TEACHERS’ CURRICULUM DECISION-MAKING IN THE CONTEXT OF THE
DECENTRALIZATION OF CURRICULUM POLICY: THE CASE OF KOREAN MIDDLE
SCHOOL TEACHERS

By
Sunhee Paik

A DISSERTATION
Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for
the degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Curriculum, Teaching, and Educational Policy
2011

ABSTRACT
TEACHERS’ CURRICULUM DECISION-MAKING IN THE CONTEXT OF THE
DECENTRALIZATION OF CURRICULUM POLICY: THE CASE OF KOREAN MIDDLE
SCHOOL TEACHERS
By
Sunhee Paik

Based on a survey of Korean middle school teachers, this dissertation study examines the
current state of Korean middle school teachers’ curriculum decision-making and factors related
to these decisions. The literature review suggests that teachers generally make four types of
curriculum decisions (content to teach, instructional strategies, time allocation for units, and
sequence units). Factors related to their perception of control over these decisions include their
attention to curriculum materials, their beliefs about curriculum materials, their knowledge, and
collaboration with peer teachers.
The results indicated that teachers perceived high control over instructional strategies while
they perceived only little control over content to teach. Teachers who taught test-related subjects
(mathematics, language arts, English, social studies, and science) were likely to show less
perceived control over content to teach than their peers who taught nontest-related subjects.
Teachers’ attention to curriculum materials rarely showed remarkable relationship to their
perception of curriculum control, but teachers’ positive beliefs about curriculum materials,
teacher knowledge and collaboration with peer teachers were all associated with teachers’
perception of curriculum control. Particularly, content and pedagogical knowledge were
associated with more perceived control over instructional strategies, but teacher knowledge about
how to use curriculum materials did not show significant relationship to teachers’ perception of

curriculum control. Collaborating with peer teachers also was associated with increased teachers’
perception of curriculum control, but interestingly collaboration for curriculum decision-making
did not show significant relationship to their perception. This study provides basic and general
information about teachers’ curriculum decision-making, and allows policy makers and
education researchers to understand what should be done in order to encourage teachers to take
more responsibilities for curriculum decision-making.

Copyright by
SUNHEE PAIK
2011

This dissertation is dedicated to my parents,
Hak Jin Back and Il Soon Kim
for their unconditional love and support,
which has given me the confidence to face the world

v

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
First of all, I would like to express my deepest gratitude to my dissertation committee chair
and advisor, Dr. Mary Kennedy. I was a very lucky graduate student to have her as an advisor,
mentor, and teacher. She was patient with me as I found my way, but never said I was wrong. I
really appreciate her considerate guidance and tolerance over the last five years.
I also would like to thank my dissertation committee, Dr. Richard Houang, Dr. Robert
Floden, and Dr. Melinda Mangin. They encouraged me to make progress, gave me interesting but
sometimes challenging questions, and motivated to develop my ideas. I discovered research
topics for my dissertation during Melinda’s class, and she has supported me academically and
personally. While I had been working with Dr. Floden and Dr. Houang, they asked numerous
useful and challenging questions that helped me develop research topics for my dissertation.
Richard helped me develop the proposal, guided me in conducting the survey and analyzing the
data. Even during his business trip, he was willing to help me. I really appreciate his time and
effort to support me these last two years.
From pilot studies to final survey, many teachers completed the questionnaires and some of
them contacted me with feedback about the survey questionnaire and to ask questions about my
research topics. Though I asked the teachers to complete the survey during the busiest time in
their academic year, they carefully completed the questionnaire. I could not have completed this
long hard process without their participation. I really appreciate their time and effort.
If I did not have the support of my dear friends in WRAPS, I would have had a much harder
time in reaching my goal. They gave me helpful and valuable academic advice and helped me
figure out how to face a different culture and language.
My parents have always been great supporters with encouraging words and open warm

vi

hearts. This dissertation is dedicated to my parents.

vii

TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES .......................................................................................................................... x
LIST OF FIGURES ...................................................................................................................... xii

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................... 1
The Decentralization of Curriculum Policy in South Korea ................................................... 1
Problem Statement ................................................................................................................... 2
Purpose of the Study ................................................................................................................ 5
Significance of the Study ......................................................................................................... 6
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW ........................................................................................ 8
Teachers’ Curriculum Decision-Making .................................................................................. 9
Curriculum Materials Influence Teachers’ Curriculum Decision-Making ............................ 14
Summary ................................................................................................................................ 22
Teacher Factors and Curriculum Decision-Making ............................................................... 23
Summary ................................................................................................................................ 32
CHAPTER 3 METHODS ............................................................................................................. 34
Research Design .................................................................................................................... 34
Data Collection Procedures ................................................................................................... 34
Data Collection Instrument .................................................................................................... 34
Survey Item Validation .......................................................................................................... 36
Pilot Study ............................................................................................................................. 37
Participants ............................................................................................................................ 39
CHAPTER 4 TEACHERS’ ATTENTION TO CURRICULUM MATERIALS VERSUS
STUDENT CONTEXTS .............................................................................................................. 44
Purpose of the Study .............................................................................................................. 44
Methods ................................................................................................................................. 45
Results.................................................................................................................................... 52
Discussion .............................................................................................................................. 67
Implications ........................................................................................................................... 71
CHAPTER 5 TEACHERS’ PERCEPTION OF CURRICULUM CONTROL............................ 73
viii

Purpose of the Study .............................................................................................................. 73
Methods ................................................................................................................................. 74
Results.................................................................................................................................... 81
Discussion .............................................................................................................................. 93
Implications ........................................................................................................................... 97

CHAPTER 6 TEACHERS’ BELIEFS ABOUT CURRICULUM MATERIALS ........................ 99
Purpose of the Study .............................................................................................................. 99
Methods ............................................................................................................................... 100
Results.................................................................................................................................. 105
Discussion .............................................................................................................................114
Implication ............................................................................................................................118
APPENDICES ............................................................................................................................ 120
Appendix A: Teacher Questionnaire .................................................................................... 121
Appendix B: Key Features of the Questionnaire ................................................................. 131
Appendix C: Monthly Private Education Expenditure per Middle School Student by
Locations.............................................................................................................................. 132
Appendix D: Correlations between Teachers’ Attention to Curriculum Materials and Student
contexts ................................................................................................................................ 133
Appendix E: Bivariate Correlation Matrix for Items Related to Teachers’ Curriculum Control
............................................................................................................................................. 136
Appendix F: Frequency and Percent of Teachers’ Agreement with Beliefs about Curriculum
Materials .............................................................................................................................. 140

REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................... 142

ix

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 Summary of Data Collection Procedure .......................................................................... 37
Table 2 Reliability of Items in Pilot Study.................................................................................... 38
Table 3 Number of Sample Schools and Teachers ........................................................................ 41
Table 4 Number of Responding Schools and Teachers ................................................................. 42
Table 5 Characteristics of Survey Participants ............................................................................. 43
Table 6 Summary of Variables Used in the First Sub-Study......................................................... 50
Table 7 Descriptive Statistics of Teachers’ Attention to Curriculum Materials and Student
Contexts ........................................................................................................................................ 53
Table 8 Descriptive Statistics of Composite Variables for Teachers’ Attention to the Six Factors...
55
Table 9 Correlations between Teachers’ Attention to Curriculum Materials and Student Contexts
....................................................................................................................................................... 56
Table 10 Correlations between Outcome Variables and School Factors ...................................... 58
Table 11 Correlations between Outcome Variables and Teacher Characteristics ......................... 60
Table 12 Unconditional Model Results......................................................................................... 61
Table 13 School Factors and Teacher Characteristics Model Results........................................... 64
Table 14 Attention to Curriculum Materials Model Results ......................................................... 66
Table 15 Summary of Variables Used in the Second Sub-Study .................................................. 79
Table 16 Frequency and Descriptive Statistics of Teachers’ Perception of Curriculum Control .. 82
Table 17 Correlations between Curriculum Control and Independent Variables.......................... 84
Table 18 Unconditional Model Results......................................................................................... 85
Table 19 School Factors and Teacher Characteristics Model Results........................................... 87
Table 20 Attention to the Six Factors Model Results ................................................................... 89
x

Table 21 Teacher Factors Model Results ...................................................................................... 92
Table 22 Teachers’ Beliefs about Curriculum Materials ............................................................. 101
Table 23 Descriptive Statistics of Teachers’ Attention to Curriculum Materials ........................ 103
Table 24 Summary of Variables Used in the Third Sub-Study ................................................... 104
Table 25 Descriptive Statistics of Teachers’ Beliefs about Curriculum Materials...................... 107
Table 26 Descriptive Statistics of Mean Scores of Teachers’ Beliefs about the Advantages or
Drawbacks of Curriculum Materials ........................................................................................... 109
Table 27 Factors Influencing Teachers’ Beliefs about the Value of Curriculum Materials .........111
Table 28 Teachers’ Beliefs Influencing Their Attention to Curriculum Materials .......................114
Table 29 Key Features of the Questionnaire ............................................................................... 131
Table 30 Monthly Private Education Expenditure per Middle School Student by Locations .... 132
Table 31 Correlations between Local Contexts and Students’ Needs ......................................... 133
Table 32 Correlations between Curriculum Guides and Teachers’ Guides ................................. 134
Table 33 Correlations between Textbooks and Assessments ...................................................... 135
Table 34 Correlations between Teachers’ Perceived Control over Content to Teach and Teacher
Factors ......................................................................................................................................... 136
Table 35 Correlations between Teachers’ Perceived Control over Instructional Strategies and
Teacher Factors ........................................................................................................................... 137
Table 36 Correlations between Teachers’ Perceived Control over Time Allocation and Teacher
Factors ......................................................................................................................................... 138
Table 37 Correlations between Teachers’ Perceived Control over Sequence and Teacher Factors
..................................................................................................................................................... 139
Table 38 Frequency and Percent of Teachers’ Positive Beliefs about Curriculum Materials ..... 140
Table 39 Frequency and Percent of Teachers’ Nositive Beliefs about Curriculum Materials .... 141

xi

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 Analytical Model for Teachers’ Attention to the Six Factors ......................................... 51
Figure 2 The Model for Teachers’ Control over Curriculum Decision-Making........................... 76
Figure 3 Comparisons of Positive Beliefs about Curriculum Materials ..................................... 108
Figure 4 Comparisons of Negative Beliefs about Curriculum Materials ................................... 108

xii

CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
The Decentralization of Curriculum Policy in South Korea
The Korean education system has traditionally been centralized (Chung, 2008; Kim, 1997;
1

Park, 2003) so that the Ministry of Education (MOE) representing the Korean government has
had relatively strong control over curriculum. Since the first national curriculum was developed
in the 1950s, MOE has provided Metropolitan and Provincial Offices of Education (MPOEs),
local districts, and schools with specific curriculum guidelines about the purposes of education,
content, instruction, and evaluation (Lee, 1997; Min, 2008). MPOEs, local districts, and schools
have generally followed the requirements of the curriculum guidelines.
The standardized national curriculum has contributed to broadening educational opportunity,
but necessarily this has also led to inflexible curriculum implementation at the school level. The
national curriculum has presented required subjects, time allotment standards to subjects, and
sequences so that there has been little room for MPOEs, local districts, and schools to change or
modify the national curriculum. Local contexts as well as students’ individual aptitudes and
interests have rarely been considered in the national curriculum, and thus students across the
country have had to learn the same subjects in the same sequence at the same grade (Kim, 1997).
The standardized national curriculum has been criticized for several reasons. First, in the
national curriculum, most subjects are “required” rather than “elective,” so that students cannot
choose electives depending on their interests and aptitudes. Second, textbooks have been

1

The Ministry of Education in Korea has changed its title a few times. In 1950’s, it was the
Ministry of Education, later changed it to the Ministry of Education and Human Resource
Development in 2000. The Lee Myung-bak administration changed it to the Ministry of
Education, Science, and Technology in 2008. In this paper, I use “the Ministry of Education,”
which is universally used.
1

determined by MOE and only a limited number of scholars have participated in developing (or
designing) textbooks. Therefore, textbooks have been getting more and more standardized,
inflexible, and old-fashioned. Lastly, the same content and sequence in subject matters has
discouraged students from cultivating their own interests, critical thinking, and creativity (Kim,
1997).
In response to the criticism of inflexibility in the national curriculum, MOE has made an
effort to share the responsibility for curriculum control with MPOEs, local districts, and schools
with the introduction of the sixth national curriculum in the early 1990s (Chung, 2008). In the
subsequent two revisions of the national curriculum (the seventh national curriculum released in
2000 and the revised seventh national curriculum released in 2007), MOE pushed a more
decentralized curriculum policy. In particular, MOE encouraged 16 MPOEs to develop their own
curriculum guidelines and to provide these guidelines to their schools (Park, 2008). Local
districts are required to provide schools with practical guidelines about implementing schoolbased curriculum based on the MPOEs’ guidelines. The revised seventh curriculum also requires
schools to determine what subjects to teach and time allotment standards to subjects and to each
grade level (Kim, 2004). In sum, “The Korean (education) prototype is a centrally-established
curriculum, regionally-developed guidelines, and locally-administered operations and curricular
programs” (Schmidt, Houang, & Shakrani, 2009, p. 55)
Problem Statement
The seventh national curriculum suggests that teachers can increase or decrease time
allotments for subjects for first through 10th grades within 20 percent of total time allotments.
When schools change time allotments, teachers should modify contents in curriculum standards
in consideration of subject matter characteristics and students’ needs (e.g., aptitudes and

2

interests). The seventh national curriculum offers just basic and common standards that students
should learn, but teachers do not need to teach within these standards totally. Rather teachers are
encouraged to reconstruct or reorganize contents in curriculum standards in consideration of
educational environment, students’ aptitudes, and interests. Particularly, the seventh national
curriculum expects to transfer textbook-based education into curriculum-based education, which
means that textbooks are regarded as one of instructional materials and teachers reconstruct and
reorganize contents in textbooks (Lee & Hong, 2008; Seo, 2009).
In order to respond to decentralization of curriculum policy, it is necessary to redefine
teachers’ roles suggested in the seventh national curriculum, but there are three problems to this
end. First, although the decentralized curriculum policy encourages teachers to develop schoolbased curriculum, the national curriculum still details what and how teachers do this (Cho,
2002), but does not tell us how teachers take the control over curriculum decision-making.
Second, there has been little consensus about what teachers should do in the context of
decentralized curriculum policy and even about why teachers need to modify contents in
curriculum standards rather than just teaching as curriculum standards require to teach (Park,
2010). The presidential report published in 1992 illustrated teachers’ right to teach with only
abstract and narrow concepts (Yeom & Ginsburg, 2007) and further since the sixth national
curriculum was implemented, MOE has articulated in abstract and general points about what
MPOEs, local districts, and schools should do, but has not shown specific roles for those
agencies. School teachers, therefore, have not had clear ideas about their roles in developing
school-based curriculum or have not approved that decentralization of curriculum policy can
change teachers’ roles (Choi, 1996). Third, policy makers and scholars have shown ambivalent
attitudes towards teachers as professionals indicating that they regard teachers as professionals

3

while suspecting teachers’ professional abilities, assuming that teachers are not familiar with
changing or adjusting the national curriculum due to the long tradition of centralized curriculum
policy (Shin, 2009). Furthermore, teachers themselves perceived their lack of experience in
modifying or changing content in curriculum standards (Park et al., 2003). It is not totally
unexpected, then, that teachers continue to choose safe and convenient ways to follow
curriculum guides and textbooks as they have always done (Park et al., 2009).
The first problem can be solved by revising the national curriculum to be less specific, but
the latter two problems are more complicated. In the revised seventh national curriculum,
teachers have been required to modify the national curriculum taking into account local and
school characteristics as well as students’ needs (Choe, 1998) rather than implementing teaching
within curriculum as required by the national curriculum. However, Korean teachers have had
little experience in adjusting or changing the requirements of the national curriculum, and school
administrators and experts cannot appropriately support teachers because they also do not have
enough experience in developing school-based curriculum (Park et al., 2009). To address these
problems, it is important to examine the current state of teachers’ roles in developing schoolbased curriculum and what influence their roles. Without robust and generalizable knowledge
about teachers’ roles in the context of the decentralization of curriculum policy, it is rarely likely
to succeed in encouraging teachers to have more responsibilities for curriculum control and free
from strong influence of curriculum standards.
For this dissertation study, I target Korean middle school teachers. Although the seventh and
the revised seventh national curriculum aim at decentralizing curriculum implementation at all
school levels, teachers might respond to the policy in different ways due to different educational
environment between school levels. Middle school teachers are positioned between elementary

