DEVELOPMENT OF A PROJECT PLAN TO SUPPORT THE IMPLEMENTATION OF SCHOOL-BASED CURRICULA IN SAUDI ARABIAN PRIMARY SCHOOLS

 

 

 

Abstract

The Saudi Arabian education landscape shifted at the turn of the century with private schools accorded significantly more latitude in the curriculum development process. While studies looking into Saudi Arabian primary school teachers’ satisfaction with centralized curricula have indicated that teachers found many syllabus components to be unsatisfactory, most schools are yet to embark on the school-based curriculum development process due to the complexity of the process and teachers’ lack of confidence in their ability to develop a holistic curriculum. The current study will fill the gap in school-based curriculum literature by creating the groundwork for the development of an SBCD project plan. This study will contribute to the process of project planning development by defining the internal and external factors at play in the SBCD process, exploring the role of teachers in the development and improved of school-based curricula, and determining the preferred curriculum implementation technique. The study will use the embedded mixed methods design with the qualitative methodology as the primary research design. Data will be collected from research participants using questionnaires and focus group interviews. The findings of the study will assist Saudi Arabian primary schools in their effort to create a school-based syllabus that incorporates electives into the existing curriculum to support holistic learning.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Acknowledgements

I am endlessly grateful to my family, lecturers, and supervisor for their guidance and support during this research endeavor.

Introduction

Research Context

The Saudi national curriculum is highly centralized with the government regulating the national curriculum at the elementary, intermediate, and secondary school levels (Al Shaer, 2008). The education policy, which was established in 1970 and updated regularly since its establishment, defines the educational objectives for all pre-university class levels as well as the internal assessment objectives. As of 2006, a majority of the elementary schools within Saudi Arabia were public schools with private schools making up less than 10% of total elementary schools (UNESCO, 2016). The student population in private schools has been growing as the demand for education increases with private schools accounting for 6.4% and 13.4% of the elementary school and secondary school populations respectively (UNESCO, 2016).

Concerning curricula, the main distinction between private and public schools is that while both schools are required to align their curricula to the national education policy, private schools are at liberty to add supplemental courses at their school-based curricula (Al Shaer, 2008). Improvements to the national elementary school curriculum are made by an ad-hoc committee established for the purpose of curriculum amendment with district education authorities mandated with facilitating the transmission of the Ministry’s regulation to individual schools (Al-Sadan, 2000; Al Shaer, 2008). Saudi education practitioners as well as researchers and practitioners studying centralized education systems in other countries, have argued that the exclusion of direct stakeholders (teachers, parents, and pupils) from the national curriculum improvement process results in a syllabus that is poorly adapted to the needs of students in their local contexts (Al-Ajroush, 1980; Al-Sadan, 2000; Henson, 2015; Skilbeck, 2005).

The role of teachers in the curriculum development and implementation process has, in the past, been restricted to teach the ministry’s prescribed syllabus with little to no involvement in the curriculum development process (Al-Sadan, 2000). In recent years, however, private school teachers have been accorded significantly more latitude in the curriculum development process provided the school curriculum does not violate the education policy objectives (ur Rahman and Alhaisoni, 2013). The use of a school-based curriculum that incorporates supplemental and elective subjects to the required courses and determines the instruction delivery mode has received widespread support in private elementary schools across the country (ur Rahman and Alhaisoni, 2013). The feasibility of the model, however, remains low due to the complexity of the school-based curriculum development process (Priestley, Minty and Eager, 2014) and teachers’ lack of confidence in their ability to develop a holistic curriculum (Hagger and McIntyre, 2006).

Study Rationale

Studies conducted in Saudi Arabia and Scotland have shown that the involvement of teachers in the curriculum development process yields positive outcomes in terms of students’ performance and teachers’ professional development (Alnefaie, 2016; Al-Saif, 1996; Priestley, Minty and Eager, 2014). With regard to professional development, teachers around the world reported a higher sense of belonging in their profession and showed higher job satisfaction when involved in a defined curriculum development process (Alnefaie, 2016; Banegas, 2011; Hagger and McIntyre, 2006; Skilbeck, 2005). Additionally, studies conducted in Saudi Arabia and Scotland indicated that teachers went above and beyond the recommended level of instruction to ensure that students understood the course material when they were involved in curriculum development (Alnefaie, 2016; Alsubaie, 2016; Hagger and McIntyre, 2006). Thus, the involvement of teachers in curriculum decision-making was positively correlated with student performance (Al-Saif, 1996; Hagger and McIntyre, 2006).

