Pohľady učiteľov na slovenskú reformu školstva a svoje miesto v nej

The study analyzes the implementation processes of Slovak curriculum reform and its consequences at the school mezzo level. The study assumes theoretical scopes of the foreign authors who realized successful school reforms and stated the order of the reform steps. It was compared with the situation in Slovakia. The paper analyzes the research findings of Faculty of Education UMB with the aim focusing on teachers’ perception of the curriculum reform processes, their approaches towards reform, their acceptance rate of the actual curriculum, their comprehension and interpretation of the reform changes and their experiences from the real implementation processes. The research methodology was conceived qualitatively and quantitatively. The quantitative methodology (the questionnaire IKR-2014 with a four-point Likert scale involved 954 teachers from 63 schools) was combined with qualitative methodology through content analyses of half-structured interviews with 25 teachers from five involved schools. Two groups of respondents were formed during the research − the group of teachers supporting the reform and the group of teachers refusing it. The searching for possible factors that caused reform rejection followed the comparison of these groups. The teachers rejecting further reforming changes showed negative approaches and opinions in almost all monitored research items, but it did not show that any factor was significantly dominant. Empirical results supported by qualitative analysis more likely proved that negative approaches were largely influenced by directive, unmanaged, hectic and formal implementation process of reform. This caused the negligence and mischief of the teachers, and their misunderstanding of meaningful reform changes. It led to teachers’ unwillingness to make such changes and take the responsibility for reform, and teachers did not feel like active developers as well.

1. Anderson, R. D. (1995). Curriculum reform: Dilemmas and promise. Phi Delta Kappa International Stable, 77(1), 33–36.

2. Brundrett, M., & Duncan, D. (2011). Leading curriculum innovation in primary schools. Management in Education, 2(3), 119–124. CrossRef

3. Eurydice. (2008). Levels of autonomy and responsibilities of teachers in Europe. Brussels: Eurydice.

4. Fronstenson, M. (2015). Three forms of professional autonomy: de-professionalisation of teachers in a new light. NordSTEP, 8(1), 20–29.

5. Fullan, M. (2007). The new meaning of educational change. New York: Teachers College Press.

6. Fullan, M. (2010). The big ideas behind whole system reform. Education Canada, 50(3), 24–27. Dostupné z http://michaelfullan.ca/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/13396082070.pdf

7. Halbert, J., & Macphail, A. (2010). Curriculum dissemination and implementation in Ireland: principal and teacher insight. Irish Educational Studies, 29(1), 25–40. CrossRef

8. Hargreaves, A. (1991). Curriculum reform and the teacher, The Curriculum Journal, 2(3), 249–258. CrossRef

9. Cheng, Y. Ch. (1994). Effectiveness of curriculum change in school: An organizational perspective. International Journal of Educational Management, 8(3), 26–34. CrossRef

10. Cheung, A. C. K., & Wong, P. M. (2011). Effects of school heads' and teachers' agreement with the curriculum reform on curriculum development progress and student learning in Hong Kong. Journal of Educational Management, 25(5), 453–473. CrossRef

11. Kosová, B., & Porubský Š. (2011a). The development and transformation of the school system in the Slovak Republic after the fall of the totalitarian regime from the aspects of educational policy, educational practice at the level of Primary Schools, and University Preparation of Teachers. The New Educational Review, 23(1), 19–34.

12. Kosová, B., & Porubský, Š. (2011b). Transformačné premeny slovenského školstva po roku 1989. Banská Bystrica: Pedagogická fakulta UMB.

13. McCormick, J., Ayres,P. L., & Beechey, B. (2006). Teaching self-efficacy, stress and coping in a major curriculum reform. Journal of Educational Administration, 44(1), 53–70. CrossRef

14. Mutch, C. (2012). Curriculum change and teacher resistance. Curriculum Matters, 8(1), 1–8.

15. Ng, S. W. (2009). Why did principals and teachers respond differently to curriculum reform? Teacher Development: An International Journal of Teachers' Professional Development, 13(3), 187–203.

16. Poliach, V. (2016) Výskumný dotazník IKR2014 z perspektívy získaných dát. Banská Bystrica: Belianum.

17. Porubský, Š., Kosová, B., Doušková, A., Trnka, M., Poliach V., Fridrichová, P., … Simanová, L. (2014). Škola a kurikulum. Transformácia v slovenskom kontexte. Banská Bystrica: Belianum.

18. Porubský, Š., Kosová, B., Doušková, A., Trnka, M., Poliach V., Fridrichová, P., … Simanová, L. (2016). Kurikulum základnej školy očami učiteľov (empirické zistenia). Banská Bystrica: Belianum.

19. Priestley, M. (2011). Schools, teachers, and curriculum change: A balancing act? Journal of Educational Change, 12(1), 1–23. CrossRef

20. Woodbury, S., & Gess-Newsome, J. (2002). Overcoming the paradox of change without difference: A model of change in the arena of fundamental school reform. Educational Policy, 16(5), 763–782. CrossRef

21. Wu, S. M. (2015). Development and application of the measures of school value, teacher autonomy, and teacher motivation. The New Educational Review, 39(1), 240–250.