4

and high school teachers in that middle school teachers are less influenced by college entrance
examination than high school teachers, but receive more pressure by assessments (e.g., high
school entrance examination) than their colleagues at the elementary level, and this is why
middle school teachers were selected for this dissertation study.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this dissertation study is twofold. First, this study intends to see the current
status of Korean middle school teachers’ roles in developing school-based curriculum. To
address this purpose, first I examine the extent to which teachers depend on curriculum
materials, which are usually considered by Korean teachers. Traditionally, teachers make
curriculum decisions based on contents in curriculum materials while the decentralization of
curriculum policy encourages teachers to pay more attention to local contexts and students’
individual needs. Second, I examine how Korean middle school teachers perceive their
curriculum control and what encourages or discourages them from exercising their control. To
address these purposes, two research questions are developed as follows.
1. To what extent do Korean middle school teachers pay attention to curriculum materials
and student contexts when they make curriculum decisions and what influences their
attention to curriculum materials and student contexts?
2. How do Korean middle school teachers perceive their control over curriculum decisions
and what influence their curriculum control?
Third, this dissertation study aims to shed light on teacher beliefs about curriculum materials,
which are one of importance factors influencing teachers’ dependence on curriculum materials.
Curriculum materials such as curriculum guides for subject matter, textbooks, and teachers’
guides are considered because these three types of curriculum materials are usually used by

5

Korean middle school teachers when they make curriculum decisions. To address this purpose,
the third research question is developed as follows.
3. What are Korean middle school teachers’ beliefs about curriculum materials and how do
those beliefs relate to teachers’ dependence on curriculum materials?
These three research questions will be examined separately.
Significance of the Study
Few studies in the context of Korean education have focused on teachers’ responses to
curriculum policy, especially the decentralization of curriculum policy. In part, the lack of
research studies on these issues might be caused by the fact that the decentralization of
curriculum policy is relatively new to Korean education, so that there has been little time to
examine whether or not it has been working at the school level. This study will investigate
teachers’ perception of curriculum control, and factors influencing their curriculum control, and
the results of this study help policy makers and education researchers see whether middle school
teachers take curriculum control.
Assuming that one of the purposes of the decentralization of curriculum policy is to provide
teachers with more curriculum control, it is important to identify what helps and hampers
teachers when making curriculum decisions. This study can guide policy makers and school
administrators to help teachers take more curriculum control as the decentralized curriculum
policy intended.
In addition, this study targets all subject matter teachers at the middle school level. Selecting
all subject teachers allow to compare differences between teachers teaching test-related and
nontest-related subjects. In the context of Korean education, subjects could be categorized into
two types: the one is test-related subject and the other is nontest-related subject, and it is

6

expected that teachers show different responses to the same curriculum policy depending on
subjects they teach.
Lastly, this study will examine teachers’ beliefs about curriculum materials and relationships
between those beliefs and their dependence on curriculum materials. It is usually said that
teachers complain about curriculum materials, but reasons of those complaints have been rarely
received attention. In addition, considering that the decentralization of curriculum policy intends
to change textbook-based education to curriculum guide-based education (Lee & Hong, 2008;
Seo, 2009), it is even more important to see any similarities or differences in teacher beliefs
between curriculum guides and textbooks.

7

CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
This literature review consists of three sections. First, research studies on teachers’ roles in
curriculum development, especially curriculum decision-making are reviewed. The next two
sections describe factors that influence teachers’ curriculum decision-making. One section shows
previous studies on how curriculum materials such as curriculum guides, textbooks, and
assessments influencing teachers’ curriculum decision-making. The other section examines
influences of teacher factors such as teachers’ beliefs about curriculum materials, teacher
knowledge, and collaboration with peer teachers on their curriculum decision-making.
In the context of Korean education, research studies on teachers’ curriculum decision-making
have been shown since the sixth national curriculum was released in 1992 because the sixth
national curriculum first presented that schools have responsibility for curriculum decisionmaking (Kim, 1994). Because relatively few studies have examined Korean teachers’ curriculum
decision-making, I reviewed most studies conducted in the context of American education, which
has a history of encouraging teachers to develop their own instructional programs and schools
traditionally.
However, it is important to note that pressures for standards-based reform have been
increasing in the US education. The poor performance of K-12 American students in
mathematics and science has been documented by the Third International Mathematics and
Science Study (Schmidt, Raizen, Britton, Bianchi, & Wolfe, 1997) and the National Assessment
of Education Program (NCES, 2005). Since A Nation at Risk was released in the 1980s,
standards-based reform has been the most dominant trend in American educational policy, and
the No Child Left Behind Act pushed the trend further by requiring states to develop rigorous

8

curriculum standards. (Hess & Petrilli, 2006). Furthermore, in 2010, common core standards
were initiated to provide consistent and rigorous content standards for mathematics and language
arts across states (Porter, McMaken, Hwang, & Yang, 2011), and so teachers in the US now
relatively little room for curriculum decision-making compared to those in the past. Thus,
findings from more recent studies might be different from findings from past studies, and may be
less relevant to the Korean context.
Teachers’ Curriculum Decision-Making
Curriculum Development and Curriculum Decision-Making
Curriculum development is an activity to bridge the intended curriculum and the enacted one.
Shavelson and his colleagues (1987) delineated teachers’ roles in curriculum development as
follows:
Curriculum, nested within the school, is the content of education, the medium of
exchange between teacher and student. Teachers, operating within the curriculum, draw
on their subject matter and pedagogical knowledge to translate the curriculum for
students in a comprehensible way. (Shavelson et al., 1987, p. 11)
Griffin (1991) distinguished curriculum planning (i.e., curriculum development) from lesson
planning. Lesson planning aims at only one lesson in one subject matter at one time, while
curriculum planning is developed with a long term perspective, in consideration of coherence
across grade levels and related subjects. This literature review targets studies on curriculum
planning rather than on lesson planning.
For the curriculum development process, teachers must make important decisions to translate
the intended curriculum into the enacted curriculum, which means curriculum decision-making.
Thus, teachers’ curriculum decision-making occurs in the process of developing the enacted

9

curriculum, and the intended curriculum is translated by teachers’ curriculum decision-making
into what is eventually enacted. Curriculum decision-making occur at several levels such as the
formal level (e.g., federal, state, country, etc.), the institutional level (e.g., individual schools),
and the instructional level for classroom teaching, etc., and teachers mostly engage in curriculum
decision-making at the instructional level (Shavelson, McDonnell, Oakes, & Carey, 1987; Tyler,
1950).
Teachers have options regarding prior curriculum decisions: they may decide to
implement what is desired at higher levels of remoteness from the student; they may
modify, sometimes in very significant ways, what others want in the curriculum; or
they may completely ignore decisions which have been made at other levels…teachers
are very fundamental curriculum decision makers who often determine what decisions
actually get implemented. (Klein, 1991, p. 29)
Previous studies have shown various roles of teachers in curriculum decision-making.
Teachers make decisions about content coverage and instructional strategies (Kuhs et al., 1985;
Remillard, 2005; Sosniak & Stodolsky, 1993), and time allocation and sequence (Freeman &
Porter, 1989; Sosniak & Stodolsky, 1993). In addition, prior research in the context of Korean
education found that teachers modified or changed suggestions about content and instructional
strategies in curriculum standards (Kim, 2004; Kim, 2005; Seo, 2009).
Most studies have reported teachers’ decision-making about both content and instructional
strategies because it is not easy to distinguish content from instructional strategies in teaching
practices. Kuhs and her colleagues (1985) examined the patterns of teachers’ use of curriculumembedded tests, using data collected from teachers’ daily logs and the interview. The researchers
categorized patterns of teachers’ use for (a) placement of students, including assignment to

10

classrooms within grade and assignment; (b) making decisions about what content topics are to
be taught, for how long, and to what standards of performance; and (c) student evaluation,
including grading and reporting to others. This study presented teachers’ roles in deciding
content topics and instructional strategies (i.e., decisions about how long and what standards for
performance).
Similarly, Sosniak and Stodolsky (1993) presented teachers’ roles in deciding instructional
strategies and content to teach. The researchers examined how four elementary teachers (reading,
mathematics, and social studies) used and what they thought of textbooks and other materials.
The data was collected from multiple methods such as classroom observation, interview with
teachers, and document analysis. The authors found variations in the number and types of
materials, the depth of coverage of the selected portions of materials, and the sequence of use of
materials through classroom observation and district policy regarding instruction in subjects
influence these variations. This study showed teachers’ decision-making on sequence in addition
to content to teach and instructional strategies.
Remillard (2005) focused on teachers’ decision-making about instructional strategies. In her
study, teachers selected and designed student activities.. The author constructed three arenas in
curriculum development and examined what teachers did through class observations and
interviews. One teacher supported the traditional teacher-centered instruction and believed that
mathematics was a group of topics. She frequently used the textbook as a critical source for her
instruction. The other teacher supported more reform-oriented instruction and focused on
mathematical understanding and critical thinking. She created tasks and activities for classroom
teaching rather than using the textbook. Two teachers selected and designed tasks for student
learning and the salient difference between these teachers was that the latter teacher improvised

11

her teaching in consideration of students’ responses in the classroom, while the former was less
responsive to students’ unexpected difficulties or struggles.
Freeman and Porter (1989) presented various types of teachers’ curriculum decision-making.
The researchers conducted a descriptive study on what and how teachers actually taught from
day to day using teachers’ daily log and interview. Four elementary teachers showed variations in
their textbook use. One teacher regarded a textbook as a primary source for curriculum decisionmaking, and the other teacher focused on basic principles in mathematics. Another two teachers
focused on the district objectives more than contents in textbooks. These teachers showed
variations in mathematics topics covered, examples of problems, instructional materials in
textbooks, time allocation, and sequence, and not surprisingly, textbook-bound teachers was
influenced by what contents and instructional strategies were emphasized in textbooks. For
example, teachers’ time allocations parallel emphasis of topics in textbooks, and their sequence
of topics generally matched with the sequence in textbooks. In the study, teachers showed
various types of curriculum decision-making such as decision-making on content to teach,
instructional strategies, time allocation, and sequence, and this provides insight to Korean
teachers who have not been so familiar with what and how to change or modify when they
interact with curriculum standards.
These studies did not focus teachers’ curriculum decision-making but revealed it through
showing how teachers use curriculum materials. This might be that teachers in the US usually
had taken responsibilities for curriculum decision-makings and so teachers’ control over
curriculum decision-making has not been an important issue. Rather, some of these studies have
been conducted to see whether teachers showed consistent content coverage and pacing the
content. These studies, however, provide useful and ample information about what kinds of

12

curriculum decisions teacher make. One missing point in research studies conducted in the US
context is that most studies have been conducted by qualitative methods focusing on cases of a
small number of teachers. Observing classroom teaching or interviewing with a small number of
teachers allows researchers to take a close look, but it is hard to generalize the results.
Unlike teachers in the US, Korean teachers have little experience in taking responsibilities
for curriculum decision-making. Since it is still an early stage of the decentralization of
curriculum decision-making, most research studies in Korean education context have touched on
general patterns for curriculum decision-making through a large-scale survey rather than close
look to their actually curriculum decision-making.
Kim’s (2004) study was one of the first to look at how teachers responded to the new
flexibility allowed in the national curriculum in Korea. He created a list of potential changes that
range from largely passive to largely active, as follows: 1) changing sequence for units; 2)
adding contents; 3) altering contents; 4) deleting contents; 5) abbreviating contents; and 6)
connecting with other subjects . The survey data showed that about two third of the participating
teachers reorganized contents in textbooks, but their reorganization was limited to type 1 and 2,
which were regarded as passive reorganization. The interview data showed that only a very small
number of teachers reported active reorganization (e.g., type 6).
Likewise, Seo (2009) focused on what teachers modified or changed (e.g., objectives, content,
instructional strategies, etc.) and what hindered teachers from reconstruct curriculum standards.
She interviewed one high school mathematics teacher and five language arts teachers who taught
in middle and high schools. The participating teachers showed passive restructuring in that they
developed instructional strategies rather than adding or deleting content in curriculum standards.
In order to examine the degree to which Korean secondary teachers actually reconstructed

13

contents in curriculum standards, Kim (2005) surveyed 4,640 middle and high school teachers in
and conducted classroom observation for 115 teachers and interview with 125 teachers.
Approximately, two third of teachers reported that they modified, changed, or altered contents in
curriculum standards, but their reconstruction was limited to changing sequence of contents in a
unit and adding contents. Only small number of teachers tried to connect contents of subjects that
they taught with ones of other subjects.
Three studies conducted in the Korean education context showed similar types of curriculum
decision-making, but did not cover broad range of teacher’ curriculum decision-making. The
Korean researchers usually have interests in content to teach and instructional strategies, but
rarely in sequence and time allocation. To encourage teachers to teach based more on their own
curriculum decision-making than on what curriculum standards suggest, it would be good to
examine various aspects of curriculum decision-making, but not limited to decision-making only
on content to teach and instructional strategies. Thus, for this dissertation study, I include
curriculum decision-making on content to teach, instructional strategies, time allocation for units,
and sequence for units.
Curriculum Materials Influence Teachers’ Curriculum Decision-Making
This section addresses the definition of curriculum materials in this study and presents
research studies regarding influences of curriculum materials on teachers’ curriculum decisionmaking. Curriculum materials influence teachers’ curriculum decision-making generally in two
ways: 1) specific aspects of curriculum materials (Porter, 1989; Remillard, 2005; Shkedi, 1998;
Valencia et al., 2006); and 2) curriculum materials as policy pressure (Archbald & Porter, 1994;
Floden et al., 1981; Kuhs et al., 1985; Monfils et al., 2004; Schorr et al., 2004).

14

The Intended Curriculum: Curriculum Materials
Porter and Smithson (2001) distinguished three kinds of curriculum: the intended curriculum,
the enacted curriculum, and the learned curriculum. The intended curriculum reflects initial
intentions of educational policies and is shown in curriculum materials such as curriculum
frameworks/guidelines, textbooks, and assessments, etc. The enacted curriculum represents
teaching practices in classrooms. The learned curriculum is usually measured by student
achievement gains (Porter & Smithson, 2001). This dissertation study focuses on teachers’ roles
between the intended curriculum (i.e., curriculum standards) and the enacted curriculum, which
means curriculum development.
Archbald and Porter (1994) created a model of centralized curriculum control. In their model,
they addressed three specific controls: curriculum guides, textbook adoption, and testing policies.
Curriculum guides set “state learning goals and topics for a course” (p. 22); textbook adoptions
intend “to reduce the potential variability in content across different sections of a course (both
within and between schools)” (p. 22); and testing policies, like curriculum guides, reflect
learning goals and topics and guarantee that students learn as curriculum policies intended.
Schmidt and his colleagues (1997) defined curriculum guides as “official documents that most
clearly reflect the intentions, visions, and aims of curriculum makers, and textbooks as less
official, partial documents that most clearly reflect the intentions as interpreted by other
participants in the curriculum process” (Schmidt et al., 1997, p. 7). In order to examine teachers’
roles in curriculum development, it is important to see how teachers interact with the intended
curriculum, specifically curriculum guides, textbooks, and assessments. Especially, the literature
review shows these three types of curriculum materials, so I include these curriculum materials
in the analytical model for the study.

15

Curriculum Materials with Specific Aspects
The structure of curriculum materials across grades influences how much time teachers
allocate to each topic (Porter, 1989); teachers were likely to teach in line with textbook’s
emphasis on topics (Freeman & Porter, 1989); teachers’ emphasis on specific topic was
influenced by the pedagogical approach embedded in curriculum standards (Shkedi, 1998);
teachers do not have enough time to teach based on their own curriculum decision-making if
curriculum standards have too many tasks, student activities, and suggestions (Remillard, 2005;
Valencia, 2006); and teachers used teachers’ guides in difference ways depending on their
teaching experience (Jeon, 2006).
Through analyzing teachers’ daily logs, Porter (1989) analyzed the structure of the
curriculum materials based on students’ grades and actual time spent in teaching mathematics,
compared to time required to teach it according to the curriculum. Teachers taught numerous
topics more than once because some of content overlapped across grades and did not move
appropriately from fourth grade to fifth. Porter suggested that the math curriculum should be
coordinated across grade levels to “decrease the extent to which what is taught one year is taught
again the next” (p13) and that “mathematics should be taught at a regularly scheduled time”
(p14). Similarly, as reviewed earlier, Freeman and Porter (1989) presented how features of
textbooks influenced teachers’ textbook use. The emphasis on content in textbooks largely
dominated how much time teachers allocated for topics. The structure of and emphasis on
specific topics in curriculum standards usually influence teachers’ curriculum decision-making
on time allocation, but no connection with other types of curriculum decision-making was shown
in these two studies.
In addition to curriculum decision-making, curriculum materials also play important roles in

16

teachers’ practices. Shkedi (1998) presented how the pedagogical-content approach of
curriculum standards influenced on teachers’ practices. In the study, there were three types of
curriculum guides based on the pedagogical-content approach such as the disciplinary approach,
the normative approach, and the didactic approach. In the disciplinary approach, teachers
regarded the structure of knowledge as important, and curriculum guides with the normative
approach “present ideas of truth and that the actions that follow from them are good and
desirable” (p. 217). In the didactic approach, “curriculum guide is seen as a means of exposing
teachers to appropriate didactic approach” (p. 217). The interview results showed that teachers’
roles in classrooms were largely influenced by the types of curriculum guides. For example,
teachers with curriculum guides of the disciplinary approach provided students with the structure
of knowledge rather than judging good or bad (the normative approach) or following proposed
learning activities by curriculum guides (the didactic approach). In order to adequately help
teachers, curriculum guides must be complicated enough to provide teachers with a variety of
resources and activities for the sake of choice.
Remillard (2005) examined teachers’ textbook use in order to see whether curriculum
materials contributed to reform-based teaching. Two sample teachers showed different types of
textbook use. One teacher was a traditional textbook user, who selected and designed student
activities from textbooks and taught as suggested in textbooks. The other teacher though that
textbook was one of sources for curriculum planning and she could select diverse suggestions in
textbook. Textbooks can provide teachers with choices of tasks, activities, and suggestions about
teaching, but too many choices made teachers confused, and it is interesting to note that this
result contradicts with the findings of studies conducted by Porter (1989) and Freeman and
Porter (1989).