From the foregoing, the positive influence of school-based curricula on student performance and teachers’ job satisfaction as demonstrated in literature is indisputable. However, the implementation of school-based curricula remains low in countries where a national curriculum is prescribed but schools are allowed to contextualize the national curriculum and include material relevant to the local context (Alsubaie, 2016). The low adoption of school-based curricula has been attributed to multiple factors with the leading reason being the complexity of School-based Curricula Development (SBCD) processes and teachers’ lack of training in curriculum development (Alsubaie, 2016; Drew, Priestley and Michael, 2016). While multiple authors recommend the use of a project plan delineating the curriculum development stages, stakeholders’ responsibilities, and internal and external factors for consideration (Drew, Priestley and Michael, 2016; Handelzalts, 2019; Henson, 2015), the researcher was unable to locate studies conducted to facilitate the creation of an SBCD project plan. The current study is, therefore, designed to fill the gap in school-based curriculum literature by creating the groundwork for the development of an SBCD project plan. The findings of the study will assist Saudi Arabian elementary schools in their effort to create a school-based syllabus that incorporates electives into the Saudi national curriculum for holistic learning.

Research Objectives

The current research project aims at creating a foundation for the development of the project plans to support the implementation of school-based curricula by defining the internal and external factors at play in the SBCD process, exploring the role of teachers in the implementation of school-based curricula and teachers’ perceptions of the benefits and shortcomings of the available SBCD approaches. The study methodology is geared to answer the following research questions:

1. What internal and external factors impact the effectiveness of school-based curricula?
2. What roles do teachers play in the improvement of school-based curricula?
3. What are the benefits and limitations of the available SBCD implementation techniques from teachers’ perspectives?

The study will use the embedded mixed methods design where the quantitative approach is embedded in the qualitative approach and plays a secondary role in the qualitative approach. Data will be collected from research participants using questionnaires and focus group interviews.

 

Critical Literature Review

Arguments for School-Based Curricula

The arguments for decentralization of curriculum development to the school level and the inclusion of teachers in the process are supported by the nature of teaching roles: teachers have a better understanding of the classroom activities than education policymakers (Banegas, 2011).

Oftentimes, policymakers are not able to discern the weaknesses of a curriculum without teachers’ input; consequently, developing policies that are incongruent with the existing curriculum (Banegas, 2011). Proponents of school-based curricula, therefore, argue that the exclusion of teachers from the syllabus improvement process will inhibit the development of holistic school curricula (Alsubaie, 2016; Ametller, Leach and Scott, 2007). Additionally, research indicates that in cases where national curriculum changes are made without teacher involvement, a disconnect between the material included in the curriculum and teachers’ perception of relevant material is likely to exist Alnefaie, 2016; (Priestley et al., 2014). This discrepancy between teachers’ and education policymakers’ perceptions of relevant material results in strategic compliance with the national curriculum (Priestley et al., 2014). Strategic compliance with improvements to the national curriculum refers to the checking off of learning outcomes that were covered prior to curriculum changes and putting in minimal effort to incorporate the unaddressed outcomes in instruction (Alnefaie, 2016).

 

Teachers’ Motivations in School-Based Curriculum Development

Intrinsic motivation

SBCD literature divides teachers’ motivation to participate in the curriculum development and implementation process into two categories: intrinsic and extrinsic motivations (Cheung and Wong, 2010; McClelland, 1992; Wai-Yum, 2003). Intrinsic motivation is best illustrated by the cognitive evaluation theory of intrinsic motivation. According to the theory, external regulations and other extrinsic reward and punishment systems crowd out individuals’ intrinsic motivation to exemplify the behavior consequently having a deleterious effect on the individual’s engagement in the task (Ryan, 1982). In light of the cognitive evaluation theory, teachers’ strategic compliance with improvements to the national curriculum is attributed to the crowding out of their intrinsic motivation to actively monitor students’ learning curve and ensure education relevance. Alnefaie (2016) discussed the negative impact of strategic compliance in his investigation of teachers’ role in the development of English as a Foreign Language (EFL) curriculum in Saudi Arabia. The Saudi EFL teachers interviewed for the study expressed frustration with their marginalization in the curriculum development process regardless of their educational qualifications (Alnefaie, 2016). The frustration manifested in teachers’ decision to neglect some components of the EFL curriculum they deemed unnecessary without the ministry’s knowledge (Alnefaie, 2016). The evidence provided by Alnefaie (2016) and Priestley et al. (2014) shows that improvements made to a centralized curriculum in the absence of teachers’ involvement have minimal impact on the quality of learning. Instructors are more likely to rigorously implement new aspects of a curriculum when they were involved in the change process and support the need for change (Priestley et al., 2014).

Teachers are also driven by the intrinsic motivation to pursue the subjects they are most interested in during and post the curriculum implementation process. In their interviews of teachers involved in the curriculum development process, Alnefaie (2016) and McClelland (1992) reported that most educators lost their drive to teach subjects they were passionate about due to the restriction to specific domains in centralized curriculum. When teachers were allowed to participate in school-based curriculum development, they not only included material they perceived to be relevant to their students’ environmental context, but they also incorporated aspects they found to be interesting and enjoyable to their students (Maclean, 2003). It, in turn, increased students’ interest in the subject and their engagement with the teacher in classroom discussions (Maclean, 2003).

