Teacher receptivity to curriculum reform and the need for trust: An exploratory study from Southwest...

Teacher receptivity to curriculum reform and the need for Trust: An exploratory study from Southwest ChinaHong-biao YinChinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR China

John Chi-Kin LeeHong Kong Institute of Education, Hong Kong SAR China

Yu-le JinSouthwest University, [email protected]

Using the method of structural equation modeling, this study explored the impact of teachers’ perception of trust in colleagues on their receptivity to curriculum reform and the perceived outcomes of curriculum reform in the context of the national curriculum reform in China. A total of 1,366 teachers responded to a questionnaire that comprised three sets of instruments. The results showed that primary or female teachers generally had better evaluation on trust, receptivity and perceived outcomes of reform, and rural teachers were more willing to participate in the curriculum reform than urban and suburban teachers. Teachers’ perception of trust in colleagues had a significant positive influence on their receptivity to, and perception of, reform outcomes. Based on these findings, it is suggested that trust, in general, can be seen as a “buffer of risk” and “catalyst of change” during the change process. Enhancing the trust relationship among teachers was found to be an effective way to facilitate their receptivity to curriculum reform. The implications for the management of curriculum reform are discussed.

Keywords: trust in colleagues; teacher receptivity; curriculum reform; China

The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher 20:1 (2011), pp. 35-47

Copyright © 2011 De La Salle University, Philippines

NatioNal curriculum reform iN chiNa

Currently, national curriculum reform (NCR) is high on the central government’s agenda of reforming basic education in mainland China. Huang (2004) pointed that curriculum is always dynamic, and the reform is also on-going as China seeks to achieve a new balance between the design of curriculum and the identified needs of Chinese society. Since the 1990s, curriculum reform in China has been promoted alongside a drive towards quality-oriented education.

At the peak of the centralized educational system in China, the Chinese government acted as initiator and designer of major national curriculum reforms (Borevskaya, 1997). In June 1999, the State Council of the Chinese government published the Decisions of Deepening Reform in Education and Developing Quality-oriented Education in an All-round Way, that initiated a new round of nation-wide curriculum reform. Two years later, in June 2001, the Ministry of Education (MoE) initiated the eighth round of national curriculum reform, releasing the Compendium for Curriculum Reform of Basic Education (Experimental

36 VOL. 20 NO. 1THE ASIA-PACIFIC EDUCATION RESEARCHER

Draft). This clarified the overall aims of curriculum reform as developing quality-oriented education in an all-round way and cultivating students’ innovative spirit, practical abilities, science and arts literacy, environmental awareness, as well as a spirit of patriotism, collectivism and love for socialism (Lee et al., 2010). In 2002 and 2003, the national curriculum standards for compulsory education and senior secondary education were published by the central government in close succession. Accordingly, experiments in curriculum reform in the compulsory education and senior secondary education were put into implementation in selected locations in 2002 and 2004, respectively.

In essence, the NCR sought to bring forward a series of fundamental changes to the whole curriculum system in China, including curriculum objectives, contents, organization, teaching and assessment. Specifically, the Compendium defined the following six objectives (Ministry of Education, 2001):

Changing the curriculum emphasis from • knowledge transmission to student learning;Changing the discipline-centered curriculum • structure, making it integrated and adaptable to students’ needs;Renewing the curriculum content and • connecting the curriculum content to students’ experiences, society, and the development of science and technology;Changing the emphasis from traditional • teaching based on rote and drill to an emphasis on students’ active learning and inquiry ability;Changing the emphasis in curriculum • assessment from student selection to promoting the development of students, teachers, and schools;Replacing centralized curriculum management • with a three-level system including national, provincial, and school curriculum management.

As Zhong (2006) remarked, the NCR aimed at leading three transformations: the transformation from “centralization” to “decentralization” in curriculum policy; the transformation of the curriculum paradigm from a “scientific discipline-centered curriculum” to a “society construction-centered curriculum”; and in the teaching paradigm the transformation from

“transmission-centered teaching” to “inquiry-centered teaching” (pp.373-374). Many new educational ideas and practices were adopted in the NCR, including curriculum integration, school-based curriculum development, the approaches of self-regulated, cooperative and inquiry-based learning, and developmental evaluation and portfolio assessment.

However, implementing such a large-scale, systematic curriculum reform inevitably made substantial demands on the time and efforts of schools and teachers. Some studies have found that although teachers had positive attitudes to the NCR, not surprisingly, they thought the requirements of the reform, both in compulsory and senior secondary education, were very complicated and difficult to implement in schools (Research Team, 2004; Yin & Lee, 2008). As observed by Zhong (2006), the implementation of NCR in China was facing some bottle-necks, one of which was the lack of research on teachers to provide sound evidence for reform management. The present study tried to address this issue by examining teachers’ receptivity to the implementation of NCR in China, leading to suggestions for the management of the curriculum reform.

Conceptual frameworkThe conceptual framework of our study was

based on the interaction of the following two major components: teachers’ receptivity to change and teachers’ trust in colleagues. The former related to teachers’ positive or negative attitudes to change while the latter related to their propensity and willingness to take risks and implement changes.

