A Multiple Case Study of English Teachers' Use of Curriculum Resources During the Covid-19 Pandemic

Abstract

Despite new challenges in selecting and using curriculum resources during the COVID-19 pandemic, teachers continued to use existing resources published by the ministry or global textbooks. Understanding how teachers use curriculum resources is necessary for designing more effective curricula and drawing lessons for professional development. This study investigates how high school English teachers used curriculum resources during COVID-19. Following maximum variation sampling, we used a holistic multiple-case design with six volunteer experienced English teachers from four different types of schools in Izmir. As recommended for case studies, classroom observations, document reviews, and semi-structured interviews were conducted. The data were analyzed by using theoretical thematic analysis. The findings reveal that teachers mostly favored the offloading approach in the use of curriculum resources in synchronous online and face-to-face teaching, and the second most frequently used approach is adaptation during the pandemic period. Omitting and improvising were the least preferred approaches. When the synchronous online and face-to-face lessons are compared, the approaches to using curricular resources appear to be broadly similar. In other words, the approaches to using curriculum resources did not change much during synchronous online and face-to-face lessons. The curricular resources are tried to be used by offloading so that the students do not experience learning losses, and adaptations are made by using web 2.0 tools and various digital resources.

Keywords

• Curriculum resources
• COVID-19 pandemic
• Teacher-curriculum interaction
• Use of curriculum resources

Kovid-19 Küresel Salgını Sırasında İngilizce Öğretmenlerinin Program Kaynaklarını Kullanımına İlişkin Çoklu Durum Çalışması

Öz

References

1. Arias, A. M., Davis, E. A., Marino, J. C., Kademian, S. M., & Palincsar, A. S. (2016). Teachers’ use of educative curriculum materials to engage students in science practices. International Journal of Science Education, 9(38), 1504-1526. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2016.1198059
2. Atmojo, A. E. P., & Nugroho, A. (2020). EFL classes must go online! Teaching activities and challenges during COVID-19 pandemic in Indonesia. Register Journal, 13(1), 49-76.
3. Başaran, M., Doğan, E., Karaoğlu, E., & Şahi̇n, E. (2020). Koronavirüs (Kovid-19) pandemi sürecinin getirisi olan uzaktan eğitimin etkililiği üzerine bir çalışma. Academia Eğitim Araştırmaları Dergisi, 2(5), 368-397.
4. Bingölbali, F., Gören, A. E., & Arslan, S. (2016). Matematik öğretmenlerinin ders kitaplarını okuma düzeyleri: Öğretim programının hedefleri doğrultusunda bir inceleme. Türk Bilgisayar ve Matematik Eğitimi Dergisi, 7(2), 460-485.
5. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
6. Brown, M. W. (2009). The teacher-tool relationship. In J. T. Remillard, B. A. Herbel-Eisenmann, & G. M. Lloyd (Eds.), Mathematics teachers at work: Connecting curriculum materials and classroom instruction (pp. 17-36). Routledge.
7. Brown, M. W., & Edelson, D. C. (2003). Teaching as design: Can we better understand the ways in which teachers use materials so we can better design materials to support changes in practice? Center for Learning Technologies in Urban Schools, Northwestern University.
8. Burkhauser, M. A., & Lesaux, N. K. (2017). Exercising a bounded autonomy: Novice and experienced teachers’ adaptations to curriculum materials in an age of accountability. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 49(3), 291–312. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220272.2015.1088065