Extrinsic motivation

With regard to extrinsic motivation, teachers reported participating in SBCD out of the desire to increase the flow of resources to the school from the Education Department (Lin, 2016; Maclean, 2003). It was a common theme in studies conducted in Hong-Kong, Taiwan, China, and other South Asian countries where data was collected from institutions undergoing curriculum changes mandated by the government (Lin, 2016; Maclean, 2003). Teachers’ also gave encouragement from a third party as an important motivation to participate in the SBCD process. While motivation from a third party was interpreted as compulsion in some studies, most researchers recognized this factor as an indicator of the need for an SBCD champion in the process who can ensure that the teacher remain committed to the curriculum development and implementation process.

Research findings on relevant intrinsic and extrinsic motivations of teachers involved in curriculum development varied. For instance, Lin (2016) reported that teachers were mainly motivated by the job satisfaction gained from participating in curriculum development and their drive to cater to students’ learning needs in their localized contexts. Priestley et al. (2014) and Chun (1999), however, did not identify these factors as important themes in their exploration of teachers’ motivation in the development of school-based curricula. These differences are hypothesized to arise from the dissimilarities of the interview and questionnaire schedules used in the studies as well as the underlying populations and the pre-existing culture of learning. Chun (1999) and Priestley et al.’s (2014) studies were conducted in Hong-Kong and Scotland respectively during the mandatory switch to SBCD, while Lin’s (2016) study was conducted within a Taiwanese institution where the move to SBCD was not informed by a government directive but from cognizance of the need for a specialized curriculum at the institutional level.

Use of Project Plans in School-Based Curriculum Development

From the foregoing, curriculum policies made at the national level result in instructors’ work overload, fragmented curricula, and poor learning outcomes. Curriculum change leaders at the national level often lack the understanding of how to translate the policies into classroom practice and the amount of work required to make the adjustment. The devolvement of the curriculum decision-making to the school level where teachers and other professionals are entrusted with curriculum improvement initiatives, as they have the contextual knowledge of student needs and how to address these needs without creating a work overload is long overdue. Even though recent updates to the Saudi education policy have allowed private schools to contextualize the national curriculum and incorporate supplemental courses in the school-based curriculum, many schools are yet to take advantage of the provision due to the complexity of SBCD. The development of a cohesive project plan to guide the SBCD process would empower schools in the curriculum development process facilitating the creation of holistic school-based curricula.

Approaches to School-Based Curriculum Development

Decentralized approach

The decentralized approach to SBCD is the predominant method of SBCD implementation in countries where the educational curriculum underwent recent decentralization (Chun, 1999). In such a perspective, the curriculum development process is divided into small chunks of deliverables which are then assigned to individual teachers. The teachers work on their portions in isolation and come together in the final phase to consolidate the subjects into a curriculum. This SBCD technique has been criticized for resulting in subpar curricula with minor changes from the main curriculum. The decentralization of the process means that teachers are given the responsibility to develop the curriculum for a specific subject or class level without receiving adequate support. Teachers will often adapt existing national curriculum materials making minuscule changes out of fear of doing the wrong thing and the haste to meet the set deadline (Chun, 1999; McClelland, 1992). Institutions using the decentralized approach also avoided making changes to the national curriculum in examinable subjects and at the examinable class levels. It has beaten the purpose of SBCD, which is intended to improve students’ learning process, increase their awareness of their environment, and move away from the focus on examinations. Collaborative approaches to curriculum development overcome the limitations of the decentralized method by ensuring teachers receive adequate support in the curriculum development process.

Collaborative approaches

Drew et al. (2016) presented a systematic methodology for the development of a school-based curriculum labeled the critical collaborative professional inquiry (CCPE) model. The researchers recruited school leaders and teachers to participate in a Master’s level learning program that imparted curriculum development skills using the CCPE model (Drew et al., 2016). The model divides learning into two phases: phase 1, referred to as the conceptual phase, comprised of big picture conceptualization of the school-based curriculum (Drew et al., 2016). Teachers addressed the context in which the curriculum would be used and considered the soundness of different pedagogical approaches within the learning context (Drew et al., 2016). Phase two was the practical phase and it is comprised of applying the CCPE model built in the conceptual phase to the curriculum development process and projecting the outcomes of the curriculum for teachers and students (Drew et al., 2016).

The researchers reported an increase in teachers’ confidence in their ability to develop holistic curricula after participating in the program (Drew et al. 2016). While the CCPE program did not directly address the development of a project plan for SBCD, it was designed to empower instructors’ in their collaboration with other professionals to create such a plan. Researchers have reiterated the inadvisability of a one-size-fits-all approach to SBCD as it beats the purpose of a school-based curriculum; to create a syllabus that addresses the needs of students in their local context (Drew et al., 2016; Nevalainen et al., 2017; Priestley et al., 2014). The current study will endeavor to create the groundwork for a broad-based project plan that outlines factors for consideration in the curriculum development process without restricting teachers to a singular methodology.