17

Valencia et al. (2006) analyzed longitudinal patterns of how four elementary reading teachers
used curriculum materials (scripted reading program and supplemental materials) to teach
elementary reading, and in turn how curriculum materials shaped teachers’ practices. Four
teachers had different educational contexts such as curriculum context (mandated or not) and
whether highly structured curriculum materials were given. The authors collected the data from
classroom observation, individual and group interviews, and documents from classrooms and
districts (e.g, lesson plan). The findings indicated that teachers had two problems with strongly
mandated curriculum materials. First, teachers usually followed suggestions in the mandated
curriculum materials in little consideration of student learning, and second, teachers had only
little time to implement materials created by their own if they covered most activities and tasks
in the mandated curriculum materials.
Jeon (2006) investigated how two elementary teachers in the US utilized teachers’ guide.
Teacher A had taught about 25 years while teacher B had only one-year teaching experience.
Both teacher A and B showed heavy reliance on teachers’ guide when they planned their
teaching, but their use and perspective of teachers’ guide showed big differences. For example,
teacher A used student activities only when those activities helped children learn, and if needed,
she modified or altered other contents from additional materials that matched with students’
needs. Because she understood that just reading contents in teachers’ guide did not necessarily
mean that student learned, she argued that teachers’ guide should provide instructional strategies
that helped student learn. On the other side, teacher B usually followed the sequence of content
as suggested in textbooks. Because she perceived that teachers’ guide provided the best way for
teaching children. Thus, she rarely modified or altered contents in teachers’ guide. The author
concluded that teachers’ guide should include more suggestions about both contents and

18

instructional strategies that enabled teachers to deal with unexpected responses of children and
supplement teachers’ content knowledge.
In summary, various features of curriculum materials influence teachers’ curriculum
decision-making. The structure of curriculum materials and emphasis on topics in curriculum
materials support or limit teachers’ curriculum decision-making, and whether curriculum
materials reflected the pedagogical-content approach and reform ideas also have effects on
teachers’ decisions on what and how to teach. These studies extend the line of studies that aim to
help teachers make curriculum decisions, but do not directly apply to education context in Korea.
Korean teachers do not have as many options for curriculum materials as their American peers
do. Usually, curriculum materials such as textbooks are developed under guidelines of the
national curriculum so that most teachers have curriculum materials with similar structure of
contents and similar pedagogical-content approaches. Therefore, in this dissertation study, I
focus on curriculum materials as policy pressure, which can be varied by individual teachers.
Curriculum Materials as Policy Pressure
In previous studies, generally three kinds of curriculum materials are shown. Assessments
have strong policy control in that teachers consider curriculum materials for curriculum decisionmaking because assessments are required by new policy initiative (Monfils et al., 2004; Kuhs et
al., 1985; Shorr et al., 2004) and assessments are required by district (Archbald & Porter, 1994;
Floden et al., 1981). In addition to assessments, textbooks and district instructional objectives
also influence teachers’ curriculum decision-making as policy pressure (Floden et al., 1981).
As reviewed earlier, Kuhs et al. (1985) showed that the teachers used tests as a primary
source for decision- making on content, and they were more likely to use curriculum embeddedtests when school districts provided prescriptions for specific instructional strategies. That is,

19

teachers’ perception of tests as policy pressure increased their likeliness of test use.
Archbald and Porter (1994) examined how curriculum policy pressures (the degree to which
curriculum guides are specific, textbook adoption, and course-based testing) influence teachers’
decision-making on content and pedagogy. The survey was administered to 221 teachers from 12
high schools in California, Florida, and NY, and these teachers were recruited from six districts:
two in high control, medium, and low control, respectively. The participating teachers reported
that they perceived less control when they taught in the district where provided specific
guidelines about content to teach and adopted a single textbook than other districts where had
loose policy pressures (e.g., general guidelines and multiple textbooks). The authors also found
that teachers felt that they controlled instructional strategies more than content to teach. Policy
pressure in the study did not refer to the degree to which teachers perceived policy pressure;
rather, the authors defined the degree of curriculum policy pressure with the extent to which
curriculum guides were specific, single or multiple textbooks adoptions, and whether coursebased testing was required.
In the sub-studies conducted by Schorr et al. (2004) and Monfils et al. (2004), the
characteristics of new assessments forced teachers to change their teaching practices. Teachers
mentioned that their students were helped to learn state content standards which aligned with the
Elementary School Performance Assessment (ESPA). The teacher interview data indicated that
there were four kinds of changes in teaching practices which were intended outcomes by ESPA:
1) having students explain their own thought processes, 2) using manipulatives, 3) problem
solving, and 4) including students’ writing in activities (Schorr et al., 2004), Additionally, the
survey data showed that time allocation for test preparation practices remained stable even after
ESPA was implemented, but unlike the results from the qualitative data, teachers still showed

20

conventional teaching practices (i.e., didactic and decontextualized test preparation).
Floden and his colleagues (1981) asked teachers how much they considered curriculum
resources that had policy pressure, and compared the power of external resources when
elementary mathematics teachers added new topics or deleted old topics. Three sources were
curriculum standards such as 1) textbook supplied to the class; 2) district instructional objectives;
3) district test, and the other three factors were 4) an individual’s or group’s content preference;
5) discussions with the parents of children in the class; and 6) discussions with the parents of
children in the class. The authors created a set of hypothetical situations for teachers that
systematically varied these potential influences, and asked teachers what their decisions would
be in each situation. The teachers reported that they would be more willing to add new topics
than to delete old topics, and teachers considered district objectives and test significantly more
than the other four factors when they added new topics. Teachers took into account curriculum
standards (e.g., district objectives and tests) more than students’ preference or parents’ opinions.
This study is unique in that it enables us to learn relative power of curriculum standards as well
as students’ needs.
In Korean educational context, Seo (2009) revealed teachers’ heavy dependence on textbooks
when they developed unit plans. The interview data showed that the participating teachers began
analyzing content in textbooks and teachers’ guide and usually teach within textbooks. Because
textbooks were closely related to assessments, teachers should consider textbooks as the most
important sources for instruction. If teachers do not teach any content in textbook, but students
see that content in assessments, teachers would be blamed by students and parents. In addition,
the close relationship between textbook and assessments hinders teachers to make their own
curriculum-related decisions. This study does not clearly present policy pressure through

21

assessments, but given that some assessments are mandated by MOE (e.g., high school entrance
examination and the National Assessment of Student Achievement), assessments in Korean
education can be regarded as policy pressure.
Summary
Literature reviewed here suggests that teachers consider various types of curriculum
materials such as curriculum guides, textbooks, teachers’ guides, assessments, etc.
Characteristics of curriculum materials (e.g., emphasis on specific content) and policy pressure
through curriculum materials influence teachers’ curriculum decision-making. Particularly,
assessments with policy pressure received high attention by teachers when making curriculum
decisions.
Generally, three research gaps were found through the literature review in this section. First,
most studies were conducted in the US educational context, but rarely conducted in the context
of Korean education. Thus, it is hard to directly apply the findings of these studies to Korean
teachers’ practices. For example, we cannot assume that how American teachers think of detailed
prescription of curriculum guides is equal or similar to how Korean teachers do. Given that
teachers in both countries have experienced very different educational environment (e.g., central
control over curriculum in South Korea and local control in the US), more research studies are
required to understand how Korean teachers’ curriculum decision-making looks.
Second, since most studies were conducted in the American context, it can be assumed that
features of curriculum materials are different from curriculum materials that Korean teachers
usually use. Thus, it is necessary to examine the degree to which Korean teachers pay attention
to curriculum materials that they use. It enables us to compare relative power of curriculum
materials perceived by Korean teachers as in Floden et al.’s study (1981).

22

Third, most studies reviewed here were conducted by qualitative methods through taking a
close and intensive look for specific teachers’ practices. Assuming that these studies were usually
conducted in the US context, but unlike the US, the decentralization of curriculum policy is an
only early state in South Korea, it would be beneficial to provide overall and general information
first and then take a close look for teachers’ curriculum decision-making.
Teacher Factors and Curriculum Decision-Making
The literature review generally presents three teacher factors that influence teachers’
curriculum decision-making. First, there are a few kinds of teacher beliefs which influence
teachers’ curriculum decision-making (Coenders et al., 2008; Gill & Hoffman, 2009), and in
particular, teachers’ beliefs in the authority of curriculum standards encourage teachers to more
frequently use curriculum standards (Donnelly & Boone, 2007; Freeman & Porter, 1989; Gill &
Hoffman, 2009; Sosniak & Stodolsky, 1993). Second, teacher knowledge about reform ideas and
ways of using curriculum standards also play important roles in teachers’ curriculum decisionmaking. If teachers do not have enough knowledge, their teaching practices turn out to be
different from initially intended (Cohen, 1990; Choi & Lee, 2008; Hill, 2001; and Son & Chio,
2008). Lastly, collaboration with peer teachers helps or hinders teachers make curricular
decisions (Coburn, 2001; Seo, 2009; Shin, 2009; Young, 1985).
Teachers’ Beliefs about Curriculum Materials
A few studies have examined teacher beliefs that influence teachers’ curriculum decisionmaking and their use of curriculum materials. There are various kinds of teacher beliefs.
Coenders et al. (2008) examined how teacher beliefs about curriculum content, teachers’ roles,
and the development of learning materials influenced their curriculum decision-making. The
teachers applied their own beliefs about what to teach and not to teach. Particularly, teachers’

23

beliefs in the authority of curriculum materials (e.g., textbooks, curriculum guides, assessments,
etc) are closely related to curriculum decision-making. Teachers who respected the authority of
curriculum standards were more likely to use curriculum standards than those who had fewer
beliefs about curriculum standards (Donnelly & Boone, 2007; Freeman & Porter, 1989;
Remillard, 2005; Sosniak & Stodolsky, 1993).
Gill and Hoffman (2009) identified six categories of teacher beliefs through observing
teachers’ shared planning time at a middle school. Their categories include beliefs about
pedagogical content, general pedagogy, subject matter, curricular choices, resources/textbooks,
and students’ thinking. Particularly, teachers have their own beliefs about curricular choices and
included or excluded topics based on their beliefs (e.g., teachers usually included “fun” and
“cool” activities), and teachers showed their beliefs about their textbooks (e.g., textbook
problems are confusing because it is not specific enough). This study provides the basic
information of types of teacher beliefs, but no relation with teachers’ curriculum decision-making
was shown.
Since the intentions of reforms are often reflected in textbooks, the degree to which teachers
agree with reform-oriented ideas also influence their use of textbooks. In the case study
conducted by Remillard (2005), two elementary teachers played different roles in curriculum
development and showed different styles of textbook use. The author constructed three arenas in
curriculum development and examined what teachers did through class observations and
interviews. One teacher supported the traditional teacher-centered instruction and believed that
mathematics was a group of topics. She frequently used the textbook as a critical source for her
instruction. The other teacher supported more reform-oriented instruction and focused on
mathematical understanding and critical thinking. She created tasks and activities for classroom

24

teaching rather than using the textbook. The salient difference between the two teachers was that
the latter teacher improvised her teaching in consideration of students’ responses in the
classroom, while the former was less responsive to students’ unexpected difficulties or struggles.
Freeman and Porter (1989) categorized three types of teachers’ textbook use depending on
their beliefs in the authority of textbooks: 1) text-bound, 2) focus on the basis, which means
teaching “directly related to basic mathematics concepts and skills but skip lessons that are not”
(p. 408), and 3) focus on district objectives. Text-bound teachers usually taught based on the
content and sequence in the textbook, while other teachers were less likely to depend on
textbooks. The degree to which teachers depended on textbooks paralleled teachers’ use of
textbooks in that the more teachers depended on textbook, the closer relationships between
textbooks emphases and instructional emphases were shown. In addition, text-bound teachers
covered the largest number of topics in the textbook. This study reveals how teachers’
dependence on textbooks influences their curriculum decision-making, but it is important to note
that dependence on textbooks does not necessarily mean teachers’ beliefs towards textbooks.
Similarly, Sosniak and Stodolsky (1993), as described earlier, found that the variation in
teachers’ use of curriculum standards was affected by their beliefs in textbook materials as
authorities for elementary content. The teachers who strongly believed in textbook materials as
an authoritative source were more likely to use textbooks than other teachers who did not so
believe.
While Freeman and Porter (1994) and Sosniak and Stodolsky (1993) have focused on
teachers’ beliefs about textbooks, Donnelly and Boone (2007) paid attention to teachers’ beliefs
about state curriculum standards. The authors reported that “teachers who regard state curriculum
standards as useful and appropriate sources for students are using standards in more ways than

25

are minimally required by school administrators” (p. 252), but the results also indicated that
teachers’ use of the standards was explained, in part, by the fact that most participating schools
mandated adherence to the Indiana Academic Standards.
Most studies focused on teachers’ beliefs in the authority of textbooks, and this might be
because textbooks are most commonly and frequently used curriculum materials by teachers.
Few studies, however, have paid attention to other types of curriculum materials such as
curriculum guides and teachers’ guides, which Korean teachers usually use for curriculum
decision-making. Because these curriculum materials have difference features, teachers may
have different beliefs on these curriculum materials. Therefore, it is necessary to examine teacher
beliefs on each curriculum material and how their beliefs influence on teachers’ curriculum
decision
Teacher Knowledge
A few studies have examined how teacher knowledge affects teachers’ curriculum decisionmaking and teaching practices (e.g., the implementation of a reform). Some researchers have
found that teachers dismissed policy messages that contradicted their previous knowledge, and
modified their own knowledge through interactions with other colleagues (Coburn, 2001).
Teacher knowledge can guide teachers in the appropriate way to implement curriculum policies
(Coburn, 2001; Cohen, 1990; Choi & Lee, 2008), and improve their teaching practices (Son &
Choi, 2008).
Coburn (2001) conducted a case study of 19 teachers in one elementary school using
observation, interview, and document analysis. The results revealed three types of teachers’
“sensemaking” of policy messages. First, teachers changed or modified their interpretation of
policy messages through interactions with other teachers. Second, teachers rejected policy

26

messages when those messages 1) did not apply to their grade level; 2) were opposed to their
philosophy; 3) were completely outside the bounds of comprehensibility (impossible); 4) did not
fit into preexisting programs; 5) were unmanageable; and 6) teachers did not feel they
understood those policy messages. Third, teachers spent time in negotiating practical and
technical details that ranged across textbooks; keeping time for student individual assessments;
how to group students; and activities for instruction. Particularly, the second type of
sensemaking, in which teachers rejected policy messages, is related to teacher knowledge in that
they disregard when they cannot clearly understand what policy messages mean. This study put
emphasis on the importance of teacher knowledge about policy message, but this kind of teacher
knowledge was not closely related to teachers’ curriculum decision-making; rather general
teachers’ practices.
Similarly, Cohen (1990) also revealed that lack of teacher knowledge about content and
pedagogy reflected from curriculum reform hindered a teacher from appropriately implementing
reform-based teaching. The researcher conducted classroom observation in order to examine how
Mrs. Oublier, elementary mathematics teacher, responded to new state curriculum policy, which
emphasized on children’s mathematical understanding rather than mechanical memorization.
Mrs. Oublier thought that she succeeded in teaching in line with state curriculum policy, but the
author’s observation told a different story. The teacher showed paradoxical teaching practices,
with a mixture of new mathematics instruction and traditional organization and materials. The
author argued that the teacher showed ambivalent teaching practice because she did not have
enough knowledge and skills to implement the new curriculum policy, specifically knowledge
and skills about both content and pedagogy.
The literature in the US education generally reports why teachers show different teaching

27

practices from what curriculum policy or curriculum materials suggest. This is, maybe, because
the US education has a strong tradition of local control so that it has been important for
education researchers and school educators to align their teaching with curriculum policy. In the
Korean literature, some studies have examined how teacher knowledge contributed to improving
teaching practices.
Choi and Lee (2008) examined how teacher knowledge and beliefs influenced the depth of
implementation of performance assessment in elementary social studies. Superficial
implementation means what instruments of performance assessment (e.g., portfolio, presentation,
observation, etc) teachers chose, and deep implementation means the degree to which teachers
made use of cognitive structure and purposes of performance assessment. Teacher knowledge
means knowledge about 1) how to select content for assessment; 2) how to develop assessment
instruments and the evaluation criterion; and 3) how to reflect the results of assessment, and
teacher belief was measured by the degree to which teachers believed in constructivist learning,
which was emphasized in social studies. Through surveying 700 elementary teachers, the
researchers found that, for both superficial and deep implementations, teacher knowledge had
more impact than teacher beliefs. Teachers who had more knowledge about performance
assessment used various kinds of instruments and tasks that required higher level thinking.
Further, the more knowledge of performance assessment a teacher had, the more frequent use of
the results of performance assessment was shown to improve teaching and learning in social
studies.
Likewise, as reviewed earlier, Son and Choi (2008) examined factors influencing teachers’
textbook use in elementary mathematics, and found that teacher knowledge about curriculum
played a significant role in their textbook use at the high cognitive level of mathematical tasks.