Teacher receptivity to curriculum reformThere was no doubting the significant role played

by teachers in curriculum reform (Fullan, 2007; Yin & Lee, 2008). Teachers would be more likely to commit themselves to any reform if they bring positive attitudes to the change. Although teachers’ positive attitudes cannot predict exactly their actual behavior in implementing reforms, some studies have shown that there is a strong positive correlation between behavioral intention and actual behavior (Ajzen, 1988) and between teachers’ attitudes and curriculum implementation (Thorsen-Spano, 1996). Teacher receptivity, defined by Lee (2000) as teachers’ positive attitudes and behavioral intentions to proposed reform, was likely to be crucial in determining the

YIN, H-B., et.al. 37TEACHER RECEPTIVITY TO CURRICULUm REFORm AND THE NEED FOR TRUST

success or failure of curriculum change (Lee, 2000; Waugh, 2000).

In a literature review, Waugh and Punch (1987) introduced the theory of reasoned action as suggested by Ajzen (1988) into research on teacher receptivity. This considered behavior intention as the direct determinant of human action, and summarized some of the general variables mainly related to teacher receptivity. Based on this theoretical analysis, Waugh and his colleagues (year?) conducted a series of studies aimed at developing a research instrument with reliable psychometric quality for assessing teacher receptivity. For instance, in a study of teacher receptivity to the unit curriculum system, Waugh and Godfrey (1993) found that 56% of the variance in general attitudes and 58% in behavioral intentions could be accounted for by teachers’ perceived cost-benefit appraisal, participation in school decisions about the change, perceived improvements of the new system compared with the previous one, and perceived support from the senior teachers and principal for the change. Moroz and Waugh (2000) combined work organization variables with those traditional variables in analyzing teachers’ receptivity to the implementation of student outcome statements. They found some significant predictors for teacher receptivity such as the non-monetary cost benefits, alleviation of fears and concerns, significant-others’ support, and feelings compared to those for the previous system. In Hong Kong, Lee (1998, 2000) examined teacher receptivity to the implementation of various curriculum reforms, including general studies, target-oriented curriculum, and environmental education. In mainland China, it was found that teachers have positive attitudes and behavioral intentions to the NCR in both the initiation stage (Ma, Yin, Tang, & Liu, 2009) and the implementation stage (Yin & Lee, 2008). A study on secondary teachers’ receptivity indicated that senior secondary teachers are more receptive to the NCR than junior secondary teachers, and teachers’ perceived cost-benefit appraisal, practicality of the reform, support in schools and issues of concern are the significant predictors of teacher receptivity (Shuai & Li, 2009).

The purpose of teacher receptivity study was to gain greater understanding of teachers’ potential behavioral response to educational changes, including curriculum reform. A recent study on the construct validity of teacher receptivity, using the method of structural equation modeling (SEM), showed

teachers’ behavioral intention to implement reform can be significantly predicted by three factors: cost-benefit appraisal of the reform; practicality of the new curriculum; and support in schools (Yin, Jin, & Ma, 2008). These three factors respectively corresponded to the three fundamental determining aspects of human behavior in the theory of reasoned action, i.e., positive evaluation of behavior, subjective norms, and perceived controls of behavior (Ajzen, 1988; Yin et al., 2008).

The role of trust in educational changeIn the last decade, increasing research attention has

been given to the role of teacher trust in educational change. By definition, trust is a person’s confidence in his or her expectation that the other party will fulfill his or her obligations in a reasonably predictable way (Hargreaves, 2002; Rus & Iglič, 2005), or a person’s willingness to be vulnerable to another based on the confidence that the latter is benevolent, reliable, competent, honest and open (Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, 2000). It is usually manifested in two forms. One is institutional trust, sometimes referred to as organic trust, which is the expectation of appropriate behavior in organized settings based on current social norms; the other is relational trust, or interpersonal trust, which is the inevitable result of repeated interactions with others based on the emotional bonds between them (Bryk & Schneider, 2002; Louis, 2007).

Trust is the basis of “taken for granted” aspects of social interaction in schools (Louis, 2007, p.3) and the “foundation of school effectiveness” (Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, 1998, p.341). The smooth operation of schooling is a product of both the relational and institutional trust of the people involved in the whole educational system. However, educational change, especially on a large scale, often puts people in schools into a high risk situation. As Louis (2007) suggested, systemic educational change decreases institutional trust by disrupting the “taken for granted” aspects of school organization, subverting the legitimacy of existing norms about teaching and curriculum, and replacing the old ways of thinking and working with new ones. Furthermore, educational change erodes relational trust among people, too. Due to the unstable institutional trust and the unclear sense of what the new teaching practices entail and how teachers should be assessed, the policy-makers seeking systemic change lose their confidence in teachers’ ability to implement the planned change, and teachers also suspect change


facilitators’ ability to provide proper professional guidance in the change process.

It is axiomatic that risk-taking and change always go side by side (Ponticell, 2003), and the willingness to risk vulnerability lies in the center of trust relationships (Hoy & Tschannen-Moran, 1999; Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, 2000). If schools are to realize the kinds of positive changes envisioned by policy-makers, it is clear that attention must be paid to issues of trust (Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, 2000). In order to initiate and sustain change effectively, it has been argued that policy-makers and change facilitators should reinforce relational trust to supplement the inadequacy of institutional trust, because it is relational trust that appears to be “at the core of teachers’ experience with change” (Louis, 2007, p.17). When school practitioners trust one another and sense support from each other, they felt safe to take risks and experiment with new practices. This led Bryk and Schneider (2002) to argue that relational trust is the core resource for school reform and improvement.