In a study similar to the preceding, Banegas (2011) used the action research design to create a teacher-developed EFL curriculum in Argentina. He presented an in-depth discussion of the curriculum development process and made a recommendation for stakeholders participating in a similar project. Banegas (2011) argued that the curriculum improvement process should begin with the compilation of the limitations of the curriculum in use giving teachers a starting point. Teachers should be allowed to present the practical limitations as well as external shortcomings such as lack of professional development opportunities (Banegas, 2011; Zohrabi, 2014). The participants in the action research methodology should also define every individual’s role in the process (Banegas, 2011; Zohrabi, 2014). In the case of Banegas’ (2011) action research, the researcher was assigned the role of facilitator while the 30 participating teachers were given the role of co-researchers. The researcher recommended conducting reflective meetings where teachers could discuss the objectives of the curriculum under consideration, any perception of a disconnect between the syllabus in theory and in practice and propose adjustments that could fill the gap between the pedagogical theories and actual practice (Banegas, 2011).

A key distinction between the curriculum development process as delineated by Banegas (2011) and the phases defined by Drew et al. (2011) is that the former recommends concrete steps while the latter presents a broad-based approach to SBCD. This dissimilarity arises from the difference in the study mandate and the scope of the curriculum under consideration. Banegas’ (2011) project was mandated by the Argentine Ministry of education, which recognized the validity of teachers’ concerns about the shortcomings of the EFL curriculum. Additionally, the curriculum developed in Banegas’ (2011) study was implemented in the national landscape while the findings of Drew et al. (2011) are relevant to the teachers’ local context. Given the similarity in the scope of the current study and Drew et al.’s study, the researcher in this study expects the external validity of the study’s findings to be limited to the local environment.

All of the studies exploring school-based curriculum development and implementation, located in the literature search, used the action research design. The current study will adopt some components of the action research methodology used by SBCD researchers. The action research methodology is based on the conception of action as a result of collaborative research with the relevant stakeholders accompanied by the active reflection of the arguments presented and the group conclusions (Banegas, 2011). The action research methodology allows teachers to play an active role in education reform. The use of a focus group interview in the current study will allow teachers to participate in the project planning for the school-based curriculum. In the classic AR model, all involved teachers reflect on the data available and reach a consensus on key issues. The objective of the study, however, prevents the full use of action research. The researcher will interpret the qualitative data and draw conclusions independent of the research participants.

Internal and External Conditions Affecting the SBCD Process

Priestley et al. (2014) and Zohrabi (2014) discussed the internal conditions that influenced schools’ enactment of changes to the curriculum. Both studies presented internal culture as the main factor that affected the success of the curriculum development process (Priestley et al., 2014; Zohrabi, 2014). Some schools were more resistant to change than other schools resulting in the breakdown of SBCD. Priestley et al. (2014) recommended gathering teachers’ opinions on the need for curriculum change before proceeding with curriculum development. If most of the teachers are of the opinion that the change in unwarranted, the curriculum development process is likely to stall in an intermediate stage. Other barriers to SBCD identified within the literature include difficulties in change management arising from the unclear definition of the school-based curriculum scope prior to the initiation of the development process, heavy workload, and long working hours which limit teachers’ ability to participate in the SBCD process (Banegas, 2011; Ng, 2009). The success of the SBCD process is also influenced by characteristics of the instructors and local education department which include: miscommunication between the school and the local education department delaying the process, lack of understanding of the project, and absence of the requisite knowledge and skills in curriculum development (Drew et al., 2016; Priestley et al., 2014).

Additionally, research has shown that institutions in countries with highly administrative education systems face more barriers in the SBCD process compared to institutions with relatively decentralized curricula (Maclean, 2003). The political climate in institutions with centralized education systems is often unconducive for SBCD with teachers’ fearing the politicization of curriculum change efforts. The absence of reference materials due to the infrequent use of SBCD also poses a challenge to institutions seeking to develop individual curricula (Alnefaie, 2016; Alsubaie, 2016). An examination-oriented education culture also restricts schools’ curriculum development efforts, especially when secondary school and university entrance exams are prepared and assessed by the Ministry of Education (Cheung & Wong, 2011). Teachers in Saudi Arabia reported feeling pressurized to meet the examination demands and were reluctant to make changes to the existing curriculum out of fear of students’ falling short of the required grades.

Shortcomings of School-Based Curricula

While school-based curricula would address multiple shortcomings of the centralized curriculum, the development of school-based curricula is limited by internal school factors. Teachers involved in SBCD have expressed anxiety about the process and were unsure of their ability to create a sound curriculum (Handelzalts, 2019). On the other hand, teachers with experience and/or education on curriculum development were concerned about the significant workload associated with school-based curriculum development (Handelzalts, 2019). Additionally, SBCD remains highly individualized with schools using different approaches and involving distinct stakeholders in curriculum formulation and reform (Priestley et al., 2014). The lack of consistency in school-based curriculum development weakens the collaborative effort contributing to the unsustainability of school-based curricula with stakeholders in the curriculum development process (Nevalainen, Kimonen, and Alsbury, 2017). In regions with decentralized curricula such as Denmark, stakeholders have expressed concern over the quality of curricula developed at the local level and its ability to address the national education objectives (Nevalainen et al., 2017).