28

The more teachers had knowledge of curriculum (textbook) the more high level of mathematical
tasks they used in their teaching.
Previous studies reviewed in this section cover various types of teacher knowledge
influencing teachers’ practices and curriculum decision-making. Teachers’ misunderstanding or
misinterpretation of curriculum policies leads them to misalign teaching with curriculum
policies, and content and pedagogical knowledge helps teachers to provide better teaching (Choi
& Lee, 2008; Hill, 2001; Son & Chio, 2008). However, no study examines impacts of various
types of knowledge on teachers’ curriculum decision-making. In the sense, it would be beneficial
to examine teacher knowledge about curriculum policy as well as content and pedagogical
knowledge and how these all types of teacher knowledge influence teachers’ curriculum
decision-making, which has been underexamined especially in the context of Korean education.
In addition, most studies reviewed here were subject to one specific subject (e.g., mathematics or
social studies) rather than multiple subjects, which enable us to understand differences in teacher
knowledge between subjects.
Collaboration with Peer Teachers
Teachers valued collaboration with facilitators and other teachers to do curriculum
development. They can create research groups to exchange information and develop teaching
materials (Choi, 1996; Hur, 2001; Seo, 2009) and collaborate with peer teachers and school
administrators to develop school-based curriculum (Seo, 2009). Teachers’ collaboration and
interactions increased teacher knowledge for content and pedagogy as well as their confidence
level to implement the curriculum (Young, 1985), and they helped teachers better understand
policy messages (Coburn, 2001). Teachers’ collaboration, however, discouraged teachers from
integrating their curriculum with their own teaching styles and beliefs (Shin, 2009).

29

In order to explore reasons why teachers participated in curriculum development and what
aspects of their participation they liked and disliked, Young (1985) interviewed 15 teachers who
participated in a curriculum development committee at the provincial level. The interviews
indicated that these teachers wanted to participate in curriculum development because they
desired “to be involved in decision-making, and they valued interactions with other educators in
the process of curriculum development. It is meaningful to note that teachers valued interactions
with other educators in that teachers ‘perceived (interactions) as an excellent source of ideas for
use in one’s own classroom’ and ‘increased their knowledge for the subject area, understanding
of what curriculum was designed to accomplish, and their confidence in being able to implement
the curriculum effectively’ (p. 399). The slowness and inefficiency in curriculum development,
however, discouraged teachers from working on curriculum development.
Coburn (2001) observed teachers’ interactions both in formal and informal settings, and
found that teachers brought their worldviews and interpreted the same policy messages in
different ways. When teachers had problems with policy messages (e.g., policy messages did not
fit in their classrooms, teachers did not understand some policy messages, policy messages
contradicted with their preexisting worldviews, etc.), they dismissed those messages. Over time,
teachers in the same group showed similar worldviews and teaching practices. The results
suggest that interactions with peer teachers in formal or informal settings influence teachers’
understanding and interpretation of policy messages as well as teaching practices.
Similar to the US education context, in the context of Korean education, collaboration with
peer teachers has advantages and disadvantages. Seo (2009) interviewed with one mathematics
teacher and five language arts teachers who joined the group for developing unit plans. Five
language arts teachers created a group for collaboration and one leader teacher developed a draft

30

of unit plans considering and analyzing curriculum guides, textbooks, and teachers’ guides, and
other resources from the internet. The teachers had a monthly meeting to develop unit plans
based on the draft that the leader teacher developed, and the draft of unit plans had the analysis
of units, objectives, content, materials, the structure of student learning, and student activities.
The final version of unit plans looked totally different from the draft, but the leader teacher was
very open to criticism by other teachers in the group and valued their comments and revisions.
The author concluded that the teachers did not just make unit plans; rather created unit plans with
shared knowledge, experiences, and expertise. Teachers’ collaboration for curriculum decisionmaking, however, did not always help teachers. One mathematics teacher had experiences in
failing to develop unit plans through collaboration with peer teachers because he spent most time
in dealing with administrative issues rather than instructional issues when having meetings with
his colleagues.
Likewise, in Shin’s study (2009), teachers raised the problem of collaboration at the school
level. She interviewed eight teachers who taught world history in six high schools in the Midwest
in the US, and argued that “team teaching does not always mobilize the decision-making power
of teachers. Some teachers argue that team teaching might prevent individual teachers from
establishing curricular goals that are in sync with their own teaching styles and beliefs” (p. 205).
Teacher collaboration usually helps teachers decide curriculum decisions but it might be a barrier
(or hurdle) for teachers when they do not have consensus about the goals of collaboration.
Most studies on teacher collaboration present how collaboration with colleagues generally
help or hinder teachers interpreting policy messages, make curriculum decisions, developing
unit-plans. These studies, however, rarely ask teachers about how collaboration helps teachers
make specific curriculum decisions (e.g., how collaboration with peers helps teachers make

31

decision about content to teach).
Summary
The literature review indicate that teachers make decisions about content to teach,
instructional strategies, time allocation for units, sequence of units, etc. when they plan their
instruction. Teachers’ curriculum decision-making appears to be influenced by two kinds of
factors. First, policy pressures or features of curriculum materials play a critical role when
teachers decide what and how to teach their students. Particularly, it is important to note that
curriculum materials influence teachers’ practices through their features (e.g., structure of
textbooks) and through policy pressures (e.g., a single textbook adoption, state assessment
policy, etc.). Second kind of factors comes from teachers themselves. What teachers think about
curriculum standards, how enough knowledge about content, pedagogy, and the intentions of
curriculum policy teachers have, and how collaboration between teachers helps them encourage
or discourage teachers to make curriculum decisions.
The findings from the previous studies provide ample information about teachers’ curriculum
decision-making and influential factors, but some research gaps were also found. First, most
studies reviewed in this paper were conducted in the US context where have had very different
educational environment. Given that Korea and the US have different educational context,
especially regarding teachers’ control over curriculum decision-making, it is necessary to
conduct more research studies in the context of Korean education.
Second, methodologically, many previous studies use qualitative methods such as interview,
classroom observation, and document analysis in the context of US education. Qualitative
approach enables us to understand what actually happens at the school and classroom level, but it
is hard to generalize the findings for other teachers who have different environments. Especially,

32

school and classroom environment in the US and Korea have differences (e.g., In the US,
students go around to take a class while in Korea teachers come to the classroom to teach his/her
subject), it is even hard to apply the finding of studies in the context of US education to cases in
Korean education. Furthermore, in Korea, teachers have only little experience to take curriculum
control and education researchers also need basic and general information to help teachers have
more curriculum control. Therefore, it is required to see the current state of teachers’ curriculum
control in general prior to taking a close look for specific teaching practices.
To bridge the research gap, I will construct the analytical framework based on the literature
review in each sub-study.

33

CHAPTER 3
METHODS
Research Design
This section presents research design. This dissertation study employs a survey method, and
the survey questionnaire was developed reflecting the models constructed based on the literature
review. Research methods for sub-studies will be described in Chapter 4, 5, and 6.
Data Collection Procedures
Prior to data collection, the data collection instruments were reviewed and approved by the
Institutional Review Board (IRB) of Michigan State University. The data source was survey
responses from middle school teachers in South Korea. In the following section, I describe data
collection procedures.
Data Collection Instrument
The survey questionnaire was developed specifically for this dissertation study, and
comprises three parts: 1) teachers’ perception of control over curriculum decision-making; 2)
teachers’ attention to curriculum materials and student contexts when they make curriculum
decisions and whether their attention has changed; and 3) teachers’ beliefs about curriculum
materials, teacher knowledge, and collaboration with peer teachers. I did not use survey items
about whether teachers’ attention to curriculum materials and student contexts had changed over
time.
Teachers’ Perception of Control over Curriculum Decision-Making
Five measures are included to examine how teachers perceive their control over curriculum
decision-making. These measures are examined by asking teachers the degree to which they
perceive control over four types of curriculum decision-making and for evaluating students. The

34

four types of curriculum decision-making include content to teach, instructional strategies, time
allocation for unites, and sequencing units.
Teachers’ Attention to Curriculum Materials and Students’ Needs and Context
Teachers were asked the degree to which they pay attention to curriculum materials and
students’ needs and context when they make four types of curriculum decisions respectively. In
the context of Korean education, three types of curriculum materials are usually considered by
teachers: 1) curriculum guides for subject matter; 2) textbooks; and 3) teacher guides. Second,
assessments are also very influential curriculum materials for teachers’ curriculum decisionmaking. Generally, four kinds of assessments are administered at the middle school level: 1)
performance assessment; 2) assessments administered by school; 3) the national assessment of
student achievement; and 4) high school entrance examination.
In addition to curriculum materials, students’ individual needs and local context are included
because these two resources are particularly emphasized in the revised seventh national
curriculum as key features to provide teachers with more responsibility in the context of
decentralization of curriculum policy.
Teacher beliefs
Measures on teacher beliefs about curriculum materials are borrowed from Donnelly and
Boone’s study (2007). Five measures present positive beliefs (e.g., curriculum materials provide
useful instructional suggestions) and six measures present negative beliefs (e.g., curriculum
standards are mandated by my school administration). I will ask teachers about their beliefs
about curriculum guides, textbooks, and teacher guides respectively because these three
curriculum materials are frequently and generally used by middle school teachers in South
Korea.

35

Teacher knowledge
These measures are borrowed from Son’s study (2008), which focuses on mathematics
teachers and teaching practices. Since this dissertation study focus general teaching rather than
subject-specific one, I modified measures that ask teachers about their knowledge on specific
mathematics content. In addition, I deleted subject-specific items. Six measures are embedded as
follows: 1) teacher knowledge on content; 2) general classroom management; 3) how students
learn subject matter; 4) instructional strategies; and 5) ways of using curriculum standards.
Collaboration with Peer Teachers
Measures for teacher collaboration are developed in consideration of the literature review and
comprise two kinds of items. First four items ask teachers how collaboration with peer teachers
helps them make a decision about main curricular issues (content, instructional strategies, time
allocation, and sequence). Second, three items are embedded to ask teachers how collaboration
helps them improve their content and pedagogical knowledge as well as knowledge for
understanding and interpreting the requirements of the national curriculum.
Survey Item Validation
Once the survey instrument was developed, to examine and critique the instrument, I asked
three Ph. D students who had teaching experience at the middle school level in South Korea to
review the instrument. Specifically, I asked them if there were any items (or terms) that were
unclear or did not make sense to them. After collecting their comments, I revised the instrument
and translated it into Korean.
Since Korean language is not completely matched with English, I carefully translated the
survey instrument from English into Korean, and then asked two Ph. D. students who are
familiar with Korean education to examine items to ensure that they were clearly and completely

36

translated into Korean. I also asked these students to suggest any alternative words if there is any
term that is awkward, unclear or not applicable for Korean education. With their comments, I
revised the instrument again.
Pilot Study
A pilot survey was conducted from August 2 through September 2 (Table 1). The pilot survey
enabled me to test reliability of survey items and make further improvements in the
questionnaire. To this end, I asked 38 Korean middle school teachers to complete the survey and
also asked about unclear terms and how to improve the questionnaire. Reliability was assessed
using Cronbach’s alphas. Results of reliability tests are shown in Table 2. Most groups of items
present reasonable degree of reliability (over 0.7), but the reliability for items of negative teacher
beliefs on curriculum guide is .549.
Table 1
Summary of Data Collection Procedure
Timeline

Procedure

August 2 ~ September 2, 2010

Collected the pilot survey data

September 3 ~ November , 2010

Analyzing the data from policy survey
Revised the survey instrument

November 15~ December 15, 2010

Collected the final data

37

Table 2
Reliability of Items in Pilot Survey
Categories of items
Teachers’ perception of control over curriculum decision-making

Cronbach’s
Alpha
.876

Teachers’ attention to curriculum materials and student contexts for curriculum
decision-making
1) Content to teach

.835

2) Instructional strategies

.717

3) Time allocation

.717

4) Sequence for units

.879

Whether teachers’ attention to curriculum materials and student contexts for
curriculum decision-making have changed
1) Content to teach

.931

2) Instructional strategies

.954

3) Time allocation

.951

4) Sequence for units

.916

Teachers’ negative beliefs about curriculum guides

.549

Teachers’ positive beliefs about curriculum guides

.726

Teachers’ negative beliefs about textbooks

.721

Teachers’ positive beliefs about textbooks

.706

Teachers’ negative beliefs about teacher guides

.824

Teachers’ positive beliefs about teacher guides

.690

Teacher knowledge

.918

Collaboration with peer teachers

.928

38

Participants
The questionnaire was distributed to 1,010 middle school teachers in South Korea. In order to
sample teachers, I used a stratified cluster design process. All middle schools in South Korea are
stratified by geographic locations and school size. With regard to geographic locations, 16
MPOEs (Seoul, six metropolitan cities, and nine provinces) were categorized into four regions
(see Table 3). Within each region, schools were categorized as small schools with at most 40
teachers and large schools with more than 40 teachers. As a result, eight strata were created (four
areas * two school sizes). I selected school from each stratum with probability proportional to
middle school teachers in each school.
The Korean Center for Educational Statistics provided me with the total number of middle
school teachers and the number of teachers who were currently leaving of absence. In total, there
were 108,781 middle school teachers and 4,942 teachers were on leave of absence in 2009.
Thus, the size of the population for this study was 103,839 middle school teachers. I expected to
sample approximately 1% of the population (about 1,000 teachers). I calculated the average
number of teachers in each stratum, and then predicted that I needed at least 32 middle schools to
select about 1,000 teachers. It is possible to select approximately 1,104 teachers from 32 middle
schools.
Thirty two schools were randomly selected by using the random number generator in Excel
2010. To each stratum, I assigned random numbers in each category (e.g., the stratum for small
schools in region 1). Once I selected 32 sample schools, I made a list of all the teachers and
counted the number of teachers in the selected schools. I excluded counseling teachers, school
nurses, religion teachers, librarians because these teachers do not need to make curriculum

39

2

decisions. In addition, I excluded native English speaking teachers because I was not sure if
they could complete the questionnaire in Korean and have enough background knowledge about
Korean education to complete the survey.
In total, 1,010 teachers from 32 middle schools were selected. To survey the selected
teachers, I mailed packets the questionnaires with a guideline and modest monetary reward to a
head teacher of the department of academic affairs (DAA) in each school. Usually, a head
teacher of DAA is more experienced, responsible for curriculum-related tasks, and has power to
assign tasks to other teachers in school. I asked head teachers of DAA to distribute and collect
the questionnaires. In the guideline, I briefly described the purpose of the study and who must be
included and excluded in the survey. I asked head teachers to send the completed questionnaires
back by December 3, 2010, but most head teachers asked to have more time to collect the
completed questionnaires. On the front page of the questionnaire, I notified teachers that I would
mail a book gift card (valued at about $5.00) once I received the completed questionnaires.

2

As the MOE has launched the plan for the globalized education, English teachers who are
native English speakers have been invited to teach in elementary and secondary schools.

40

Table 3
Number of Sample Schools and Teachers
Small schools with at

Large schools with

most 40 teachers

more than 40 teacher

Total

Region

Schools

Teachers

Schools

Teachers

Schools

Teachers

1

5

128

4

166

9

294

2

5

103

4

200

9

303

3

4

67

3

125

7

192

4

4

66

3

155

7

221

Total

18

364

14

646

32

1,010

Of 32 schools, head teachers in three schools declined to participate in the survey. Teachers
of two schools said that it was the busiest time of the year for teachers and so they did not have
time to participate in the survey. In another school, the head teacher declined because she did not
have authority to ask teachers to complete the questionnaire and suggested to ask a deputy
principal. I called the deputy principal to persuade her to help me conduct the survey in her
school, but she said that she would allow to survey teachers only if I persuaded all teachers in the
school by calling each of them. It seemed impossible to call almost 40 teachers in the school, so I
gave up to survey teachers in the school. The head teacher in another school chose not to
participate in a curriculum-related survey because his school just opened in 2010 so that teachers
in the school were not prepared to participate in the survey. As a result, 618 teachers in 28
schools completed the questionnaire, but I had to delete one school because I received only one
response from the one school. Two responses were also deleted because these teachers did not
complete the first section of background information. As a result, 615 responses from 27 schools
will be analyzed in this study (Table 4).