In recent years, the results of empirical studies have revealed that enhancing the trust relationships between people is of great importance for educational change. Trust can facilitate the collaboration between teachers and people around them which can lead to the success of reform efforts (Hargreaves, 2002; Tschannen-Moran, 2001), strengthen the influence of school-university partnership on teacher learning and pedagogical change (Fisler & Firestone, 2006), and improve student achievement even after accounting for variation between schools in student demographic characteristics, prior achievement and school socioeconomic status (Bryk & Schneider, 2002; Goddard, Tschannen-Moran, & Hoy, 2001). Furthermore, the trust environment was a significant predictor of internal school conditions and the consequences of educational change (Forsyth, Barnes, & Adams, 2006; Hoy, Gage, & Tarter, 2006). Pre-existing patterns of trust in schools and society will mediate teachers’ stress in changing situations (Troman, 2000), and enhance or inhibit the ability of leaders to initiated large-scale change (Louis, 2007). In mainland China, though an instrument was recently developed to assess students’ trust in teachers (Li & Liu, 2007), there was still a remarkable scarcity of empirical research on the role of trust in schooling or educational change.

In short, although there were some studies on the influence of trust on teachers’ learning, collaboration

and efficacy, little was known about the effect of trust on teacher receptivity to curriculum reform, especially in a non-Western context like China. This study attempted to bridge this gap by exploring the impact of teachers’ perception of trust in colleagues on their receptivity to, and perceived outcomes of, curriculum reform in the context of the NCR in China. To be specific, the present study aimed to investigate the following questions:

What are teachers’ perceptions of trust in 1. colleagues, receptivity to, and outcomes of, the NCR?What is the role of trust in colleagues and 2. teacher receptivity in curriculum reform?

method

ParticipantsA questionnaire survey was conducted from August

2007 to February 2008. The respondents were 1,366 teachers from four provinces in Southwest China, including Chongqing, Sichuan, Guizhou, and Yunnan. Of this sample, 684 were male teachers (50.1%) and 682 female teachers (49.9%), and 679 teachers in primary schools (49.7%) and 687 teachers in secondary schools (50.3%). Furthermore, of these, 571 teachers were from urban schools (41.8%), 499 teachers were from suburban schools (36.5%), and 296 teachers were from rural schools (21.7%).

InstrumentsA 31-item questionnaire consisting of three

instruments was employed in this study (see Appendix).

Trust in colleagues. The instrument to assess teachers’ perception of trust in colleagues contains five items derived from the scale of Faculty Trust in Schools developed by Hoy, Gage and Tarter (2006), measuring five faces of trust between teachers and their colleagues: benevolence, reliability, honest, competence and openness (Hoy & Tschannen-Moran, 1999; Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, 2000).

Teacher receptivity. The 18-item instrument employed by Yin and his colleagues (2008) was used to assess teachers’ receptivity to curriculum reform in this study. It measures teachers’ perceptions on cost-benefit appraisal of the change, practicality of the new curriculum, support in schools, and their behavioral


intention to implement the curriculum reform, among which the former three factors are the independent variables of teachers’ behavioral intention. The findings from the study undertaken by Yin and his colleagues (2008) showed it has good reliability and construct validity for assessing teachers’ receptivity in a contemporary Chinese context.

Perceived outcomes of curriculum reform. Eight self-developed items were employed to assess teachers’ perception of the outcomes of the curriculum reform. These items are mainly about perceived changes of teaching and learning in classrooms.

All items in the questionnaire were scored on a 6-point Likert scale from 1 (strongly disagreed) to 6 (strongly agreed).

results

Descriptive statistics, reliability analysis, and construct validity

Under the situation that only a small number of cases (5% or fewer cases) are lost and the standard errors based on complete cases are reasonable, listwise deletion is recommended as an appropriate method to process the missing data (Graham, Cumsille, & Elek-Fisk, 2003). Because these conditions are applicable to the present study, the method of listwise deletion was employed to handle the missing data.

The descriptive statistics for all subscales are shown in Table 1. Among the six subscales, the cost-benefit appraisal in the teacher receptivity instrument was scored the most positively by teachers (M = 4.71,

SD = 1.10), but support in schools, another subscale of teacher receptivity, was the one with the lowest score (M = 4.15, SD = 0.97). Moreover, teachers evaluated positively trust in colleagues (M = 4.54, SD = 1.02) and perceived outcomes of curriculum reform (M = 4.46, SD = 0.97). As to the internal consistency estimates of reliability, all six Cronbach’s alpha coefficients were higher than .70, indicating that all subscales had high internal consistency.

Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) using LISREL8.53 was used to examine the construct validity of the three instruments. Results showed all items had moderate to high factor loading values (.44-.84) to the corresponding factors. Some indices were employed to assess the general model fitness, including χ2, df, p, CFI, NNFI, and RMSEA (Joreskog & Sorbom, 1998; Hau, Wen, & Cheng, 2004). The goodness-of-fit indices of teacher receptivity instrument shown in Table 2 indicated a good fit to the data and supported the proposed factor structure suggested by Yin and his colleagues (2008). In addition, the other two single-factor instruments assessing teachers’ trust in colleagues and perceived outcomes of curriculum reform also had good fit to the empirical data.