Despite its shortcomings, the positive influence of school-based curricula on student performance and teachers’ job satisfaction as demonstrated in literature is indisputable. The implementation of school-based curricula, however, remains low in countries where a national curriculum is prescribed but schools are allowed to contextualize the national curriculum and include material relevant to the local context (Alsubaie, 2016). The low adoption of school-based curricula has been attributed to multiple factors with the leading reason being the complexity of School-based Curricula Development (SBCD) processes and teachers’ lack of training in curriculum development (Alsubaie, 2016; Drew, Priestley, and Michael, 2016). While multiple authors recommend the use of a project plan delineating the curriculum development stages, stakeholders’ responsibilities, and internal and external factors for consideration, the researcher was unable to locate studies conducted to facilitate the creation of an SBCD project plan.

 

METHODOLOGY AND RESEARCH DESIGN

This chapter provides adetailed information on the research methodology used to achieve the research objectives of the work. In this chapter, a rationale for the methodology is first provided, showing why focus groups and questionnaires are the most suitable methods for qualitatively understanding the importance of teacher participation in curricula development.

Rationale

Teacher involvement is critical for yielding positive outcomes in schools by promoting students’ performance and teacher professionalism (Alnefaie, 2016; Priestley, Minty, and Eager, 2014).This research paper adopts an embedded mixed-method design with qualitative research methodology as the primary research method.This research paper is asking about teacher preference to the existing school-based curricula and their involvement towards curriculum development, making questionnaires and focus groups a practical study approach. The qualitative approach is suitable for this paper since it allows participants to provide information about the research paper without the limits of a quantitative method. As such, the method suits the research because it will provide thorough information that is critical to understanding teachers role’s in SBCD and the wider curriculum development process.

Methodology and Method

The research methodology design made use of qualitative methods of data collection to address the study objectives of this research paper. Qualitative research aims at creating a deeper understanding of a research study compared to quantitative research (Bryman, 2008). When addressing social phenomena, qualitative research helps researchers develop a clear understanding of participants’ perceptions and social behaviour. Given that this research study emphasizes the teacher’s participation in SBCD, qualitative research methods are, therefore, appropriate for this study.

Qualitative data produce rich information compared to quantitative research (Hennink and Hutter, 2011). One other important characteristic of qualitative studies uses study participants. The qualitative sample size is also smaller compared to that used in quantitative studies, and as a result, qualitative studies require less time to analyze data. A qualitative study sample size may be selected conveniently or purposely using non-probability sampling methods.Questionnaires and focus groups are among the preferred approaches in qualitative studies and will be used extensively in this study.

Study Participants

This research study will investigate the role of teacher’s in SBCD and SBC implementation,

teacher’s perception towards SBC, and their knowledge of the process of SBCD implementation. Questionnaires were used on a sample size of twenty participants to obtain this information. A focus group interview involving thirteen participants selected using purposive sampling was used. Thistechnique is also referred to as judgmentsampling, as the researcher employs the best judgment to identify study participants for the study. Purposive sampling ensures that study participants are suitable for the study under investigation as no amount of data analysis can make up for improperly collected data (Etikan, Musa, & Alkassim,2016).

Focus Group Interviews

In this research, focus groups were used to collect data on the factors that influence the school-based curricula competence, role of teachers in the development of SBC and the suitablepractices in the selected schools learning modes. The technique is useful when evaluating strength, weakness, and success of implemented programs(Rodriguez, 2011). Information obtained from focus groups can also be used in the development of new programs (Rodriguez, 2011). Focused groups participants share common interests on topics under discussion, and this allows participants to have in-depth discussions on issues under investigation by the facilitator (Rodriguez, 2011).The facilitator is the moderator of the focus group, and his/her primary role is to introduce the topic under discussion and control the direction in which the discussion takes place. The moderator is required to ask participants to elaborate on their answers as well as he/she may adopt unbiased questions to ensure that participants do not offer desired answers.

Focused groups need the facilitator to create rapport to foster an honest discussion among the focus group (Rodriguez, 2011). The moderator is also required to have sufficient knowledge on the discussion topic to encourage the respondents to have a more in-depth discussion and adopt flexibility to the flow of discussion (Rodriguez, 2011). However, care must be taken to ensure no unnecessary interference is made by the facilitator when respondents are conversing. The moderator should also not provide a leading opinion, as this may result in respondents providing biased answers (Rodriguez, 2011).

Strengths

Through the use of active listening skills, the moderator can engage the respondents in more proactive conversations. The focus group will hence provide adequate responses to the research questions that are asked to the group and also help the researcher to improve their understanding on the topic. Focus groups are cheap to convene and can be done through online methods where the participants are geographically distant.