41

Table 4
Number of Responding Schools and Teachers
Small schools with at

Large schools with

most 40 teachers

more than 40 teacher

Total

Region

Schools

Teachers

Schools

Teachers

Schools

Teachers

1

4

77 (60.2)

3

95 (57.2)

7

172 (58.5)

2

5

72 (69.9)

3

123 (61.5)

8

195 (64.4)

3

3

52 (77.6)

3

93 (74.4)

7

145 (75.5)

4

3

21 (31.8)

3

82 (52.9)

6

103 (46.6)

Total

17

222 (61.1)

12

393 (60.8)

28

615 (60.9)

* The numbers in parenthesis are response rates.
Demographic characteristics of the participants are shown in Table 5. Sampling weights were
created based on the sampling plan, the selection probabilities, and the non-response and
response rates. Because of the complex nature of the sample design, Jackknife replicate weights
were created and used for estimating sampling variability.

42

Table 5
Characteristics of Survey Participants

Category
Region

Type
Entrance exam
Gender
Degree

Subject taught
Number of grade taught
Teaching years

Number of
Respondents

%

Seoul
Large cities
Small cities
Rural areas
Public
Private
Yes
No
Female
Male
Bachelor
Master
Ph.D
Etc
Test-related
Nontest-related
Single
Multiple
0-10
11-20
21-30
31 and more

113
162
217
123
480
135
310
305
425
190
389
216
6
1
403
212
425
183
172
112
237
40

18.4
26.3
35.3
20
78
22
50.4
49.6
69.1
30.9
63.3
35.1
1.0
0.2
65.5
34.5
69.1
29.8
28
18.2
38.5
6.5

43

Total

615
615
615
615

612
615
608

561

CHAPTER 4
TEACHERS’ ATTENTION TO CURRICULUM MATERIALS VERSUS STUDENT
CONTEXTS
Purpose of the Study
The current curriculum policy in South Korea has been moving towards decentralization,
which encourages teachers to be less dependent on curriculum materials (e.g., textbooks) and to
consider more environments of local communities and students’ individual needs. The
decentralization of curriculum policy encourages teachers to consider students’ needs rather than
providing students with standardized teaching, and to this end, teachers are encouraged to pay
more attention to curriculum guides, which provides general directions and objectives about
what students should learn and they are also recommended to consider students’ needs and
context such as local contexts and students’ needs. Thus, it is important to examine the current
status of teachers’ attention to curriculum materials and students’ needs and context (i.e., local
contexts and students’ needs) and to understand why teachers do or do not pay attention to
curriculum materials and student contexts.
To develop a lesson plan, Korean teachers use curriculum guides and textbooks with
teachers’ guides, but they heavily depend on textbooks (Choi, 1996). Lee and Hong (2008)
argued that curriculum standards-based teaching gives teachers more responsibility for
curriculum decision-making than textbook-based teaching. They acknowledged that textbookbased teaching helps teachers save time and effort to prepare for teaching and to teach many
students the same content at the same time. However, textbook-based teaching hinders teachers
from reflecting on students’ individual needs, and so further results in teachers’ indifference.
They strongly recommended curriculum guides-based teaching because it can motivate teachers

44

to take into account students’ individual needs and learning environments in consideration of
curriculum standards rather than just sticking to textbooks (Lee & Hong, 2008), thus broadening
teachers’ control over curriculum decision-making.
Thus, this sub-study examines teachers’ attention to curriculum materials and student
contexts, and factors influencing their attention to curriculum materials and student contexts. To
address this purpose, specific research questions are developed as follows.
1. To what extent do teachers pay attention to curriculum materials and student contexts
when they make curriculum decisions?
2. How is teachers’ attention similar or different between curriculum materials and student
contexts?
3. How do school factors and teacher characteristics influence teachers’ attention to
curriculum materials and student contexts?
4. How does teachers’ attention to curriculum materials influence teachers’ attention to
student contexts?
Methods
This section presents the variables used to measure teachers’ attention to curriculum
materials and student contexts as well as influential factors on teachers’ attention. And analysis
methods to address research questions in the study are presented.
Analytical Framework
To address research questions for this sub-study, I created the analytical model as shown in
Figure 1. The literature review suggests that the degree to which teachers pay attention to
curriculum materials influence teachers’ curriculum decision-making, and there are four types of
curriculum materials considered in the model.

45

Several kinds of curriculum materials are hierarchically organized in South Korea. First of
all, the national curriculum and curriculum guides for a subject matter are developed by MOE.
The national curriculum provides general information about the direction of curriculum design,
educational goals by school level, organization of curriculum, time allotment standards, and
guidelines for the organization and implementation of curriculum. Curriculum guides for
subjects (curriculum guides hereafter) address standards and general direction, such as
objectives, content, instructional strategies, and assessments for each subject matter. Curriculum
guides explain how to use subject matter curriculum standards.
Textbooks are developed in consideration of the national curriculum, subject matter
curriculum standards, and curriculum guides, and published by MOE and private publishers.
MOE publishes textbooks and teachers’ guides for all subjects at the elementary level and for
language arts and history subjects at the secondary levels. Textbooks and teachers’ guides for all
other subjects are approved by MOE once private publishers develop. A few publishers develop
considering standards and criterion suggested by MOE so that most textbooks and teachers’
guides look very similar, but not very different from one another. In other words, Korean
teachers have textbooks and teachers’ guides which include similar contents reflecting guidelines
of the national curriculum standards (Kim, 2010).
In addition to curriculum guides and textbooks, assessments are the important factors
influencing teachers’ curriculum decision-making. Four types of assessments are generally
considered at the middle school level. First, performance assessments are administered in the
classroom setting. “Teachers employ performance assessment tasks requiring students to
demonstrate their understanding by constructing responses or by performing tasks, rather than by
selecting “right” answers” (Choi, 2005, p.15). Second, there are assessments that are regularly

46

administered by the school. These types of assessments aim to evaluate student performance for
all subjects and occur twice per semester (i.e., mid-term and final examinations). The results of
these assessments are very important in that students in some areas apply for high school with
the records of assessments for three years of middle school. Third, the national assessment of
student achievement examines student performance at the national level in order to provide low
performing students with special support. This assessment is implemented nationwide, and in
2010, sixth, ninth, and eleventh graders have to take the assessment. Sixth and ninth graders have
five subjects (language arts, social studies, mathematics, science, and English) and eleventh
graders have three subjects (language arts, mathematics, and English). Lastly, in some areas, high
school entrance exam is an influential factor when teachers develop curriculum. Middle school
students in some areas have to take the high school entrance exam while their counterparts in
other areas can enter high schools only with middle school grades (Sung & Park, 2008).
In addition to four types of curriculum materials, I added two student contexts in the model.
The seventh and revised seventh curriculums encourage Korean teachers to pay more attention to
local contexts and students’ needs. Local contexts refer to environment surrounding teachers and
schools, which teachers should consider when they make curriculum decisions (e.g., geographic
and seasonal characteristics).
Variables
Outcome Variables
Outcome variables are teachers’ attention to curriculum materials and to student contexts.
Curriculum materials are curriculum guides for subject matter, textbooks, teachers’ guides, and
assessments administered at the school level, which are usually considered by Korean middle
school teachers when making curriculum decisions, and student contexts are local contexts and

47

students’ needs, which are emphasized in the seventh and the revised seventh curriculum.
Teachers were asked how much attention they give to each factor (i.e., curriculum materials
and student contexts) when making four types of curriculum decisions: 1) content to teach, 2)
instructional strategies, 3) time allocation for units, and 4) sequence for units respectively. As a
result, there are 24 items for teachers’ attention to factors (four curriculum decisions * six
factors) will be considered in this study (see 2.1, 3.1, 4.1, and 5.1 in the questionnaire in
Appendix A) (1=no attention; 2=little attention; 3=some attention; 4=much attention; and 5=very
much attention).
Independent variables
School factors and teacher characteristics were considered as independent variables in this
study. One concern I have in this study is the extent to which teachers’ attention to curriculum
materials and student contexts might be greater or lesser as a function of the general income level
of the local community. For instance, if teachers are working in a low-income community, they
might be more likely to pay attention to student contexts when making curriculum decisions.
One proxy for community income is the cost of private education expenditure per student a
month.
School Factors
School factors include school location, school size (number of classes), school type, whether
high school entrance examination is mandatory. In South Korea, not all middle school graduates
are required to take a high school entrance examination. Students in eight provinces and one city
are required to take a high school entrance examination while those in other areas move on to
high school without entrance examination. Because high school entrance examination is
developed in consideration of contents in curriculum materials, it can be hypothesized that

48

teachers who teach in the area of high school entrance examination gain more pressure to teach
within curriculum materials. In addition to school factors from the survey, I added private
education expenditure as poverty level of schools. Statistics Korea (2010) investigated the
average monthly private education expenditure per student (PEE) by 16 locations in South Korea
(Appendix C). I assigned a PEE score to each school based on their data.
Teacher Characteristics
Teacher characteristics consist of gender, teaching experience, highest degree, subject
taught, and whether teachers teach single or multiple grades. One of important examinations in
schools in Korea is the National Assessment of Student Achievement (NASA). The purpose of
the assessment is to provide basic information of effects of school education through examining
student achievement of first through twelfth grades and its longitudinal patterns. In this study, I
assume that teachers who teach test-related subjects (language arts, social studies, mathematics,
science, and English) for NASA will pay more attention to curriculum materials than those who
teach non test-related subjects (e.g., moral education, physical education).
With regard to the number of grade taught, teachers can teach a single grade or multiple
grades (seventh through ninth). If teachers teach only one grade, they have to prepare for
curriculum decision-making only for one grade while teachers who teach multiple grades have to
spend more time for curriculum decision-making for more than one grade. To address how
teaching multiple grades make difference in teachers’ perception of control over curriculum
decision-making, whether teachers teaching a single grade or multiple grades was included in
teacher characteristics.
In addition to teachers’ demographic background, I added two more variables: the degree to
which teachers know about the decentralization of curriculum policy and the degree to which

49

they agree with the decentralization of curriculum policy. These items was measured using a 5point Likert scale (1=very poor through 5=excellent for teacher knowledge, and 1=strongly agree
through 5=strongly agree for teacher agreement). More details about variables used in this study
are shown in Table 6.
Table 6
Summary of Variables Used in the First Sub-Study
Categories

School Factors

Teacher
Characteristics

Outcome variables
Location (Seoul=0, large cities=1, small cities=0, rural areas=3)
School type (public=0, private=1)
Coeducation (single sex=0, coeducation=1)
School size (number of classes)
Private education expenditure per student a month
High school entrance examination (nonexam area=0, exam area=1)
Gender (female=0, male=1)
Teaching experience (number of teaching years)
Degree (bachelor’s=0, advanced=1)
Subject taught (non-test subject=0, test subject=1)
Number of grade taught (single grade=0, multiple grades=1)
Knowledge about the decentralization of curriculum policy
Agreement with the decentralization of curriculum policy

Analysis
Figure 1 shows the analytic model I use for this investigation. The two boxes on the right
side show the six factors that teachers could pay attention to as they make curriculum decisions.
Those on the top are the four types of curriculum materials described above and the bottom box
are the two new factors that the ministry would like teachers to also think about. The two boxes
on the left side in Figure 1 represent aspects of teachers and schools that might be relevant to
their decisions to pay more or less attention to materials and student contexts.

50

Teachers’ Attention to
Curriculum Materials
• Curriculum guides
• Textbooks
• Teachers’ guides
• Assessments

School Factors

Teacher Characteristics
Teachers’ Attention to Student
Contexts
• Local contexts
• Students’ needs

Figure 1 Analytical Model for Teachers’ Attention to the Six Factors
The central goal of this analysis is to define dominant patterns of teachers’ attention to
curriculum materials and student contexts when making their daily curriculum decisions, in
particular whether there are differences between their attention to curriculum materials versus
student contexts factors. I also want to see whether teachers’ attention to these factors is related
to different aspects of their schools or their backgrounds. To address how teachers’ attention to
the six factors look and how they show difference between curriculum materials and student
contexts factors, I will present descriptive statistics and correlations between 24 variables for
teachers’ attention to curriculum materials and student factors.
Factors influencing teachers’ attention to curriculum materials and student contexts are
examined by correlations and Hierarchical Linear Modeling (HLM) (Bryk & Raudenbush,
1992). Since the participating teachers were nested within schools, it is possible to estimate the
effects of teacher and school level variables simultaneously. Model building was carried out in
steps that are consistent with the analytical model (Figure 1) and addressed research questions
for this study.
There are two types of independent variables: school factors and teacher characteristics.
51

School factors include school location, school type, etc., and teacher characteristics include
variables about teachers such as teachers’ gender, teaching years, subject they teach, etc.
Limitations
This study was conducted by a one-time data collection so that it is not possible to examine
the difference in teachers’ attention to curriculum materials and student contexts between before
and after the decentralization of curriculum policy was implemented. In addition, I collected the
data by only surveying teachers, and did not triangulate with other types of data sources (e.g.,
interview and classroom observation). The survey allows me to gather data on teachers’
perception of the degree to which they paid attention to curriculum materials and student
contexts, but I was not able to triangulate those perceptions against other types of evidence.
Finally, the study is limited to middle school teachers and may not generalize to other grade
levels.
Results
In this section, I present descriptive statistics for and correlations between teachers’ attention
to curriculum materials and student contexts, and then show the factors influencing teachers’
attention by HLM results.
Teachers’ Attention to Curriculum Materials and Student Contexts
Table 7 shows the descriptive statistics (mean and standard deviation) for teachers’ attention
to curriculum materials (curriculum guides for subject matter, textbooks, teachers’ guides, school
assessments) and student contexts (local contexts and students’ needs). The participating teachers
rated the degree to which they paid attention to each factor with a 5-point Likert scale (1=no
attention through 5=very much attention). Among curriculum materials, teachers considered
textbooks a great deal no matter what types of curriculum decisions they made (4.06 for content,

52

3.84 for instructional strategies, 3.83 for time allocation, and 3.83 for sequence), and assessments
were followed (3.91 for content, 3.68 for instructional strategies, 3.76 for time allocation, and
3.74 for sequence). Teachers’ guides and curriculum guides received relatively less attention than
textbooks and assessments. In contrast, teachers were likely to pay less attention to local contexts
and students’ needs than curriculum materials. Especially, teachers showed low score for their
attention to local contexts (3.01 for content, 3.15 for instructional strategies, 3.01 for time
allocation, and 2.97 for sequence. Teachers had relatively higher attention to students’ needs
when deciding instructional strategies (3.50) than other curriculum decisions (3.23 for content,
3.39 for time allocation, and 3.28 for sequence).
Table 7
Descriptive Statistics of Teachers' Attention to Curriculum Materials and Student Contexts
Decision-making

Content

Instructional
Strategies

Time Allocation

Sequence

M

SD

M

SD

M

SD

M

SD

Curriculum guides

3.11

.708

3.06

.675

3.11

.774

3.10

.829

Textbooks

4.06

.767

3.84

.683

3.83

.694

3.83

.836

Teachers’ guides

3.46

.809

3.45

.725

3.46

.801

3.39

.897

Assessments

3.91

.727

3.68

.738

3.76

.751

3.74

.778

Local contexts

3.01

.807

3.15

.790

3.01

.872

2.97

.914

Students’ needs

3.23

.750

3.50

.796

3.39

.797

3.28

.890

Correlations
Correlation analysis showed that the average attention to the six factors across four
curriculum decisions were greater than among decisions across six factors (Appendix D). For
example, teachers’ attention to local contexts across the four types of curriculum decisions were
53

highly correlated (.334~ .626) while teachers’ attention to the six factors for individual content
decisions were less correlated (.138 ~ .443). That is, teachers are likely to have similar degree of
attention to local contexts no matter what curriculum decisions they made, but the extent to
which they considered each type of curriculum materials or student contexts did not look very
similar to each other.
Since there was little variation in teachers’ attention to these factors across the four types of
curriculum decisions, a mean score of each factor across the four types of curriculum decisions
was computed. This enabled me to treat teachers’ attention to a given curriculum material as a
composite score of across the four types of curriculum decisions. Cronbach’s alphas for four
items within each composite variable are considerably reliable (.772 ~ .862) indicating that the
four items in each composite variable consistently measured teachers’ attention to each factor.
As shown in Table 8, among curriculum materials, teachers paid considerable attention to
textbooks (3.89) and assessments (3.77), but relatively little attention to curriculum guides
(3.10). In addition, teachers paid relatively less attention to local contexts (3.03) and students’
needs (3.35) compared to attention to curriculum materials. However, it is interesting to note that
teachers paid more attention to students’ needs than curriculum guides.

