A Study of University Teachers’ Enactment of Curriculum Reform in China

Abstract

This article documents an ongoing study of educational policy enactment in a Chinese university. Drawing upon data collected through document analysis, semi-structured interviews and classroom observations, this paper argues that the enactment of China's systemic College English curriculum reform is not a matter of simple implementation but the result of a more complex process which may change the original reform intention. It suggests that the enactment of centralised reform is mediated through an interplay of forces and challenges and that the major impetus for how teachers make sense of and enact reform relates more to the strength of their current values and practices and students' feedback, rather than the power of external initiatives. Without localised management, curriculum reform itself is, therefore, insufficient to ensure change in practice.

Teacher professionalism: Chinese teachers' perspectives

“…Whilst the nature of professionalism was a contentious issue related to perceptions of erosion of professional autonomy, identity and agency in the Australian study (Simpson et al, 2022), these Chinese teachers did not express the same degree of negativity. Although recognised by Chinese researchers in other studies as relevant to teachers' work (Mu, 2014;Tan, 2016;Yu, 2015), the responses of 14 of the 17 participants lacked any suggestion that autonomy, regarded as under threat in discussions of professionalism in the Australian research (Simpson et al, 2018;Groundwater-Smith and Mockler, 2015), was an important factor in their sense of professionalism. Perhaps this is because of cultural inheritance that emphasises the teachers' duty to prepare their students to achieve high academic standards and developing their good character, "for the maintenance of harmonious relations with family and community" (Lo, 2019, pp.…”

“…, 2022), these Chinese teachers did not express the same degree of negativity. Although recognised by Chinese researchers in other studies as relevant to teachers' work (Mu, 2014; Tan, 2016; Yu, 2015), the responses of 14 of the 17 participants lacked any suggestion that autonomy, regarded as under threat in discussions of professionalism in the Australian research (Simpson et al. , 2018; Groundwater-Smith and Mockler, 2015), was an important factor in their sense of professionalism.…”

“…Frostenson's (2015) framework established the potential teachers have of displaying: general professional autonomy [contributing to decisions made by organisations]; collegial professional autonomy [contributing to decisions made in schools]; and individual professional autonomy [making decisions in their classroom practices]. In a paper comparing definitions of autonomy adopted by researchers in studies of teachers' work set in China and other contexts (Simpson et al, 2018), noted the common operationalisation of the term as referring to teachers' freedom to actively make strategic professional judgements within macro, meso and micro system boundaries (Mu, 2014;Tan, 2016;Yu, 2015). This socioculturally informed representation of autonomy has been supported recently by other scholars emphasising how teachers' understandings and practices of autonomy vary according to the influence of cultural, governmental and situated school contexts (Salokanagas and Wermke, 2020).…”

“…In a paper comparing definitions of autonomy adopted by researchers in studies of teachers' work set in China and other contexts (Simpson et al. , 2018), noted the common operationalisation of the term as referring to teachers' freedom to actively make strategic professional judgements within macro, meso and micro system boundaries (Mu, 2014; Tan, 2016; Yu, 2015). This socio-culturally informed representation of autonomy has been supported recently by other scholars emphasising how teachers' understandings and practices of autonomy vary according to the influence of cultural, governmental and situated school contexts (Salokanagas and Wermke, 2020).…”

Middle School Teachers' Use of Compulsory Textbooks in Instruction of Mathematics

“…These results can inform policymakers about the negative effects that the top-down educational reforms implemented in Turkey have had on the teachers' textbook use and learners' reactions and reveal the necessity of systematic educational reforms. We believe that it is crucial to close the gaps between the intended policies (topdown reformations) and the implemented policies (teachers' pedagogical practices) since the top-down policies failed to stimulate a change in the teachers' practice and beliefs (e.g., Yu, 2015).…”