Weaknesses

Disagreements and distractions can affect data obtained from focus groups. Besides, focus groups can be challenging to manage and control. Focus group interviews could also be intimidating to specific groups of people and may discourage them from actively participating in the study. Fear of victimization may also deter honest answers. Individual participants have less freedom compared to one-on-one interviews (Rodriguez, 2011)

Questionnaire

The questionnaire was used to explored teacher’s opinions towards factors influencing the competence of school-based curricula. Questions within the questionnaire were kept brief with a clear set of instructions, and adequate spacing was also provided to ensure sufficient responses by respondents. Open and closed questions will be used to obtain appropriate information on the research questions under investigation.Closed questions are easy to answer. Besides, responses to the closed question are simple to evaluate (Opie, 2004). Open questions encourage respondents to be expressive (Opie, 2004). Open questions are alsouseful in obtaining qualitative data. Different factors were considered when determining questions to use. Leading questions were avoided to prevent respondents from providing biased responses (Wellington, 2000).

The questionnaire was drafted according to best practices to promote response accuracy. Best practice was used to ensures that the questionnaire questions were designed in a manner that ensures positive outcomes. For example, leading questions were avoided, questions used were precise, and the questionnaire design was short (Wellington, 2000). Best practice also ensures that the question structure is proper to ensure results accuracy. The order of questions has a cognitive influence on the respondent; Questions at the beginning of the questionnaire influence respondent’s willingness to participate in the study because they influence respondent understanding to the survey and what the investigation entails. Thus, initial questions should have a strong link to the study purpose and establish respondent rapport about the study to minimize errors. However, despite how well questions are structured, fatigue is likely to result in inaccurate answers. As a result, questionnaire timing should be considered and should be at the respondent’s convenience.

Strengths

Questionnaires are relatively cheap and need less time compared to other methods of data collection. Data collected from questionnaires can be objectively and scientifically analyzed and as a result, ensuring more accurate data. Questionnaires also encourage participants to be more honest and, as a result increasing the validity and reliability of collected data (Wellington, 2000).

Weaknesses

The responses from questionnaires depend on the expertise of the respondents. Poor selection of participants s, therefore, likely to reduce the reliability of the questionnaires. Further, participants’ honesty is crucial in providing reliable responses. Participants who are not honest may, therefore, lower the quality of the method. Questionnaires are also open to misinterpretation since the participant may not understand the question entirely leading to misleading responses.

Focus Group Interview and Questionnaire Items

The data collection methods Items were designed to answer the following research questions; Factors affecting school-based curricula effectiveness, teacher’s role during the improvement of SBC and limitations and benefits of the available SBCD according to teachers’ perspectives. The Questionnaire and Focus Group Interview Items will also be grouped according to the three main research questions under study.

Sampling Method

Sampling refers to the selection of a group from within a statistical population to estimate the entire population characteristics (Etikan and Bala, 2017). Sampling can be characterized into two main categories, namely non-probability and probability (Bryman, 2008).Probability sampling is also called representative/random sampling, and it is used in quantitative research. It employs the use of mathematical formulas, while qualitative research makes use of non-probability sampling. During this research project, a qualitative method is used, and as a result, the non-probability sampling method was best suited for this study. The quantitative research method was also not considered as the nature of this research is not well-matched to quantitative methods.

Sample size

The study participants’ sample size used was small. The sample size was used to avoid generalized answers. A sample size of twentyparticipants was used in the questionnaire, while the focus group involved thirteen participants. In qualitative research, the sample size used can be flexible, and this varies according to the data collection method used.

Ethical Considerations

Research topics that include a social aspect must adhere to ethical concerns (Oliver, 2010). Ethical considerations ensure the proper treatment of human beings according to the values and standards necessary for ensuring humanity. This study examinesa human social aspect, and as a result, ethical considerations formed a crucial research consideration during my study. My research study adhered to this by ensuring the confidentiality of data collected. Individual data collected from the questionnaire were not disclosed to other study participants to prevent the feeling of victimization and invasion of privacy.The approved ethics form provides for the acquisition of consent (Oliver, 2010).  When studying social issues involving human aspects and as a result, participants were required to give consent before participating in the research study.Participants were contacted officiallyin context to this studyin regards to giving consent, and participation took place only after reception of ethical approval letters.Their readiness to partake in the study ensured data accuracy and reduced biasness because approval ensured continued participation interest during the data collection process. Participants were also of legal age as they were teachers and educators.

Data Analysis

This research will use a qualitative analysis method because of the data collection method used a thematic approach. This analysis method finds, evaluates, and establishes themes (Braun and Clarke, 2006). Thematic data analysis is suitable for analyzing my data because it is easy to apply. Unlike discourse analysis and grounded theory, the analysismethod does not require technical and theoretic knowledge to apply(Braun and Clarke,2006). This study has an exploratory an and as a result, searching for themes and constructing themes is significant in addressing the research questions.

Wellington (2015) identifies thematic analysis in six main stages. The first stage involves data transcription, and codes are then generated systematically. Similarities between the coded data are then done to identify their potential themes. A thematic map of the analysis is then generated and followed by refining the theme to select the most appropriate theme names. A final report is then produced. The report themes are linked to the objective of the study to fill in the research gaps the study aims at achieving (Wellington, 2015).