54

Table 8
Descriptive Statistics of Composite Variables for Teachers’ Attention to the Six Factors
N

Max

Min

Mean

SD

Cronbach’s
Alpha

Curriculum guides

606

1.00

5.00

3.10

.610

.831

Textbooks

609

2.00

5.00

3.89

.575

.772

Teachers' guides

584

1.25

5.00

3.45

.647

.808

Assessments

597

1.25

5.00

3.77

.588

.791

Local contexts

587

1.00

5.00

3.03

.711

.862

Students' needs

606

1.00

5.00

3.35

.658

.828

Factors

Correlation between Outcome Variables
As shown in Table 9, the correlation coefficients of outcome variables ranged from .083
to .651. Measures of teachers’ attention to the six factors were generally significantly correlated
to one another (p < .001), and all factors showed positive correlations. Correlations among the
four kinds of curriculum materials and between the two measures of student contexts were higher
than correlations between these two sets of measures. For example, teachers’ attention to
textbooks and assessments were highly correlated (.498, p < .001) while teachers’ attention to
textbooks showed only low correlations with their concern about local contexts (.083, p < .001)
and students’ needs (.186, p < .001). Textbooks and assessments were most heavily considered
by teachers when making curriculum decisions, and a strong correlation between the two may be
explained by the fact that assessments have largely dominated what students should learn and
teachers strongly depend on textbooks when they decide content and instructional strategies.
Teachers’ attention to teachers’ guides also showed high correlations with attention to
textbooks (.556, p < .001) and curriculum guides (.525, p < .001). Given that teachers’ guides

55

include a manual about how to utilize textbook, it is natural that teachers’ attention to both
textbooks and teachers’ guides were highly correlated. However, it is interesting to note that
teachers’ attention to curriculum guides and teachers’ guides was highly correlated (.525, p
< .001) while teachers’ attention to curriculum guides and textbooks showed a low correlation
(.251, p < .001).
Teachers’ attention to local contexts was most highly correlated to their attention to students’
needs (.651, p < .001). Considering that the decentralization of curriculum policy intends to
encourage teachers to more consider student contexts, it seems that teachers who pay much
attention to local contexts are also likely to consider students’ needs much.
Table 9
Correlations between Teachers’ Attention to Curriculum Materials and Student Contexts
Local contexts
Assessments
Textbooks
Teachers’ guides
Curriculum guides
Students’ needs
Local contexts
** p < .001

.335**
.083**
.193**
.356**
.651**

Students’
needs
.333**
.186**
.202**
.282**

Curriculum
guides
.225**
.251**
.525**

Teachers’
guides
0.281**
0.556**

Textbooks
0.498**

Factors Influencing Teachers’ Attention to the Six Factors
This section presents how school factors and teacher characteristics influence their attention
to the six factors such as curriculum materials and student contexts. To this end, I will show
correlations between outcome variables (teachers’ attention to curriculum materials and student
contexts) and independent variables (school factors and teacher characteristics). These
correlations are a preliminary form of analysis providing an estimate of expected associations
and strength of relationships. Then I will show HLM results to report what factors among school
56

factors and teacher characteristics have statistically significant associations with teachers’
attention to curriculum materials and student contexts.
Correlations between Outcome Variables and School Factors
One thing that could influence teachers’ attention to the six factors is the extent to which that
context is itself distinctive. That is, teachers in some school contexts may be more likely to
consider curriculum materials or student contexts because the context itself is unusual in some
way. For this study, I document specific aspects of school contexts to see whether these specific
contexts increased teachers’ likelihood to take the six factors into account when making
curriculum decisions.
As shown in Table 10, teachers’ attention to curriculum materials was significantly correlated
with most school factors. Location showed negative correlations with most curriculum materials
except teachers’ guides indicating that teachers in Seoul and large cities showed significantly less
attention to curriculum guides (-.116, p < .001), textbooks (-.111, p < .001), and assessments (.014, p < .001). Teachers in private schools showed significantly higher attention to curriculum
materials than their peers in public schools. Whether high school entrance examination is
mandatory showed negative correlations with teachers’ attention to curriculum guide (-.136, p
< .001), textbook (-.031, p < .001), and assessments (-.023, p < .001) suggesting that teachers in
exam areas were likely to have less attention to those curriculum materials than those in
nonexam areas. Coeducation and number of classes did not show consistent patterns in
correlations with teachers’ attention to curriculum materials.
Teachers’ attention to student contexts were also significantly correlated with most of school
factors. Location was significantly correlated with teachers’ attention to local contexts (-.168, p
< .001) and students’ needs (-.143, p < .001) indicating that teachers in Seoul and large cities

57

were likely to have less attention to local contexts and students’ needs for curriculum decisions.
Number of classes showed significant correlations with teachers’ attention to local contexts (.037, p < .001) and students’ needs (-.037, p < .001) indicating that larger school teachers were
likely to pay less attention to student contexts. Similar to curriculum materials, high school
entrance examination was significantly correlated with teachers’ attention to local contexts (.164, p < .001) and students’ needs (-.071, p < .001) suggesting that teachers in exam areas were
likely to have less attention to student contexts than those in nonexam areas.
Table 10
Correlations between Outcome Variables and School factors
Location School type Coeducation
Curriculum guides
Textbooks
Teachers’ guides
Assessments
Local contexts
Students’ needs
Entrance exam
Private education expenditure
Number of classes
Coeducation
School type
** p < .001

-.116**
-.111**
.032**
-.014**
-.168**
-.143**
.652**
.589**
.276**
.120**
-.112**

.133**
.045**
.051**
.049**
.062**
.043**
-.023**
-.190**
-.259**
-.599**

-.025**
.004
-.043**
-.035**
.025**
-.022**
.033**
.128**
-.032**

Number of
classes
-.022 **
.009
.032 **
-.004
-.185 **
-.037 **
-.037 **
.248 **

Entrance
exam
-.136 **
-.031 **
.021 **
-.023 **
-.164 **
-.071 **
.351 **

Correlations between Outcome Variables and Teacher Characteristics
Table 11 indicated that among teacher characteristics, teacher knowledge about the
decentralization of curriculum policy had significant correlations with teachers’ attention to
curriculum materials and student contexts. Especially, teacher knowledge about the
decentralization of curriculum policy had the highest correlation with teachers’ attention to
students’ needs (.215, p < .001). Next, whether teachers taught test or notest subjects had
58

significant correlations with teachers’ attention to teachers’ guides (-.110, p < .001), textbooks (.131, p < .001), local contexts (.163, p < .001), and students’ needs (.137, p < .001). It is
noteworthy that test subject teachers showed higher attention to teachers’ guides and textbooks,
whereas nontest subject teachers showed higher attention to local contexts and students’ needs.
Teachers’ gender and highest degree also showed significant correlations with teachers’
attention to some of factors. Male teachers showed less attention to teachers’ guides (-.083, p
< .05) and textbooks (-.167, p < .001) than female teachers. Teachers who had advanced degrees
showed less attention to textbooks (-.081, p < .05) than those who had bachelor’s degree.
Teaching years and the extent to which teachers agreed with the decentralization of
curriculum policy rarely showed significant correlations with outcome variables. The more
teaching years also contributed to the increase of teachers’ attention to local contexts (.128, p
< .001). As the degree of teachers’ agreement with the policy increased, teachers’ consideration
of curriculum guide (.090, p < .05) and students’ needs (.126, p < .001) significantly increased.

59

Table 11
Correlations between Outcome Variables and Teacher Characteristics
Gender
Curriculum guides
Textbooks
Teachers’ guides
Assessments
Local contexts
Students’ needs
Agreement1
Knowledge2
Grade
Subject taught
Grade
Teaching years
* p<.05, ** p<.001

.004
-.083*
-.171**
-.167**
-.048
-.010
.026
.140*
.047
-.100*
.059
.217 **

Teaching
Degree
years
.040
.029
.064
.017
-.012
-.081*
-.002
-.031
.132*
.075
.026
.057
.054
.077
.141*
.128*
.057
.030
-.122*
-.073
.149 **

Subject
taught
-.044
.110*
.131*
-.042
-.163**
-.137*
.073
-.121*
-.047

Grade Knowledge Agreement
.029
.011
-.012
.005
.103*
.073
-.034
.014

.185**
.167**
.066
.146**
.173**
.215**
.140*

.090*
.057
.038
.018
.073
.126*

Note
1) The degree to which teachers agree with the decentralization of curriculum policy
2) The degree to which teachers know about the decentralization of curriculum policy
HLM Results
This section presents the results of the HLM analysis. It begins with the results of the
unconditional model, and then the model including all independent variables at the school and
teacher levels. There were six models for each outcome variable (i.e., teachers’ attention to each
factor).
Unconditional Model Results
The unconditional model results (Table 12) showed that a large portion of the variance in
teachers’ attention to curriculum materials and student contexts were between teachers, while
only little variance was shown between schools. More than 99% of the variance in teachers’
attention to textbooks (99.99%), teachers’ guides (99.88%), and assessments (99.97%) were

60

between teachers, and 95% of the variance in teachers’ attention to curriculum guides was
between teachers while only 5% of the variance was between schools.
Teachers’ attention to local contexts and students’ needs showed greater variance between
schools than teachers’ attention to curriculum materials. Approximately 5.9% of the variance in
teachers’ attention to local contexts and 5.2% of the variance in teachers’ attention to students’
needs were between schools.
Table 12
Unconditional Model Results
Curriculum
Textbooks
guides
Intercept

3.15**

3.91**

Teachers’
Assessments
guides
Coefficient estimates
3.48**
3.78**

Local
contexts

Students’
needs

3.08**

3.39**

0.481
94.10

0.392
94.77

0.030
5.90

0.022
5.23

Variance components
Teacher level
Variance
Percent of total

0.322
92.36

0.321
99.99

0.405
99.78

School level
Variance
Percent of total

0.027
7.64

0.000
0.01

0.001
0.22

805.37

778.872

887.32

778.7

985.97

890.68

3

3

3

3

3

3

Deviance statistic
Number of
parameters
** p < .01

0.321
99.98

0.000
0.02

School Factors and Teacher Characteristics Model Results
The results shown in Table 13 indicated that few school factors and teacher characteristics
were significantly related to teachers’ attention to curriculum materials. Especially, only gender
and whether high school entrance examination is mandatory were significantly associated with

61

teachers’ attention to textbooks.
There were a few school factors that significantly influenced teachers’ attention to curriculum
guides. Teachers in small cities were likely to pay less attention to curriculum guides than those
in Seoul, large cities, and rural areas (effect size = -.32, p < .10) and private school teachers were
likely to pay higher attention to curriculum guides than those in public school teachers (effect
size = .40, p < .10). This result is interesting because Korean middle school teachers have the
same curriculum guides regardless of school type (public and private). In addition, coeducation
(effect size = .19, p < .10), school size (effect size = .02, p < .10), and private education
expenditure (effect size = -.02, p < .10) were significantly associated with teachers’ attention to
curriculum guides.
Subject taught, teaching multiple grades, and teacher knowledge about the decentralization of
curriculum policy had significant roles in their attention to teachers’ guides. Teachers who taught
test subjects (language arts, mathematics, English, social studies, and science) were likely to pay
higher attention to teachers’ guides than those who taught nontest subjects (effect size = .20, p
< .05), and teachers who taught multiple grades were likely to pay higher attention to teachers’
guides than their peers who taught single grade (effect size = .16, p < .10). The more teacher
knowledge about the decentralization of curriculum policy also significantly increased the degree
to which teachers paid attention to teachers’ guides (effect size = .13, p < .05).
Only small number of teacher characteristics had significant influences on their attention to
assessments. As in attention to textbooks, male teachers were likely to pay less attention to
assessments than female teachers (effect size = -.26, p < .01), and teaching multiple grades
(effect size = .17, p < .01) and knowledge about the decentralization of curriculum policy (effect
size = .09, p < .01) were also significantly associated with their attention to assessments.

62

Teachers paid considerable attention to textbooks and assessments, and attention to these two
curriculum materials were related to by few school factors or teacher characteristics. On the
other hand, there were several factors that significantly related to teachers’ attention to student
contexts. Teachers teaching test subjects were likely to pay less attention to local contexts than
those teaching non-test subjects (effect size = -.22, p < .05), and teachers teaching multiple
grades were likely to pay higher attention to local contexts (effect size = .24, p < .05) and
students’ needs (effect size = .18, p < .05). Teachers who had more knowledge about the
decentralization of curriculum policy were likely to have higher attention to local contexts (effect
size = .12, p < .10) and students’ needs (effect size = .20, p < .10). The degree to which teachers
agreed with the decentralization of curriculum policy was significantly associated with their
attention to students’ needs (effect size = .06, p < .05). Among school factors, private education
expenditure (effect size = -.02, p < .10) and whether high school entrance examination is
mandatory (effect size = .23, p < .05) had significant associations with teachers’ attention to local
contexts.

63

Table 13
School Factors and Teacher Characteristics Model Results
Teachers’ Assessment Local
Curriculum
Textbooks
guides
guides
s
contexts
Coefficient estimates
Intercept
3.12**
3.91**
3.16**
3.76**
3.14**
Teacher Characteristics
Male
0.07
-0.23** -0.09
-0.26** -0.16†
Teaching experience
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.01†
Advanced degree
0.02
-0.07
-0.02
0.01
0.01
Test subject
-0.09
0.02
0.20*
-0.07
-0.22*
†
†
Teaching multiple grades
-0.01
0.01
0.16
0.17
0.24*
Knowledge
0.07
0.07
0.13*
0.09†
0.12†
Agreement
0.01
0.01
0.04
-0.04
0.00
School Factors
Location
Seoul
-0.12
0.13
-0.07
0.16
0.20
Large cities
-0.04
-0.22
0.04
-0.27
-0.31
Small cities
-0.32†
-0.16
-0.17
-0.04
-0.19
†
Private school
0.40
0.12
0.31*
0.13
0.13
†
†
Coeducation
0.19
-0.03
0.19
-0.02
0.04
†
†
School size
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.00
Private education
†
0.00
0.00
-0.01
-0.02†
-0.02
expenditure
Entrance exam
0.02
0.14†
0.08
0.07
0.23*
Variance components
0.3105
0.3012
0.3559
0.2843
0.4173
Teacher level
School level
0.0027
0.0000
0.0001
0.0000
0.0000
Model summary
Deviance statistic
734.82
717.17
790.55
691.86
860.36
Number of parameters
18
18
18
18
18
†
p < .10, * p < .05, ** p < .01

Students’
needs
3.19**
0.00
0.00
0.05
-0.19
0.18*
0.20†
0.06**

0.30
-0.01
0.19
0.03
0.02
0.00
-0.01
0.15
0.3410
0.0060
779.48
18

Attention to Curriculum Materials Model Results
Considering that the decentralization of curriculum policy intends to increase teachers’
attention to student contexts and to decrease teachers’ dependence on textbooks, it is important to
see how their attention to textbooks and other curriculum materials influence attention to student
64

contexts. I created two models for teachers’ attention to local contexts and students’ needs and
then added teachers’ attention to curriculum materials as independent variables to the previous
models (Table 13).
The results shown in Table 14 indicated that after controlling school factors and teacher
characteristics, teachers’ attention to most curriculum materials significantly associated with their
attention to local contexts, and interestingly teachers’ attention to local contexts showed positive
associations with attention to curriculum guides (effect size=.32, p < .01) and assessments (effect
size=.43, p < .01) indicating that teachers who had high attention to curriculum guides and
assessments were likely to pay attention to local contexts. In contrast, teachers who paid higher
attention to textbooks were likely to pay less attention to local contexts and the association was
significant (effect size=-.17, p < .05). Teachers’ attention to students’ needs had significant
association only with attention to assessments (effect size=.33, p<.01) indicating that teachers’
attention to students’ needs increased as their attention to assessments increased.