Comparison of differencesTable 3 showed the analysis of the grade and gender

differences on the six subscales. The results of two-way ANOVA indicated that there was no significant interaction effect between grade and gender. However, primary teachers scored significantly higher on all six subscales than those of secondary teachers. As to the gender differences, it was found that only two factors,

subscales No. of items m sd Cronbach’s αTrust Trust in colleagues 5 4.54 1.02 .90Teacher receptivity Cost-benefit appraisal 5 4.71 1.10 .87 Practicality 3 4.43 1.02 .87 Support in schools 6 4.15 0.97 .87 Behavioral intention 4 4.57 1.03 .86Outcomes of curriculum reform Perceived outcomes 8 4.38 0.95 .88

Note: valid n = 1,363

table 1Descriptive statistics and reliability analysis for each subscale


scalesGoodness-of-fit index

χ2 p df rmsea NNfi cfi

Trust 27.19 .00 5 .058 .98 .99Teacher receptivity 750.33 .00 129 .060 .98 .99Outcomes of curriculum reform 104.03 .00 20 .060 .98 .99

Note: n = 1,366; RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation; NNFI = non-normed fit index; CFI = normed comparative fix index.

table 2CFA results of the three instruments

Variable Group n m sd f

Trust in colleagues

Grade P 679 4.69 1.00 5.43**S 684 4.39 1.01

Gender M 681 4.47 1.00 -2.60**F 682 4.61 1.02

Grade × Gender 1.41

Cost-benefit appraisal

Grade P 679 4.78 1.09 2.21*S 684 4.64 1.10

Gender M 681 4.67 1.11 -1.38F 682 4.75 1.09

Grade × Gender .92

Practicality

Grade P 679 4.58 1.01 5.42**S 684 4.28 1.01

Gender M 681 4.32 1.02 -4.08**F 682 4.54 1.01

Grade × Gender .03

Support in schools

Grade P 679 4.33 0.96 6.73**S 684 3.98 0.94

Gender M 681 4.08 0.98 -2.82**F 682 4.23 0.95

Grade × Gender .22

Behavioral intention

Grade P 679 4.65 1.03 2.88**S 684 4.49 1.04

Gender M 681 4.53 1.05 -1.33F 682 4.60 1.02

Grade × Gender .39

Perceived outcomes of curriculum reform

Grade P 679 4.44 0.98 2.52**S 684 4.31 0.93

Gender M 681 4.32 0.94 -2.12*F 682 4.43 0.97

Grade × Gender .98

Note: * p<.05; ** p<.01; P = primary teachers; S = secondary teachers; M = male; F = female.

table 3Grade and gender differences of each variable


i.e., cost-benefit appraisal and behavior intention, had no significant difference, but male teachers scored significantly lower than female teachers on the other four factors, including trust in colleagues, practicality, support in schools, and perceived outcomes of curriculum reform.

Table 4 presented the analysis of the school location differences among urban, suburban and rural school teachers. It was found there were significant differences on all subscales except for teachers’ perceived outcomes of curriculum reform. The results of ad hoc comparisons showed that on the five subscales with significant differences, rural school teachers scored consistently higher than both urban and suburban school teachers, but there was no significant difference between urban and suburban school teachers.

Relationships among trust in colleagues, teacher receptivity and perceived outcomes of curriculum reform

Due to the strength of analyzing the complex relations among multiple latent variables simultaneously, SEM

was employed to examine the relationship among trust in colleagues, teacher receptivity, and perceived outcomes of curriculum reform. In the model, teachers’ perception of trust in colleagues was used as the independent variables to predict directly their perceived outcomes of curriculum reform and the three independent variables of teacher receptivity: cost-benefit appraisal, practicality, and support in schools. Meanwhile, teachers’ behavioral intention to implement the reform was supposed to impact their perception of the outcomes of curriculum reform.

The SEM results showed this model was good to fit the data, and the standardized regression coefficients for all paths reached the level of statistical significance (see Figure 1). Specifically, the results indicated: trust in colleagues had high and positive impact on the three predictive variables of teacher receptivity; the three predictive variables of teacher receptivity had significant positive influence on teachers’ behavioral intention, and teachers’ cost-benefit appraisal was the most powerful predictor of their behavioral intention (β = .55, p < .01). Further, the three variables explained the vast majority of the variance in

Variable Group m sd fTrust in colleagues Urban 4.48 1.03 4.54*

Suburban 4.52 1.00Rural 4.70 0.99

Cost-benefit appraisal Urban 4.63 1.15 7.60**

Suburban 4.67 1.09Rural 4.93 1.00

Practicality Urban 4.45 1.07 5.72**

Suburban 4.32 1.04Rural 4.57 0.87

Support in schools Urban 4.10 0.99 4.14*

Suburban 4.12 0.95Rural 4.29 0.92

Behavioral intention Urban 4.52 1.08 5.05**

Suburban 4.51 1.01Rural 4.73 0.98

Perceived outcomes of curriculum reform

Urban 4.41 1.00 1.04

Suburban 4.33 0.94Rural 4.39 0.89

Note: * p<.05; ** p<.01; n for urban school teachers = 569; n for suburban school teachers = 498; n for rural school teachers = 296.