Reliability and Validity

Qualitative research is accessed based on the data collection methods reliability andvalidity (Guba and Lincoln, 2009). reliability evaluates study data collection tools (accuracy reliability and uniformity) (Guba and Lincoln, 2009). validitymay be categorized into both internal and external aspects and is mainly used to compare variations from one data aspect to another to establish consistency of data (Guba and Lincoln, 2009).

Validity was ensured through Purposive sampling. The sampling method used ensured that participants involved had sufficient knowledge of SBCD, and results obtained were easily transferrable to similar contexts. The questionnaire design was also structured according to best practice to promote the respondent’s accuracy. Purposive sampling also simplified data analysis and saved time on data collection because it ensured data collected was objective to the theme studied and, as a result, ensuring consistency. The focus group and questionnaire remained consistent with the objective of the study by ensuring that the focus group and questionnaire interviews were properly considered to answer the research questions under study.

The reliability of collected data was ensured through the Sampling methods used. Methods used ensured quality data was obtained. Purposive sampling ensured that study participants had adequate knowledge of curricula development. The questionnaire design was also structured according to best practice to promote the respondent’s accuracy. Accuracy was also ensured through follow up questions that justified the already answered questions. Google forms will also be self-administered among the participants, and this will ensure anonymity and confidentiality. The Google forms will also limit biasness and loss of data during transcription and translation of the information obtained from respondents.

Challenges

The main challenge faced during data collection was the current pandemic, which made focus group and in personal interactions no longer feasible. Grouped focused groups’ physical interactions could not be conducted as it was impossible for participants to meet in one location physically and have an in-depth discussion on SBCD. However, the use of Google forms made is possible to conduct the study still as the google forms will be self-administered among the study participants.

Conclusion

The objective of this chapter was todiscuss the data collection method and the research methodology approach used to attain the aim of my research project. Purposive sampling enabled quality and intentional data to be collected using focus groups interviews and questionnaires. Data collected will aid in the development of a project plan essential in the application of SBCD in Saudi Arabia Schools.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

References

Al-Ajroush, H. A. (1981). A historical development of the public secondary school

curriculum in Saudi Arabia from 1930 to the present (Manchester University, Unpublished Doctoral dissertation).

Al-Sadan, I. A. (2000). Educational assessment in Saudi Arabian schools. Assessment in

Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 7(1), 143-155.

Al-Saif, A. (1996). The current experience of Islamic education in Saudi secondary schools.

Manchester, UK: Manchester University.

Alnefaie, S. K. (2016). Teachers’ role in the development of EFL curriculum in Saudi Arabia:

The marginalised status. Cogent Education, 3(1), 1240008.

Al Shaer, A. I. (2008). Education for all programmes in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

Background paper prepared for the Education for All Global Monitoring Report.

Alsubaie, M. A. (2016). Curriculum Development: Teacher Involvement in Curriculum

Development. Journal of Education and Practice, 7(9), 106-107.

Banegas, D. L. (2011). Teachers as ‘reform-doers’: developing a participatory curriculum to

teach English as a foreign language. Educational Action Research, 19(4), 417-432.

Drew, V., Priestley, M., & Michael, M. K., (2016). Curriculum development through critical collaborative professional enquiry. Journal of Professional Capital and Community.

Handelzalts, A. (2019). Collaborative curriculum development in teacher design teams. In

Collaborative Curriculum Design for Sustainable Innovation and Teacher Learning (pp. 159-173). London, UK: Springer.

Hagger, H. and McIntyre, D. (2006). Learning teaching from teachers: Realising the

potential of school-based teacher education. London, UK: McGraw-Hill Education.

Henson, K. T. (2015). Curriculum planning: Integrating multiculturalism, constructivism,

and education reform. Long Grove, Illinois: Waveland Press.

Priestley, M., Minty, S. and Eager, M. (2014). School-based curriculum development in

Scotland: Curriculum policy and enactment. Pedagogy, Culture & Society, 22(2), 189-211.

Skilbeck, M. (2005). School-based curriculum development. In The roots of educational

change (pp. 109-132). Springer, Dordrecht.

ur Rahman, M. M., & Alhaisoni, E. (2013). Teaching English in Saudi Arabia: prospects and

challenges. Academic Research International, 4(1), 112.

 

References

Braun, V. and Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), pp. 77-101.

Bryman, A. (2016). Social research methods. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Etikan, I. and Bala, K. (2017). Sampling and sampling methods. Biometrics & Biostatistics International Journal, 5(6), p.00149.

Etikan, I., Musa, S.A. and Alkassim, R.S., (2016). Comparison of convenience sampling and        purposive sampling. American journal of theoretical and applied statistics, 5(1), pp.1-4

Guba, E. G. and Lincoln, Y.S., (2009). Fourth generation evaluation. Newbury Park, California: Sage Publications.

Hennink, M.H. and Hutter, I., (2011). Qualitative research methods. London: SAGE Publications Ltd.