65

Table 14
Attention to Curriculum Materials Model Results

Intercept
Male
Teaching years
Advanced degree
Test subject
Teaching multiple grades
Knowledge about the policy
Agreement with the policy
Attention to curriculum guides
Attention to textbooks
Attention to teachers’ guides
Attention to assessments
School location
Seoul
Large cities
Small cities
Private
Coeducation
School size
Private education expenditure
Entrance exam

Local contexts
Students’ needs
Coefficients estimates
3.13**
3.16**
Teacher Level
-0.13
0.05
0.01
0.00
-0.03
0.05
-0.20
-0.16
0.12
0.11
0.06
0.14**
0.03
0.08*
0.32**
0.11
-0.17*
0.09
0.07
-0.01
0.43**
0.33**
School Level
0.13
-0.40
-0.31*
0.22*
0.10
0.00
-0.02
0.26**

0.24
-0.08
0.12
0.12
0.08
0.00
-0.01
0.17*
Variance components

Teacher level
School level

0.3363
0.0000

0.2976
0.0087
Model summary

Deviance statistic
Number of parameters
†
p < .10, * p < .05, ** p < .01

800.51
22

66

756.57
22

Discussion
Teachers’ Attention to Curriculum Materials versus Student Contexts
When Korean teachers decide what and how to teach, they usually follow curriculum
materials such as textbooks and assessments and concern contents in various types of
assessments. Given that curriculum materials provide a common basis of knowledge that
students should know, and this contributes to providing equal and high quality education to all
students nationwide in Korea, it is natural that teachers consider contents and instructional
strategies in curriculum materials. However, when excessive standardization of instruction could
be detrimental to students, their own needs might be disregarded. To provide more diverse and
student-centered education, Korean teachers have been encouraged to make decisions about what
and how to teach rather than teaching only within curriculum standards, and that is why MOE
have made efforts to share more responsibilities for curriculum decision-making with teachers
The findings of this study indicate that for curriculum decision-making, teachers pay higher
attention to textbooks and assessments than to other curriculum materials. Teachers’ heavy
dependence on textbooks might be caused by the fact that textbooks provide most detailed
information about content and instruction compared to curriculum guides and teachers’ guides.
Teachers’ little attention to both curriculum guides and teachers’ guides can be explained by
different reasons. Curriculum guides include only basic information (e.g., objectives but not
specific contents) so that teachers need to modify or add contents and instructional strategies in
addition to contents in curriculum guides. Teachers’ guides are guidelines about how to utilize
textbook so that large portion of contents covered in both textbooks and teachers’ guides. If
teachers want to save time to prepare for classroom teaching, it seems easier for them to choose
textbooks than reading teachers’ guides in addition to textbooks.

67

High correlation exists between teachers’ attention to textbooks and to assessments. Teachers
paid considerable attention to assessments when they made curriculum decisions, and this
finding is in line with some previous studies (Floden et al., 1981; Monfils et al., 2004; Schorr et
al., 2004; Seo, 2009). Assessments had relatively greater policy pressure for teachers (Floden et
al., 1981) and teachers adjusted their practices in accordance with the characteristics of new
assessments (Monfils et al., 2004; Schorr et al., 2004). In addition, teachers pay a great deal of
attention to textbooks, and this might be because contents in textbooks are closely related with
assessment items. For example, in Seo's study (2009), the teachers generally taught contents in
the textbooks, which is closely related to assessments. When teachers develop assessment
instruments, they usually consider contents in textbooks. That is, tight connection between
assessment and textbooks explain teachers' heavy dependence on textbooks for decision-making
regarding content.
The results of this study also indicate that teachers paid higher attention to curriculum
materials than to student contexts factors, and this finding is similar to findings from the study
conducted by Floden et al. (1981). In their study, teachers took into account curriculum materials
(e.g., district objectives and tests) more than students’ preference or parents’ opinions when they
added or deleted topics in mathematics. However, it is important to note that the participating
teachers show considerable attention to student contexts (i.e. some or high attention) even though
they paid less attention to student contexts than to curriculum materials. Because only one-time
survey was conducted for this study, it cannot be said that teachers have little attention to student
contexts and so the decentralization of curriculum policy is successful or unsuccessful. It is also
important to note that Floden and his colleagues’ study was conducted about 30 years ago so that
it may not tell what teachers in the US today. Notably, local contexts receive least attention by

68

teachers. One possible explanation for teachers' little attention to local contexts is that teachers
may not clearly understand what local contexts mean. The 7th and the revised 7th curriculum
suggest that teachers consider local contexts, but it is hard to define what local contexts are.
Teachers disregard policy messages when they think those messages are not applicable for their
teaching practices (Coburn, 2001), and teachers’ misunderstanding and misinterpretation might
lead them to different teaching practices from policy messages (Hill, 2001). In this sense, if
Korean teachers still do not clearly understand what local contexts mean, it is possible that they
just disregard “local contexts” when they make curriculum decisions. The other possibility is that
teachers do not need to consider local contexts for a certain subject matter. For example, it is
assumed that social studies teachers need more consideration of local contexts (e.g., weather),
but mathematics teachers teach content with little influence of local contexts. Comparatively,
teachers pay more attention to students' needs than local contexts, but still less attention than
curriculum materials.
Factors influencing Teachers' Attention to the Six Factors
School factors rarely influence in teachers' attention to curriculum materials and student
contexts. One possible explanation for this finding is that Korean middle school teachers are
under very similar working conditions across schools. Exceptionally, private tutoring expenditure
and high school entrance examination influences in teachers' attention to local contexts. It is
assumed that schools in areas with low private education expenditure usually have less
competitive educational environment so that teachers can have room to consider local contexts,
which do not have close connection with test preparation. In a similar vein, teachers in schools
where high school entrance examination is not mandatory may be able to more consider local
contexts than those in schools where high school entrance examination is required.

69

It is also noteworthy that teachers teaching test subjects pay more attention to textbooks and
teachers' guides than nontest subject teachers, whereas test subject teachers consider student
contexts less than nontest subject teachers. This finding is a clear evidence for test-driven
education in South Korea. Teachers teaching test subjects should teach within textbooks, which
are main sources of assessments, but nontest subject teachers have more freedom to decide what
and how to teach in consideration of student contexts. Another possible explanation is that
teachers are provided only one textbook for language arts, moral education, and social studies
while they can select one of textbooks for other subjects. Kim (2004) argues that considering
teachers’ little experiences in changing or modifying contents in textbook, providing only one
textbook can limit reorganizing contents in textbook by teachers.
Teachers’ attention to curriculum materials have significant influence on teachers’ attention
to local contexts, and it is interesting to note that attention to curriculum guides is parallel with
attention to local contexts while attention to textbook shows negative relation with attention to
local contexts. That is, teachers who consider curriculum guides are likely to have more concern
about local contexts while those who have attention to textbooks are likely to pay little attention
to local contexts. These results support Lee and Hong’s (2008) argument that to better meet the
goals of the decentralized curriculum implementation, teachers are encouraged to decide what
and how to teach in consideration of curriculum guides rather than completely teaching within
textbooks.
It is also interesting to note that teachers’ attention to student contexts increase when they
have high attention to assessments. This result might be interpreted in consideration of features
of assessments administered at the school level. For example, in the study conducted by Schorr
et al. (2004), teachers changed their practices in line with the intentions of new assessments. In

70

Korea, teachers should prepare students for various types of assessments, and one of them is
performance assessment, which aims at evaluating students’ higher order thinking (Choi, 2005).
Since performance assessment is different from standardized assessments (e.g., high school
entrance examination), teachers might consider student contexts when they develop assessment
tools. Even other types of assessments tools, which have multiple choice questions, are
developed by teachers who better understand student contexts.
Implications
Through the seventh and the revised seventh national curriculum, MOE encourages teachers
to give more attention to student contexts and expects to make diverse school-based curriculum
rather than implementing strongly standardized curriculum. To help teachers more consider
student contexts, it is important to understand the current state of the degree to which teachers
pay attention to curriculum materials and student contexts and what influence teachers’ attention
to these factors. In that sense, this study provides useful information for policy makers and
education researchers.
In order to support teachers to pay more attention to student contexts, it is important to
provide teachers with clear and specific information about the decentralization of curriculum
policy. In the study, a large number of teachers reported that they had little or no knowledge
about the decentralization of curriculum policy, and their knowledge has significant effect on
teachers’ attention to student contexts. Thus, teachers' relatively lower attention to local contexts
may be due to lack of understanding about what local contexts mean. Policy messages can be
interpreted in different ways depending on contexts surrounding schools and teachers. In the
sense, rather than clarifying or making just one definition of local contexts, it would be good to
have teachers determine what kinds of or whether local contexts should be considered. As shown

71

in Seo’s (2009) and Coburn’s (2001) studies, informal groups of teachers (preferably teachers
teaching the same subject matter) can help teachers clarify or redefine unclear policy messages
through discussions with peer teachers.
This study reveals that teachers pay higher attention to textbooks than curriculum guides for
subject matter, which provides standards and a general direction rather than specific contents in
textbooks (Kim, 2004). In Lee and Hong’s study (2008), teachers agreed that curriculum guidesbased teaching was desirable but they did not pay high attention to curriculum guides because
curriculum guides for subject matter showed abstract and general contents rather than specific
and practice-based contents. The researchers acknowledged that textbook-based teaching helps
teachers save time and effort to prepare for teaching and to teach many students the same content
at the same time. However, textbook-based teaching hinders teachers from reflecting on students’
individual needs, and so further results in teachers’ indifference. They strongly recommended
curriculum guides-based teaching because it can motivate teachers to take into account students’
individual needs and learning environments in consideration of curriculum materials rather than
just sticking to textbooks.
Professional development is one of useful tools to help teachers better understand from goals
of the curriculum policy to ways to utilize various types of curriculum materials rather than
following contents and sequence in curriculum materials (Cohen & Hill, 1998; Elmore, 1996;
Knapp, 2003). Before providing teachers with standardized professional development, it might
be useful to ask what teachers actually need to develop curriculum planning with their own
decision-making and to more consider student contexts. For example, teachers need
opportunities to learn about how to develop curriculum planning with curriculum guide rather
than overview of the curriculum policy (Paik et al., 2011).

72

CHAPTER 5
TEACHERS’ PERCEPTION OF CURRICULUM CONTROL
Purpose of the Study
Given that MOE encourages teachers to reconstruct or reorganize contents in curriculum
materials, one important question is whether teachers perceive that they actually have control
over curriculum decisions. In this sub-study, I examine teachers’ perceived control over the four
types of curriculum decisions: content to teach, instructional strategies, time allocation for a unit,
and sequence for units as the literature review suggests.. For convenience, I refer to teachers’
perception of control over the set of four types of curriculum decisions as teachers’ curriculum
control, and I refer teachers’ perception of control over the individual areas of possible control as
teachers’ control over content, instructional strategies, time allocation, and sequence.
In addition, I examine factors influencing teachers’ perceived curriculum control. As the
literature review shows, two types of factors will be considered. First type of factors is teachers’
attention to curriculum materials and student contexts, and second are teachers’ beliefs about
curriculum materials, teacher knowledge, and collaboration with peer teachers. To address these
purposes, research questions are developed as follows.
1. To what extent do teachers perceive their curriculum control, and how are their
curriculum control perceptions similar or different between four types of curriculum
decision-making?
2. How do school factors and teacher characteristics influence teachers’ perception of
curriculum control?
3. How do teachers’ attention to curriculum materials and student contexts influence their
perception of curriculum control?

73

4. How do teachers’ beliefs about curriculum materials, teacher knowledge, and
collaboration with peer teachers influence their curriculum control?
Methods
For this analysis, outcome variables are teachers’ perception of control over content to teach,
instructional strategies, time allocation for a unit, and sequence for units. Independent variables
include school factors, teacher characteristics, teachers’ attention to curriculum materials and
student contexts, teachers’ beliefs about curriculum materials, teacher knowledge, and
collaboration with peer teachers as the analytical model suggested (Figure 2).
Analytical Model
I created the analytical model for this study based on the literature review (Figure 2). The
literature suggests that there are four types of curriculum decision-making. As mentioned earlier,
I measured teachers’ perception of control over curriculum decisions: 1) content to teach; 2)
instructional strategies; 3) time allocation for units; and 4) sequencing units.
There are four types of factors that influence teachers’ perception of curriculum control. First
school factors refer to educational environments such as school location, school type,
coeducation, school size, monthly private education expenditure per student, and whether high
school entrance examination is mandatory.
Second, teacher characteristics include gender, teaching experience, highest degree, subjects
taught, and number of grade taught. I added two more teacher characteristics such as the degree
to which they know about the decentralization of curriculum policy and the degree to which they
agree with the policy.
Third, the degree to which teachers pay attention to curriculum materials and student
contexts are also included in the analytical model. Curriculum materials include curriculum

74

guides for subject matter (curriculum guides), textbooks, teachers’ guides, and assessments
administered at the school level, and these four kinds of curriculum materials are usually
considered by Korean middle school teachers when they make curriculum decisions. Curriculum
guides are developed in consideration of the requirements of the national curriculum and
provided by MOE, and address standards and general direction, such as objectives, content,
instructional strategies, and assessments for each subject matter. Textbooks and teachers’ guides
are developed in consideration of the requirements of curriculum guides and published by MOE
and private publishers. Assessments administered at the school level include mid-term and final
examinations and performance assessments. Middle school teachers also should consider
national assessment of student achievement administered by MOE and high school entrance
examination, but these assessments are not considered by all middle school teachers. National
assessment of student achievement is considered by only teachers teaching five subjects
(language arts, mathematics, English, science, and social studies) and high school entrance
examination is considered by teachers only where the examination is mandatory. With regard to
student contexts, I include students’ needs and the condition of the school and local communities
because the national school curriculum suggests Korean teachers to consider these two factors
when developing school-based curriculum.
Lastly, teacher factors such as teachers’ beliefs about curriculum materials, teacher
knowledge, and collaboration with peer teachers are included in the analytical model, and details
will be provided in methods.

75

Control over Curriculum Decisions

School Factors

•

•
•
•

Instructional strategies

•

Time allocation

•

Teachers’ Attention to
• Curriculum materials
• Student contexts

Content to teach

•

Teacher Characteristics

Sequence for units

Teacher Factors
Teachers’ beliefs
Teacher knowledge
Collaboration

Figure 2 The Model for Teachers’ Control over Curriculum Decision-Making

Variables
Outcome Variables
Teachers’ perception of curriculum control was measured by asking teachers how much
control they actually have when making curriculum decisions. The literature review suggests that
there are four types of curriculum decisions: 1) what content to teach; 2) how to teach content; 3)
how to allocate time for a unit; and 4) how to sequence units. Participating teachers were asked
to rate their actual control over each curriculum decision using 5 Likert scale (1=no control;
2=little control; 3=some control; 4=much control; and 5=very much control).
Factors predicting Teachers’ Curriculum Decision-Making
First factors are about schools where teachers teach such as school location, school type,
coeducation, school size, monthly private education expenditure per student, and whether high
school entrance examination is mandatory. Second, teacher characteristics consist of gender,
teaching experience, highest degree, and subject taught, and the number of grades teachers teach.
76

Third type of factors was teachers’ attention to curriculum materials and student contexts.
Teachers were asked how much attention they paid to curriculum materials and student contexts
when making decisions about content to teach, instructional strategies, time allocation for a unit,
and sequence for units respectively using 5 Likert scale (1=no attention; 2=little attention;
3=some attention; 4=much attention; and 5=very much attention). Teachers’ attention to the six
factors for a type of curriculum decision and their perception of control over curriculum decision
were matched. For example, when outcome variable is teachers’ control over content to teach,
teachers’ attention to curriculum materials and student context variables when making decision
about content to teach were considered as independent variables.
Teachers’ beliefs about curriculum materials were measured by asking teachers the degree to
which they agreed with 11 statements (five positive statements and six negative statements)
using 5-Likert scale (1=strongly disagree 2=disagree; 3=not sure; 4=agree; and 5=strongly
agree). The teachers' statements of negative belief were reverse coded to reflect their degree of
positive belief. Teachers were asked to rate their agreement with statements about curriculum
guides, textbooks, and teachers’ guides respectively. I computed mean scores for positive and
negative beliefs about three types of curriculum materials (curriculum guides, textbooks, and
teachers’ guides).
Teacher knowledge was measured by five items: 1) content knowledge; 2) knowledge about
instructional strategies; 3) knowledge about student learning; 4) knowledge about classroom
management; and 5) knowledge about using curriculum standards using 5-Likert scale (1=very
poor; 2=poor; 3=adequate; 4=good; and 5=excellent). I computed a mean score of teacher
knowledge 1 through 4 (content and pedagogical knowledge), and leave knowledge about how to
use curriculum standards, which seems more closely related to teachers’ curriculum control than

77

other four types of teacher knowledge.
Lastly, teachers were asked the extent to which collaboration with peer teachers helped them
make the four types of curriculum decisions and improve their knowledge about content,
instructional strategies, understand the requirements of the national curriculum using 5 Likert
scale (1=very unhelpful; 2=unhelpful; 3=some helpful; 4=helpful; 5=very helpful). I computed a
mean score of collaboration for improving teachers’ content and pedagogical knowledge. As a
result, six variables related to collaboration with peer teachers are included in the study. Specific
details about dependent variables are shown in Table 15.