table 4Differences in teachers’ trust in colleagues, receptivity and perceived outcomes of curriculum reform among urban, suburban and rural school teachers


teachers’ behavioral intention, with the unexplainable residual of .03; the influence of teachers’ perception of trust in colleagues and their behavioral intention to implement the reform had moderate and positive impact on their perceived outcomes of curriculum reform, with the regression coefficients of .34 and .44, respectively.

discussioN

Teacher perceptions of trust, receptivity and outcomes of curriculum reform

This study was aimed at exploring the relationships among teachers’ trust in colleagues, receptivity and perceived outcomes of curriculum reform. In general, the results indicated that teachers positively evaluated trust in colleagues (M = 4.54, SD = 1.02) and the outcomes of the NCR, i.e., the perceived changes of teaching and learning in classrooms (M = 4.38, SD = 0.95). The analysis of teachers’ receptivity toward the NCR showed that although teachers had positive perceptions on the cost-benefit appraisal, practicality of the new curriculum reform, and behavioral intention to implement the reform, their score on support in schools was relatively low (M = 4.15, SD = 0.97).

The further analysis of differences led to three interesting findings. First, consistent grade differences between primary and secondary school teachers were found on each variable, that is, primary teachers had significantly higher scores on all subscales than secondary teachers. This result echoed the finding

that primary teachers are more positively receptive toward the NCR (Yin & Lee, 2008), reflecting the interpersonal interactions among primary teachers that are more frequent than secondary teachers, because the enhancement of trust relationship results from frequent and repeated interactions with others (Bryk & Schneider, 2002; Louis, 2007). As suggested by Hargreaves (1992), the compartmentalized organization in secondary schools, based on teaching subject departments, is more likely to cultivate the balkanized teacher culture rather than to facilitate cross-department teacher collaboration.

Secondly, significant gender differences were found on all variables except for practicality and behavior intention in the teacher receptivity scale. Of the other four variables, female teachers scored significantly higher than male teachers. This finding indicated that female teachers had warmer interpersonal relationships than male teachers and were more willing to accept the changes required by the imposed reform agenda, which was consistent with the findings of previous studies that female teachers are generally seen as warmer and more sociable than males (Eitzen & Zinn, 2000; Hull & Hull, 1988), and that females tend to be more obedient than males (Stake & Katz, 1982).

Thirdly, more interestingly, as to the differences of school location, although there was no significant difference between urban, suburban and rural school teachers on perceived outcomes of reform, rural school teachers were found to have significant higher scores on the other five variables than both urban and suburban teachers, but there was no significant

Cost-benefitappraisal

BehavioralintentionTrust in

colleagues Practicality

Supportin schools

Perceivedoutcomes

.76

.86

.90

.44

.20

.30.26

.25

.42.55

.03

.34

.42

figure 1. The impact of teachers’ trust in colleagues on their receptivity and perceived outcomes of curriculum reform

Note: n = 1366; χ2 = 3118.33; df = 426; p=.00; RMSEA = .069; NNFI = .97; CFI=.97


difference between urban and suburban teachers. These findings indicated that rural teachers are more willing to accept and engage in the NCR, and are more satisfied with the trust relations in colleagues. This interesting contrast echoed Abel and Sewell’s (1999) findings that urban teachers usually experience poor staff relations while rural teachers are more satisfied with the rapport among teachers, and have clearer perception of their moral-ethical self. Some recent studies of rural teachers in China have found that, compared with their counterparts in urban and suburban areas, rural teachers are seriously constrained by their poor working conditions and limited resources, but they make much effort to engage in collaborative activities such as peer observation and critique, joint lesson planning, and teacher research about teaching and learning (Sargent & Hannum, 2009). Teachers working in developing areas were found to hold constructivist educational beliefs - which are advocated by the NCR in China - to a higher extent than those working in developed areas (Sang, Valcke, van Braak, & Tondeur, 2009).

The function of teacher receptivity and the role of trust in curriculum reform

This study has attempted to reveal some aspects of the role of teacher receptivity and trust in curriculum reform. As to the function of teacher receptivity, the results of SEM suggested that the three independent variables in the teacher receptivity scale, i.e., cost benefit appraisal, practicality of the new curriculum, and support in schools, almost perfectly explained the variance in teachers’ behavioral intention (ζ=.03, see Figure 1). Meanwhile, teachers’ behavioral intention to implement the NCR, the dependent variable of teacher receptivity, could moderately and positively improve their perceived outcomes of curriculum reform. These findings were consistent with some researchers’ suggestion that teacher receptivity plays an important role in curriculum reform (Lee, 2000; Ma et al., 2009; Waugh, 2000).