Opie, C. and Sikes, P.J., (2004). Doing educational research. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Rodriguez, K.L., Schwartz, J.L., Lahman, M.K. and Geist, M.R., (2011). Culturally responsive focus groups: reframing the research experience to focus on participants. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 10(4), pp.400-417

Scaife, J.A. (2004). Reliability, validity and credibility. In: C. Opie (Ed.), Doing educational research: a guide to first-time researchers (pp.58-72). London: Sage Publications

Wellington, J. (2015). Educational research: contemporary issues and practical approaches. London: Bloomsbury Academic.

Wellington, J. (2000). Educational research–contemporary issues and practical approaches. London: Continuum.

 

Appendix

Questionnaire and Focus Group Interview Items

Questionnaire Items (20 Participants)

Teacher’s role in improvement of school-based curricula and limitations and benefits of the available SBCD

1. Do you have prior experience in the SBCDand curricula implementation processes?

If yes, what role did you play in the curriculum development process and the implementation process?

1. At which level should most of the work in SBCD be done: individual level, departmental level, or school-wide level?

Why? (You can list the advantages/disadvantages of either approach, lessons learned from previous use of either method or any other reason guiding your choice)

Please give reasons for your choice

Teacher’s perspective towards the already implemented SBCD

1. Are you satisfied with the components of the existing curriculum?

If not, please indicate which aspects you find to be unsatisfactory

1. Which of these three choices of leadership would you prefer?

1. An existing leader, for instance, the head teacher leads the curriculum development process
2. A member of the school’s teaching/ support staff with/ without a traditional leadership position be elected as the curriculum change agent
3. A curriculum development expert be appointed to lead the process

Please indicate which of the following two approaches to SBCD you prefer

1. An adaptation of the existing curriculum where shortcomings are identified and fixed in the school-based curriculum
2. A bottom-up approach to curriculum development where a brand-new school-based curriculum aligned to the school education objectives and the requirement is designed

Why do you prefer one of the methods over the other? (You can list the advantages/disadvantages of either approach, lessons learned from previous use of either approach or any other reason guiding your choice.

1. Do you think a SBC is warranted to complement the existing  school curriculum?

If yes, why?

If no, why not?

Please indicate which of the following two approaches to SBCD you prefer

1. Please indicate which of these two collaborative approaches to curriculum development you prefer?

1. The division of curriculum development roles to each stakeholder, individual engagement with assigned tasks, and collaboration at the consolidation stage
2. Discussions and collaboration by stakeholders at each stage of the curriculum development process

Why do you prefer one of the methods over the other? (You can list the advantages/disadvantages of either approach, lessons learned from previous use of either approach or any other reason guiding your choice)

Internal and external factors affecting school-based curricula

1. Please indicate which subjects you currently teach and any other topics you have taught for at least a year over the past five years

Current subjects

Non-current subjects taught for a minimum of one year

1. Are there any core principles in the above-listed subjects that you believe are unaddressed/ poorly addressed by the existing curriculum?

If so, indicate the subject, principle, and an exposition of the gaps in the existing curriculum (is the principle completely ignored, poorly addressed, irrelevant to students’ local context, or inaccurate given students’ local context)

Subject	Unaddressed/ poorly addressed principle	Exposition of the gaps in the curriculum

3. An adaptation of the existing curriculum where shortcomings are identified and fixed in the school-based curriculum
4. A bottom-up approach to curriculum development where a brand-new SBC is aligned to the school education objectives and the requirement is designed

Why do you prefer one of the methods over the other? (You can list the advantages/disadvantages of either approach, lessons learned from previous use of either approach or any other reason guiding your choice)

1. Should students’ performance in the national examinations be prioritized in the curriculum development?

If yes, what approaches can be used to ensure students continued exemplary performance after the switch to a school-based curriculum?

Focus Group Interview Questions (Around 13 Participants-in progress)

Internal and external factors affecting school-based curricula

1. What are the significant difficulties in the instruction of your primary subject under the existing curriculum?
2. Is the current model of learning in the school suited for the class level you teach?
3. What internal barriers do you anticipate in the SBCD process?
4. What measures can be undertaken to prevent the breakdown of the process as a result of the manifestation of the internal and external barriers?
5. What forms of support if any, should be provided to speed up the curriculum development process?

Teacher’s perspective towards the already implemented SBCD

1. Do you believe that teachers should be consulted in the election of the mode of learning regardless of their experience in curriculum development? Why?

Teacher’s role in improvement of SBC and limitations and benefits of the available SBCD

1. During your contribution in SBCD in the past, what were the preparative steps before the process began?
2. During your participation in SBCD, what was the process followed and the responsibilities played by each member of the staff?
3. Do you believe that you have the requisite skills for school-based curriculum design and development?
4. What role would you as (either teachers or support staff depending on which session it is) would you like to play in the preparative stage?
5. What role would you as (either teachers or support staff depending on which session it is) would you like to play in the development stage?
6. What role would you as (either teachers or support staff depending on which session it is) would you like to play in the implementation stage?

 

 

The post Results, Analysis and Evaluation of Findings appeared first on Best Custom Essay Writing Services | EssayBureau.com.