9. Bümen, N. T., & Holmqvist, M. (2022). Teachers’ sense-making and adapting of the national curriculum: a multiple case study in Turkish and Swedish contexts. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 54(6), 832-851. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220272.2022.2121178
10. Can, E. (2020). Coronavirüs (Kovid-19) pandemisi ve pedagojik yansımaları: Türkiye’de açık ve uzaktan eğitim uygulamaları. Açıköğretim Uygulamaları ve Araştırmaları Dergisi, 6(2), 11-53.
11. Chong, S. W. (2016). Pedagogical design capacity and underlying knowledge base of curriculum materials use of a Hong Kong English teacher. English Language Teaching, 9(5), 85-97. https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v9n5p85 Coolican, M., Borras, J. C., & Strong, M. (2020). Argentina and the COVID-19: Lessons learned from education and technical colleges in Buenos Aires Province. Journal of Education for Teaching. 46(4), 484-496. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/02607476.2020.1802204
12. Creswell, J. W. (2013). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. USA: Sage.
13. Çeliker Ercan, G. (2019). Ortaokul İngilizce öğretmenlerinin program uygulama yaklaşımlarının öğrencilerin motivasyonlarına ve akademik başarılarına etkisi. (The effect of secondary school English teachers' curriculum implementation approaches on students' motivation and academic achievement) (Thesis no: 557339) [Doctoral dissertation, Eskişehir Osmangazi Üniversitesi] Retrieved from http://tez.yok.gov.tr
14. Çeliker-Ercan, G., & Çubukçu, Z. (2023). Curriculum implementation approaches of secondary school English teachers: A case study. Kastamonu Education Journal, 31(3), 347-366. https://doi.org/10.24106/ KEFDERGI-2021-0006
15. Çoban, Z. (2001). Experienced and novice English language teachers’ use of textbook adaptation strategies at Gazi University. (Thesis No: 103697) [Master thesis, Bilkent University]. Turkish Council of Higher Education Theses Center.
16. Danışman, Ş. (2019). Examining mathematics teachers’ use of curriculum and textbook. International Journal of Psychology and Educational Studies, 6(3), 61‐72.
17. Davis, E. A., Janssen, F. J. J. M., & Van Driel, J. H. (2016). Teachers and science curriculum materials: Where we are and where we need to go. Studies in Science Education, 52(2), 127-160. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057267.2016.1161701
18. Demirkol, T. (2022). Challenges of providing learners with scaffolding during synchronous online EFL teaching. Journal of Theoretical Educational Science, 15(2), 287-306. https://doi.org/10.30831/akukeg.994322
19. Eşici, H., Ayaz, A., Yetim, D., Yastı, S. Ç., & Bedir, N. (2021). Teachers in COVID-19 period: Psychological effects, practices and career needs. Turkish Journal of Education, 10(2), 157-177. https://doi.org/10.19128/turje.855185 Fogo, B., Reisman, A., & Breakstone, J. (2019). Teacher adaptation of document-based history curricula: results of the Reading Like a Historian curriculum-use survey. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 51(1), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220272.2018.1550586
20. Gao, L. X., & Zhang, L. J. (2020). Teacher learning in difficult times: Examining foreign language teachers’ cognitions about online teaching to tide over COVID-19. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 549-653. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.549653
21. Hebebci, M. T., Bertiz, Y., & Alan, S. (2020). Investigation of views of students and teachers on distance education practices during the Coronavirus (COVID-19) Pandemic. International Journal of Technology in Education and Science (IJTES), 4(4), 267-282.
22. Li, Z., & Harfitt, G. J. (2017). An examination of language teachers’ enactment of curriculum materials in the context of a centralised curriculum. Pedagogy, Culture & Society, 25(3), 403-416. https://doi.org/10.1080/14681366.2016.1270987
23. Li, Z., & Harfitt, G. J. (2018). Understanding language teachers’ enactment of content through the use of centralized curriculum materials. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 46(5), 461–477. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359866X.2017.1351918
24. Li, Z., (2020). Disentangling teachers’ enactment of materials: A case study of two language teachers in higher education in China. Pedagogy, Culture & Society, 29(3), 449-468. https://doi.org/10.1080/14681366.2020.1750050
25. Ma, K., Chutiyami, M., & Zhang, Y. (2021). Online teaching self-efficacy during COVID-19: Changes, its associated factors and moderators. Education and Information Technologies, 26, 6675–6697. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-021-10486-3
26. Marco‐Bujosa, L. M., McNeill, K. L., González‐Howard, M., & Loper, S. (2017). An exploration of teacher learning from an educative reform‐oriented science curriculum: Case studies of teacher curriculum use. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 54(2), 141-168.
27. Mede, E., & Yalçın, S. (2019). Utilizing textbook adaptation strategies: experiences and challenges of novice and experienced efl ınstructors. TESOL International Journal, 14(1), 91-104.