Compared with other teacher receptivity research, the present study is characterized by the exploration of the impact of trust on teacher receptivity in a reform context. The results of SEM supported the positive impact of trust in colleagues on teacher receptivity and curriculum reform. It was manifested in the two aspects. First, trust in colleagues directly and positively influenced teachers’ perceived outcomes of curriculum reform (B = .44, p<.01). Secondly, trust in colleagues

directly facilitated, to a high extent, teachers’ perceptions of the cost-benefit appraisal related to the reform, the practicality of the new curriculum, and support in schools, and then indirectly improved teachers’ behavioral intention to implement the NCR. These results indicated that the trust relationship among teachers, one of the core organizational properties of school (Bryk & Schneider, 2002; Forsyth, Barnes, & Adams, 2006), was an important resource which can be relied on to facilitate teacher receptivity toward and the implementation process of curriculum reform.

So, how can we understand the role of trust in curriculum reform? The findings of the present study suggested that trust can be considered as both a “buffer of risk” and “catalyst of change” in curriculum reform. On the one hand, trust in colleagues could reduce teachers’ resistance to change by improving their perceptions of the cost- benefit appraisal, practicality and support in schools. On the other hand, trust in colleagues could indirectly enhance teachers’ behavioral intention to implement the reform, and encourage their risk-taking behavior or personal experiments during the change process, and increase the possibility of positive transformation in practice. In fact, the comparison of trust to a “buffer of risk” and a “catalyst of change” was also supported by some studies in the fields of organizational research. These studies suggested that trust was an important mechanism to reduce the complexity and uncertainties in social situations (Siegrist & Cvetkovich, 2000). The trust relationship among employees was a significant facilitator of their attitudes toward change (Butler, 1999). Interpersonal trust was the social catalyst for constructive employee attitudes, and could facilitate effective relationships and attitudes that impact on an organization (Ferres, Connell, & Travaglione, 2004).

Implications for the management of national Curriculum Reform in China

The results of this study lead to some implications for the management of the NCR in China. Firstly, as schools strive to change in response to the requirements of imposed systemic curriculum reform, reinforcement of the trust relationship among teachers provides an important way for change facilitators to help teachers ease the anxiety brought by the reform and to stimulate teachers to work together toward excellence. It is wise to assess the level of trust in teachers prior to initiating the reform, since if teachers do not trust each other, it will be difficult for them to accept the change agenda


proposed by outsiders, and they cannot work together effectively to bring about systemic change (Louis, 2007).

Secondly, in consideration of the characteristics of cultural context, the recognition of the role that relational trust plays in curriculum reform has great relevance for the reform management in mainland China. For a long time, Chinese culture has been featured by its Confucian traditions of valuing harmony and maintaining relationship (Hwang, 2001). Although a warm interpersonal relationship is assumed to be helpful for the development of trust, it might lead to superficial trust by covering the divergence of views on reform initiatives. Therefore, the leaders and facilitators of the NCR are suggested to be more cautious about the building of authentic trust relationship among teachers.

Thirdly, in order to improve teacher receptivity toward the NCR and to engage teachers more in the reform, policy-makers and school leaders should incorporate the building of mutual trust and shard values into the planning and management of the curriculum reform processes, since school improvement is only likely to occur in schools where risk-taking is encouraged within a climate of trust and support and where teachers are given the basis security of being trusted and valued (Troman, 2000).

Finally, the results of this study also highlight the importance of providing sufficient support to teachers engaged in curriculum reform, especially those working in rural schools in Southwest China. Constrained by limited resources, rural teachers’ scores on perceived curriculum reform do not have significant differences from urban and suburban teachers, though they experienced better trust relationships among colleagues and were more willing to accept the NCR. If they cannot receive sufficient support, the challenges of curriculum reform and poor working conditions will be more likely to aggregate rural teachers’ stress and burnout (Abel & Sewell, 1999). When teachers are considered as a whole, the relatively low score on the subscale of support in schools (M = 4.15, SD = 0.97) indicates that policy-makers and change facilitators need to provide more support to teachers and help them to cope with the challenges of reform. To be specific, the support includes facilitative school leadership as evidenced by principals’ strong support to the reform and solidarity among staff, humane administrative arrangement to elicit and relieve teachers’ concerns about the reform, effective teacher development

programs with clear guidance to their teaching practice, and supportive environment with parents’ endorsement of the reform agendas (Ma et al., 2009; Sargent & Hannum, 2009).

In summary, the present study is a preliminary exploration of the role of trust and teacher receptivity in systemic curriculum reform. Although the positive role of trust in colleagues in facilitating teacher receptivity was examined, trust among teachers is only one aspect of faculty trust (Hoy et al., 2006). Future research needs to consider other aspects of faculty trust in school, including trust in principals and trust in clients (students and parents) and the influence of the whole faculty trust on teacher receptivity and change process. Furthermore, future research is also suggested to use some qualitative methods to examine the role of trust and teacher receptivity in curriculum reform.

ackNowledGemeNt

This study is based on the research project of “Teachers’ Adaptation to the New Curriculum Reform of Basic Education” sponsored by the Ministry of Education, P. R. China (Grant No.: 06JA880055).

refereNces

Abel, M. H., & Sewell, J. (1999). Stress and burnout in rural and urban secondary school teachers. Journal of Educational Research, 92(5), 287-293.

Ajzen, I. (1988). Attitudes, personality and behavior. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.

