie, T. (2015). Testing time for the implementation of curriculum change: analysis and extension of a curriculum change model. Sage Open, 5(2), 1–14.
Steiner-Khamsi, G. (2012). Understanding policy borrowing and lending. In G. Steiner-Khamsi & F. Waldow (Eds.), World yearbook of education 2012: Policy borrowing and lending in education. New York, NY: Routledge.
Tahirsylaj, A. (2018). Curriculum reform as a political statement in developing contexts: A discursive and non-affirmative approach. Transnational Curriculum Inquiry, 15(2), 38–49. Retrieved from https://ojs.library.ubc.ca/index.php/tci/index
Tahirsylaj, A. (2018b). Teacher autonomy and responsibility variation and association with student performance in Didaktik and curriculum traditions. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 51(2), 162–184. doi:10.1080/00220272.2018.1535667
Wahlstrom, N., & Sundberg, D. (2017). Discursive institutionalism: Towards a framework of analysing the relation between policy and curriculum. Journal of Education Policy, 33(1), 163–183.
Westbury, I. (2000). Teaching as a reflective practice: What might Didaktik teach curriculum? In I. Westbury, S. Hpmann, & K. Riquarts (Eds.), Teaching as a reflective practice: The German Didaktik tradition. New Jersey, NJ: Lawrence Erbalum Associates.
Westbury, I. (2000). Teaching and reflective practice: The German Didaktik Tradition. New Jersey, NJ: Lawrence Erbalum Associates.
Young, M. (2008). Bringing knowledge back in: From social constructivism to social realism in the sociology of education. London, UK: Routledge.
In order to ensure both the widest dissemination and protection of material published in CEPS Journal, we ask Authors to transfer to the Publisher (Faculty of Education, University of Ljubljana) the rights of copyright in the Articles they contribute. This enables the Publisher to ensure protection against infringement.