28. Mustangin, M., & Riswanto, B. (2020). The challenges and opportunities; CIPP model for valuation for TEFL following the COVID -19 pandemic. Jurnal Teknologi dan Bisnis. 2(1), 29-39.
29. Nicol, C. C., & Crespo, S. M. (2005). Exploring mathematics in imaginative places: Rethinking what counts as meaningful contexts for learning mathematics. School Science and Mathematics. 105(5), 240-251. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1949-8594.2005.tb18164.x
30. Nicol, C. C., & Crespo, S. M. (2006). Learning to teach with mathematics textbooks: How preservice teachers interpret and use curriculum materials. Educational studies in mathematics, 62(3), 331-355.
31. Orhan, G., & Beyhan, Ö. (2020). Teachers’ perceptions and teaching experiences on distance education through synchronous video conferencing during Covid-19 pandemic. Social Sciences and Education Research Review, 7(1), 8-44.
32. Öztürk, E. (2019). Ortaöğretim 9. sınıf ingilizce öğretim program kazanımlarının ve 9. sınıf ingilizce ders kitabı etkinliklerinin yenilenmiş bloom taksonomisine göre değerlendirilmesi. (Thesis No: 594478) [Master thesis, Gazi Üniversitesi]. Turkish Council of Higher Education Theses Center.
33. Peretz, B. M. (1990). The teacher–curriculum encounter: Freeing teachers from the tyranny of texts. State University of New York Press. https://doi.org/10.1177/027046769201200273
34. Rathert, S., & Cabaroğlu, N. (2021). Teachers as slaves or masters to their coursebooks: An in-depth study on two English language teachers’ coursebook utilization. Language Teaching Research, https://doi.org/10.1177/13621688211036239
35. Rathert, S., & Cabaroğlu, N. (2022). Theorising textbook adaptation in English language teaching. Center for Educational Policy Studies Journal. 12(2), 169-188. https://doi.org/10.26529/cepsj.1287
36. Reisman, A., & Fogo, B. (2016). Contributions of educative document-based curricular materials to quality of historical ınstruction. Teaching and Teacher Education, 59, 191–202. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2016.05.018
37. Remillard, J. T. (2005). Examining key concepts in research on teachers’ use of mathematics curricula. Review of Educational Research, 75(2), 211–246.
38. Remillard, J. T. (2018). Mapping the relationship between written and enacted curriculum: examining teachers’ decision making. In G. Kaiser (Ed.), Invited lectures from the 13th International Congress on Mathematical Education, (pp.483–500). Springer.
39. Remillard, J. T. (2019). Teachers’ use of mathematics resources: A look across cultural boundaries. In L. Trouche, G. Gueudet, & B. Pepin (Eds.), The ‘Resource’ approach to mathematics education (pp. 175–194). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-20393-1_8
40. Remillard, J. T., Harris, B., & Agodini, R. (2014). The influence of curriculum material design on opportunities for student learning. ZDM, The International Journal on Mathematics Education. 46(5), 735–749.
41. Shaıkh, G., & Özdaş, F. (2022). Uzaktan eğitim sürecinde ingilizce öğretmenlerinin görüşlerinin değerlendirilmesi: Nitel bir analiz. Academia Eğitim Araştırmaları Dergisi, 7(1), 59-91. https://doi.org/10.53506/egitim.1056035
42. Shawer, S. F. (2010). Classroom-level curriculum development: EFL teachers as curriculum-developers, curriculum-makers and curriculum-transmitters. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26(2), 173–184. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2009.03.015
43. Shawer, S. (2017). Teacher-driven curriculum development at the classroom level: Implications for curriculum, pedagogy and teacher training. Teaching and Teacher Education. 63, 296-313. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2016.12.017
44. Tomlinson, B. (2012). Materials development for language learning and teaching. Language Teaching, 45(2), 143-179. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444811000528
45. Tsui, A. (2003). Understanding expertise in teaching: Case studies of ESL teachers. Cambridge Press. Tuzcu Eken, D. (2021). Evaluation of an English course in a distance education program. Mehmet Akif Ersoy Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 59, 110-135. Retrieved from https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/maeuefd/issue/64363/791099
46. Ulusoy, F., & İncikabi, L. (2020). Middle school teachers’ use of compulsory textbooks in instruction of mathematics. International Journal for Mathematics Teaching and Learning. 21(1), 1-18.
47. Valencia, S. W., Place, N. A., Martin, S. D., & Grossman, P. L. (2006). Curriculum materials for elementary reading: Shackles and scaffolds for four beginning teachers. Elementary School Journal, 107(1), 93-120.
48. Wadheefa, A., & Tee, M. Y. (2020a). Teachers’ use of currıculum: A review of literature. Jurnal Kurikulum & Pengajaran Asia Pasifik. 8(3), 39-48.
49. Wadheefa, A., & Tee, M.Y. (2020b). Teacher tool relationship of Maldivian ESL teachers: A multiple case study. Journal of International and Comparative Education, 9(1), 1-13.
50. Yıldırım, A., & Şimşek, H. (2016). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri. Seçkin Yayınevi. Yin, R.K. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods (4th ed.). Sage.