Borevskaya, N. Y. (1997). The role of the state in educational reform in the People’s Republic of China. In W. K. Cummins & P. G. Altbach (Eds.), The challenges of Eastern Asian education (pp.265-274). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

Bryk, A., & Schneider, B. (2002). Trust in schools: A core resource for improvement. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.

Butler, J. K. (1999). Trust expectations, information sharing, climate of trust, and negotiation effectiveness and efficiency. Group and Organization Management, 24(2), 217-238.

Eitzen, D. S., & Zinn, M. B. (2000). Social problems (8th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Ferres, N., Connell, J., & Travaglione, A. (2004). Co-worker trust as a social catalyst for constructive employee attitudes. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 19(6), 608-622.


Fisler, J. L., & Firestone, W. A. (2006). Teacher learning in a school-university partnership: Exploring the role of social trust and teaching efficacy beliefs. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1155-1185.

Forsyth, P. B., Barnes, L. L. B., & Adams, C. M. (2006). Trust-effectiveness patterns in schools. Journal of Educational Administration, 44(2), 122-141.

Fullan, M. (2007). The new meaning of educational change (4th ed.). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Goddard, R. D., Tschannen-Moran, M., & Hoy, W. K. (2001). A multilevel examination of the distribution and effects of teacher trust in students and parents in urban elementary schools. The Elementary School Journal, 102(1), 3-17.

Graham, J. W., Cumsille, P. E., & Elek-Fisk, E. (2003). Methods for handling missing data. In I. B. Weiner, J. A. Schinka, and W. F. Velicer (Eds.), Handbook of psychology: Vol. 2. Research methods in psychology (pp.87-114). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.

Hargreaves, A. (1992). Cultures of teaching: A focus for change. In A. Hargreaves & M. Fullan (Eds.), Understanding teacher development (pp.216-240). New York, NY: Teacher College Press.

Hargreaves, A. (2002). Teaching and betrayal. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 8(3/4), 393-407.

Hau, K. T., Wen, Z., & Cheng, Z. (2004). Structural equation model and its application [In Chinese]. Beijing, China: Educational Science Press.

Hoy, W. K., Gage, C. Q., & Tarter, C. J. (2006). School mindfulness and faculty trust: Necessary conditions for each other? Educational Administration Quarterly, 42(2), 236-255.

Hoy, W., & Tschannen-Moran, M. (1999). Five faces of trust: An empirical confirmation in urban elementary schools. Journal of School Leadership, 9(3), 184-208.

Huang, F. (2004). Curriculum reform in contemporary China: Seven goals and six strategies. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 36(1), 101-115.

Hull, D. B., & Hull, J. H. (1988). Effects of lecture style on learning and preferences for a teacher. Sex Roles, 18(7/8), 489-496.

Hwang, K.-K. (2001). The deep structure of Confucianism: A social psychological approach. Asian Philosophy, 11(3), 179-204.

Joreskog, K. G., & Sorbom, D. (1998). LISREL 8: Structural equation modeling with the SIMPLIS command language. Chicago, IL: Scientific Software International.

Lee, J. C. K. (1998). Primary teachers’ receptivity to curriculum reform in Hong Kong: The comparison between target-oriented curriculum and general studies. Curriculum Forum, 7(2), 71-83.

Lee, J. C. K. (2000). Teacher receptivity to curriculum change in the implementation stage: The case of environmental education in Hong Kong. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 32(1), 95-115.

Lee, J. C. K., Loc, N., So, K., Subramanism, R., Yen, P., & Yin, H. (in press). Curriculum and assessment. In Y. Zhao (Ed.), Handbook of Asian education: A cultural perspective. New York, NY: Routledge.

Li, Y., & Liu, H. (2007). Developing a questionnaire for trust of students in teachers [In Chinese]. Psychological Development and Education, 4, 88-94.

Louis, K. S. (2007). Trust and improvement in schools. Journal of Educational Change, 8(1), 1-24.

Ma, Y., Yin, H., Tang, L., & Liu, L. (2009). Teacher receptivity to system-wide curriculum reform in the initiation stage: A Chinese perspective. Asia Pacific Education Review, 10(3), 423-432.

Ministry of Education, PRC. (2001). Compendium for curriculum reform of basic education (Experimental draft) [In Chinese]. (BMoE Document No.: [2001]17). Beijing: Author.

Moroz, R., & Waugh, R. F. (2000). Teacher receptivity to system-wide educational change. Journal of Educational Administration, 38(2), 159-178.

Ponticell, J. A. (2003). Enhancers and inhibitors of teacher risk taking: A case study. Peabody Journal of Education, 78(3), 5-24.

Research Team. (2004). Senior secondary teachers’ expectation and hesitation: A report on the preparation of senior secondary curriculum reform in Shandong Province [In Chinese]. Contemporary Educational Science, 20, 17-20.

Rus, A., & Iglič, H. (2005). Trust, governance and performance: The role of institutional and interpersonal trust in SME development. International Sociology, 20(3), 371-391.

Sang, G., Valcke, M., van Braak, J., & Tondeur, J. (2009). Investigating teachers’ educational beliefs in Chinese primary schools: Socioeconomic and geographical perspectives. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 37(3), 363-377.

Sargent, T. C., & Hannum, E. (2009). Doing more with less: Teacher professional learning communities in resource-constrained primary schools in rural China. Journal of Teacher Education, 60(3), 258-276.

Shuai, F., & Li, C. (2009). An investigation on secondary teachers’ receptivity toward the new curriculum reform [In Chinese]. Global Education, 38(4), 8-14. (in Chinese)

Siegrist, M., & Cvetkovich, G. (2000). Perception of hazards: The role of social trust and knowledge. Risk Analysis, 20(5), 713-719.

Stake, J. E., & Katz, J. F. (1982). Teacher-pupil relationships in the elementary school classroom: Teacher-gender and pupil-gender differences. American Educational Research Journal, 19(3), 465-471.

Thorsen-Spano, L. (1996). A school conflict resolution program: Relationships among teacher attitude,


program implementation, and job satisfaction. School Counselor, 44(1), 19-27.

Troman, G. (2000). Teacher stress in low-trust society. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 21(3), 331-353.

Tschannen-Moran, M. (2001). Collaboration and the need for trust. Journal of Educational Administration, 39(4), 308-331.

Tschannen-Moran, M. & Hoy, W. (1998). Trust in schools: A conceptual and empirical analysis. Journal of Educational Administration, 36(4), 334-352.

Tschannen-Moran, M., & Hoy, W. K. (2000) A multidisciplinary analysis of the nature, meaning, and measurement of trust. Review of Educational Research, 70(4), 547-593.

Waugh, R. F. (2000). Towards a model of teacher receptivity to planned system-wide educational change in a

centrally controlled system. Journal of Educational Administration, 38(4), 350-367.

Waugh, R. F., & Godfrey, J. (1993). Teacher receptivity to system-wide change in the implementation stage. British Education Research Journal, 19(5), 565-578.

Waugh, R. F., & Punch, K. F. (1987) Teacher receptivity to system-wide change in the implementation stage. Review of Educational Research, 57(3), 237-254.

Yin, H., & Lee, C. K. (2008). Curriculum change: Theory and practice [In Chinese]. Taipei, Taiwan: Higher Education Press.

Yin, H., Jin, Y., & Ma, Y. (2008). The structural equation model of teacher receptivity [In Chinese]. Educational Research and Experiment, 3, 62-66.

Zhong, Q. (2006). Curriculum reform in China: Challenges and reflections. Frontiers of Education in China, 1(3), 370-382.


appeNdix

the questionnaire used in this study

Trust in colleaguesTeachers in this school typically look out for each other.1. Even in difficult situations, teachers in this school can depend on each other.2. Teachers in this school have faith in the integrity of their colleagues.3. Teachers in this school do their jobs well.4. Teachers in this school are open with each other.5.

Cost benefit appraisalIn weighing up the balance between the work generated for me by the NCR and my satisfaction with teaching, I 1. think the reform is worthwhile.In weighing up the balance between the work generated for me by the NCR and its strength of cultivating students’ 2. independent learning, I think the reform is worthwhile.In weighing up the balance between the work generated for me by the NCR and its potential to develop students’ 3. multiple competencies, I think the reform is worthwhile.In weighing up the balance between the work generated for me by the NCR and its strength to promote quality-4. oriented education, I think the reform is worthwhile.In weighing up the balance between the work generated for me by the NCR and its potential to improve my teaching 5. ability, I think the reform is worthwhile.

Practicality of the new curriculumThe principles advocated by the NCR reflect my educational philosophy.1. The teaching approaches suggested by the NCR suit my classroom teaching style.2. The strategies of student assessment suggested by the NCR can be realized in my classroom context.3.

Support in schoolsThere are regular meetings at which I can raise my worries and doubts about the implementation of the NCR.1. Whenever there are problems of implementing the NCR, there is an experienced teacher whom I can ask for 2. advice.There are regular school-based training programs at which I can learn how to implement the NCR.3. At school meetings, the principal makes comments emphasizing the importance of implementing the NCR in this 4. school.The majority of parents in this school support the implementation of NCR in this school.5. The policies issued by the educational administration section create good environment for implementing the NCR 6. in this school.

Behavioral intention to implement the curriculum reformI will actively and openly support the implementation of the NCR in this school.1. I will agree with the arrangement of implementing the NCR in this school.2. I will propose the implementation of NCR in my behavior and communication with other teachers.3. I will tell my colleagues that the NCR is feasible to be implemented in this school.4.

Perceived outcomes of curriculum reformAfter the implementation of the NCR, the new learning approaches, such as self-regulated learning, cooperative 1. learning and inquiry learning, are used in the current classroom activities.The content of the new textbooks emphasizes the connection with students’ life experiences.2. The implementation of the NCR facilitates the development of students’ ability in searching and organizing 3. information.The implementation of the NCR improves students’ ability of communication and cooperation.4. After the implementation of the NCR, the classroom teaching pays close attention to students’ individual 5. differences.The content of the new textbooks takes care of students’ learning interests.6. After the implementation of the NCR, teachers actively interact with students in classroom.7. The application of information technology into classroom improves the interactions between teachers and students 8. in teaching.

Teacher receptivity to curriculum reform and the need for trust: An exploratory study from Southwest...

Documents

Transcript of Teacher receptivity to curriculum reform and the need for trust: An exploratory study from Southwest...