78

Table 15
Summary of Variables Used in the Second Sub-Study
Outcome variables

Independent Variables

School factors

Teacher
Characteristics

Teacher beliefs
Teacher knowledge

Collaboration

Content to teach

Instructional strategies

Time allocation

Location (Seoul=0, large cities=1, small cities=0, rural areas=3)
School type (public=0, private=1)
Coeducation (single sex=0, coeducation=1)
School size (number of classes)
Private education expenditure per student a month
High school entrance examination (non-exam area=0, exam area=1)
Gender (female=0, male=1)
Teaching experience (number of teaching years)
Degree (bachelor’s=0, advanced=1)
Subject taught (non-test subject=0, test subject=1)
Number of grade taught (single grade=0, multiple grades=1)
Knowledge about the decentralization of curriculum policy
Agreement with the decentralization of curriculum policy
Negative beliefs on curriculum materials
Positive beliefs on curriculum materials
Content and pedagogical knowledge
Knowledge about how to utilize curriculum materials
Collaboration for improving teacher knowledge
Collaboration for learning how to utilize curriculum materials
For deciding content to teach
For deciding instructional strategies
For deciding time allocation
For deciding sequence

79

Sequence

Analysis
Descriptive Statistics
I will present descriptive statistics to address the extent to which teachers perceive their
control over the four types of curriculum decision-making and then compare their perceptions
between the four types of curriculum decisions: content to teach, instructional strategies, time
allocation for units, and sequencing units.
HLM Models
Because the participating teachers were nested within schools, I used a two-level HLM,
which allows dealing with the data nested or multilevel data sets with aggregation bias, or
misestimation of errors, and the unit of analysis problem (Raudenbush & Bryk, 2002). It is
important to note that the HLMs estimated in this study are consistent with the analytical model
shown in Figure 2. More details about variables will be provided in HLM modeling.
I begin with an unconditional model, which uses teachers’ perception of control over four
decision-makings as outcome variables but not include covariates. The purpose of an
unconditional model is to estimate the proportion of the variance in the outcome variables at
school and teacher levels.
The Second model is a basic model that includes school factors and teacher characteristics as
covariates. Since the HLM analysis focuses on estimating associations with teachers’ attention to
curriculum materials and student contexts, it is important to note that the second model aims at
controlling school factors and teacher characteristics.
Third, I estimate teachers’ attention to the six factors model, which adjusts for the influences
of school factors and teacher characteristics. Teachers’ attention to the six factors refer to the
degree to which teachers pay attention to curriculum materials (curriculum guides, textbooks,

80

teachers’ guides, and assessments) and student contexts (local contexts and students’ needs).
Lastly, the teacher factors model is used to examine how teachers’ beliefs about curriculum
materials, teacher knowledge, and collaboration with peer teachers influence their perception of
curriculum control.
Limitations
This study was conducted by a one-time data collection so that it is not possible to examine
the changes in teachers’ perception of curriculum control since the decentralization of curriculum
policy was implemented. In addition, I collected the data by only surveying teachers, and did not
triangulate with other types of data sources (e.g., interview and classroom observation). The
survey allows me to gather data on teachers’ perception of the degree to which they had
curriculum control, but I was not able to triangulate those perceptions against other types of
evidence. Finally, the study is limited to middle school teachers and may not generalize to other
grade levels.
Results
Descriptive Statistics
Prior to showing descriptive statistics, it is important to note that teachers’ curriculum control
in the study does not mean their actual control, but their perceived curriculum control. For
convenience, when I describe teachers’ curriculum control, I am referring to teachers’ perceived
curriculum control over the set of four areas (content, instructional strategies, time allocation,
and sequence). As shown in Table 16, overall the participating teachers perceived “some” or
“much” control over curriculum decisions, with only a few who perceived very much control
when deciding the four types of curriculum decisions. Specifically, the teachers perceived least
control over content (3.07). Approximately 60.8 % of teachers perceived that they had some or

81

much content control but only 7.7% of teachers perceived that they had “very much” control
over content decision. On the other side, the teachers perceived greatest control over
instructional strategies (3.69) indicating that approximately 60% of teachers rated their
instruction control much or very much. The Cronbach’s alpha for the four items is .85, a level
considered reliable.
Table 16
Frequency and Descriptive Statistics of Teachers' Perception of Curriculum Control
Content
Control

No
Little
Some
Much
Very much
Total
Mean
SD
Reliability

40 (6.6)
141 (23.5)
200 (33.2)
174 (29.0)
47 (7.7)
602 (100.0)
3.08
1.05
0.854

Instructional
strategies
12 (2.0)
47 (7.8)
172 (28.6)
257 (42.8)
113 (18.8)
602 (100.0)
3.69
.93

Time allocation
20 (3.3)
75 (12.5)
178 (29.6)
233 (38.7)
96 (15.9)
602 (100.0)
3.51
1.01

Sequence for
units
23 (3.8)
93 (15.5)
201(33.5)
210 (34.9)
72 (12.0)
602 (100.0)
3.36
1.01

a. ( ) is percent
Correlations
Prior to examining factors influencing teachers’ curriculum control, I examined correlations
of teachers’ curriculum control with their attention to curriculum materials and student contexts
as well as teachers’ beliefs about curriculum materials, teacher knowledge, and collaboration
with peer teachers. This is a preliminary form of analysis providing an estimate of expected
associations and strength of relationships. Correlations were examined by types of curriculum
decisions. For example, teachers’ perceived control over content was matched with teachers’
attention to curriculum materials and student contexts when making content decisions, and with
the extent to which collaboration with peer teachers helps them make content decisions.

82

As shown in Table 17, all variables had significant correlations with teachers’ control over
content decisions, ranging from -.132 to .198, and most variables were significantly correlated
with teachers’ control over instruction decision from -.161 to .140, time allocation decision
ranging from -.102 to .183, and sequence decision ranging from -.087 to .198.
Generally, teachers’ attention to student contexts such as local contexts and students’ needs
showed higher correlations with teachers’ curriculum control. For example, teachers who had
higher attention to local contexts and students’ needs when deciding sequence were likely to
perceive higher control over sequence decision (.109, p < .05 for local contexts and .149, p < .01
for students’ needs).
Most factors about teachers’ beliefs about curriculum materials (positive and negative),
teacher knowledge (content and pedagogical knowledge and knowledge about curriculum use),
and collaboration with peer teachers showed significant correlations with teachers’ perception of
control over the four types of curriculum decision-makings. Negative beliefs about curriculum
materials were correlated with teachers’ control over curriculum decision-making. For example,
teachers who showed stronger negative beliefs about curriculum materials were likely to
perceive less control over instruction decisions (.161, p < .01). Teachers’ content and pedagogical
knowledge had significant correlations with their perception of control over content (.139, p
< .01), time allocation (.076, p < .10), and sequence (.139, p < .01). Collaboration with peer
teachers showed relatively higher correlations with teachers’ curriculum control ranging
from .047 to .198 compared to other factors. Among three types of collaboration with peer
teachers, the degree to which teachers were helped to make curriculum decisions were
significantly correlated with teachers’ perception of control over all types of curriculum decisionmakings: content decision (.160, p < .01); instruction decision (.140, p < .05); time allocation

83

decision (.085, p < .05); and sequence decision (.180, p < .01). More specific details about
correlations between teachers’ curriculum control and other factors were provided in Appendix
E.
Table 17
Correlations between Curriculum Control and Independent Variables
Content

Instructional
strategies

Time
allocation

Sequence

.247**

.105*

.062

.068†

-.032**

.054

.051

.058

Attention to Teachers’ guides

.097**

-.003

-.025

.056

Attention to Assessments

.075**

.096*

.183**

.003

Attention to Local contexts

.177**

.102*

.108*

.109*

Attention to Student needs

.153**

.083*

.127*

.149**

-.132**

-.161**

-.102*

-.087*

.061**

.116*

.092*

-.076†

.139**

.045

.076††

.139**

.016**

-.030

-.003

.007

Attention to Curriculum guides
Attention to Textbooks

Negative beliefs on curriculum
materials
Positive beliefs on curriculum
materials
Content and pedagogical knowledge
Teacher knowledge about curriculum
use
Collaboration for curriculum
decision-making
Collaboration for improving teacher
knowledge
Collaboration for curriculum use
†

.160**

.140*

.085*

.180**

.178**

.137*

.155

.198**

.198**

.047

.075†

.170**

p < .10, * p < .05, ** p < .01

84

HLM Results
Unconditional Model Results
The unconditional model results (Table 18) indicated that teachers’ curriculum control over
the four types of curriculum decisions showed very small variances between schools (2.09% for
content decision, 1.57% for instruction decision, 3.53% for time allocation decision, and 2.75%
for sequence decision). That is, schools did not appear to make a remarkable difference in the
extent to which teachers’ perceived control over curriculum decisions. On the contrary, most of
the variance fell between teachers, suggesting that teacher factors, rather than school factors,
might account for differences in perceived control over curriculum decisions.
Table 18
Unconditional Model Results of Teachers’ Curriculum Control
Content

Instructional
strategies

Time allocation

Sequence

Intercept

3.05**

3.62**

3.47**

3.28**

Teacher level
Variance
Percent of total

1.067
97.91

0.880
98.43

0.949
96.47

1.063
97.25

School level
Variance
Percent of total

0.023
2.09

0.014
1.57

0.035
3.53

0.030
2.75

1267.41
2

1182.65
2

1220.77
2

1267.72
2

Deviance statistic
Number of parameters
** p < .001

School Factors and Teacher Characteristics Model Results
Next, I estimated the school factors and teacher characteristics model. The purpose of this
model was to control for aspects of school factors and teacher characteristics that were associated
85

with teachers’ control over curriculum decisions. The results, shown in Table 19, indicated that
school factors and teacher characteristics rarely showed associations with teachers’ curriculum
control. One exception is monthly private education expenditure per student, which showed
positive relation with teachers’ control over all types of curriculum decisions: content (effect size
= .03, p < .10); instruction (effect size = .05, p < .05); time allocation (effect size = .05, p < .05);
and sequence (effect size=.05, p < .05). This result suggests that teachers in areas where private
education expenditure was higher were likely to perceive higher control over curriculum
decisions.
Most of school factors (school location, coeducation, school size, and PEE) were
significantly associated with perceived control over instruction decisions. For example, school
size had a negative association (effect size = -.03, p < .05) indicating that teachers in larger
schools were likely to perceive less control over instruction decision.
Teacher characteristics rarely showed significant associations with control over all types of
curriculum decisions. The exception was that the subject taught was significantly associated with
teachers’ control over content decision (effect size = -.35, p < .05) and sequence decision (effect
size = -.42, p < .05) suggesting that teachers teaching test-subjects were likely to perceive less
control over content and sequence decisions.

86

Table 19
School Factors and Teacher Characteristics Model Results

Content
Intercept

3.28**

Male
Teaching experience
Advanced degree
Test subject
Multiple grades
Knowledge 1
Agreement 2

0.12
0.00
0.02
-0.35 *
0.16
0.07
-0.09

Location
Seoul
Large cities
Small cities
Private school
Coeducation
Size
PEE 3
Entrance exam

0.01
0.12
0.20
-0.02
-0.13
-0.01
0.03
-0.13

†

Instructional
strategies

Time allocation

3.66**
3.80**
Teacher level
-0.13
-0.03
-0.01
0.00
0.06
-0.03
-0.14
-0.11
0.02
0.04
-0.02
-0.08
-0.05
0.01
School Level
0.22
0.50 †
0.43 †
-0.32
-0.25 †
-0.03 *
0.05 *
0.09

-0.33
0.15
0.56 †
-0.49 †
-0.24
-0.03
0.06 *
-0.27

Sequence
3.69**
-0.04
-0.01
0.10
-0.42 *
-0.06
0.02
-0.09

-0.16
0.18
0.40
-0.16
-0.19
-0.03 *
0.05 *
-0.09

Teacher level

0 .9479

0.7851

0.83122

0.86814

School level

0.0002

0.0001

Deviance statistics

1203.87

0.0001
0.0200
Model summary
1122.22
1156.90

Number of parameters

18

18

18

1165.77
18

†

p < .10, * p < .05, ** p < .01
Note
1) The degree to which teachers know about the decentralization of curriculum policy
2) The degree to which teachers agree with the decentralization of curriculum policy
3) Monthly private education expenditure per student

Attention to the Six Factors Model Results
The next step was to examine the influences of teachers’ attention to curriculum materials
and student contexts. As in correlation results, teachers’ attention to curriculum materials and
87

student contexts were examined by the four types of curriculum decision-making.
Table 20 indicated that teachers’ attention to the six factors rarely showed significant
associations with the extent to which teachers perceived control over curriculum decisions.
Teachers’ attention to textbooks was not significantly associated with control over any types of
curriculum decisions, and attention to assessments had significant association with only control
over time allocation (effect size = .22, p < .05) indicating that teachers who paid high attention to
assessments were likely to perceive a great deal of control over time allocation.
Teachers’ attention to teachers’ guides had statistically significant associations with control
over instructional strategies (effect size = -.20, p < .10) and time allocation (effect size = -.21, p
< .05) suggesting that teachers who paid more attention to teachers’ guide were likely to perceive
less control over instructional strategies and time allocation.
With regard to teachers’ attention to student contexts, attention to local contexts significantly
predicted teachers’ perceived control over instructional strategies (effect size = .16, p < .10), and
attention to students’ needs had significant associations with their perceived control over content
(effect size = .24, p < .05).

88

Table 20
Attention to the Six Factors Model Results
Instructional
Time
strategies
allocation
3.62**
3.77**
Teacher Level
-0.11
-0.01
-0.01
-0.01
0.06
-0.05
-0.08
-0.02
0.01
0.05
-0.02
-0.06
-0.04
0.02
0.16
0.16
0.07
-0.04
†
-0.20
-0.21**
0.12
0.22
†
0.16
0.06
-0.07
-0.04
School Level

Content
Intercept

3.23**

Male
Teaching experience
Degree
Subject taught
Number of grade
Knowledge1
Agreement2
Attention to curriculum guides
Attention to textbooks
Attention to teachers’ guides
Attention to Assessments
Attention to local contexts
Attention to students’ needs

0.07
0.00
0.02
-0.26†
0.17
0.00
-0.09
0.40
-0.12
-0.04
0.12
-0.06
0.24*

Location
Seoul
Large cities
Small cities
Private schools
Coeducation
Size
PEE3
Entrance exam

0.00
0.10
0.19
0.00
-0.13
-0.01
0.03*
-0.13

Teacher level
School level
Deviance statistics
# of parameters
Deviance change
†
p < .10, * p < .05, ** p < .01

0.21
-0.37
†
0.49
0.07
†
0.43
0.53
-0.32
-0.50†
-0.24†
-0.25
-0.03*
-0.02
0.05*
0.06*
0.09
-0.29†
Variance Components
0.7533
0.7841
0.0001
0.0290
Model Summary
1104.33
1135.5
24
24
17.89**
21.37**

0.8573
0.0003
1160.46
24
43.41**

Sequence
3.65**
-0.06
-0.01
0.11
-0.39*
-0.01
0.00
-0.09
-0.01
0.16
-0.03
-0.13
-0.03
0.10

-0.16
0.18
0.39
-0.15
-0.19
-0.03*
0.05*
-0.10
0.8497
0.0001
1156.5
24
9.27**

Note
1) & 2) The degree to which teachers know about and agree with the decentralization of
curriculum policy; 3) Monthly private education expenditure per student
89

Teacher Factors Model Results
As shown in Table 21, after controlling for school factors, teacher characteristics, and
teachers’ attention to the six factors, teacher factors such as beliefs about curriculum materials,
knowledge, and collaboration with peer teachers were significantly related to teachers’ control
over curriculum decisions except teacher knowledge about curriculum use and collaboration for
making curriculum decisions. It is noteworthy that collaboration with peer teachers for making
curriculum decisions did not show any significant associations with teachers’ curriculum control
while teacher collaboration for other purposes such as increasing knowledge and understanding
the national curriculum requirements had significant associations with teachers’ control over
curriculum decisions. Specifically, collaboration for increasing knowledge had significant
associations with teachers’ control over instructional strategies (effect size = .20, p < .10) and
over sequence (effect size = .20, p < .10) indicating that teachers who were helped to increase
their knowledge were likely to perceive more control over instructional strategies and contents.
Teachers’ beliefs about curriculum materials also played significant roles in control over
instructional strategies (effect size = -.36, p < .01) and time allocation (effect size = -.27, p
< .05). These results suggest that the more negative beliefs teachers had, the lower control over
instructional strategies and time allocation they perceived. In a similar vein, positive beliefs on
curriculum materials also had positive influences on control over instructional strategies (effect
size = .42, p < .01) and time allocation (effect size = .34, p < .05) indicating that teachers who
had positive beliefs on curriculum materials were likely to perceive high control over
instructional strategies.
Teachers content and pedagogical knowledge had significant associations with control over
all types of curriculum decisions, which indicated that teachers who had knowledge in general

90

were more likely to perceive control over content (effect size = .26, p < .10), instructional
strategies (effect size = .24, p < .05), time allocation (effect size = .25, p < .05), and sequence
(effect size = .34, p < .05).

91

Table 21
Teacher Factors Model Results
Content
Intercept

3.28**

Male
Teaching experience
Advanced degree
Test subjects
Multiple grades
Knowledge about the policy
Agreement with the policy
Attention to curriculum guides
Attention to textbooks
Attention to teachers’ guides
Attention to assessments
Attention to local contexts
Attention to students’ needs
Negative beliefs on curriculum materials
Positive beliefs on curriculum materials
Content and pedagogical knowledge
Knowledge about curriculum use
Collaboration for improving knowledge
Collaboration for curriculum use
Collaboration for curriculum decision

0.02
0.00
0.00
-0.30*
0.17
-0.04
-0.09
0.39**
-0.16
-0.01
0.08
-0.06
0.24*
-0.21
0.20
0.26†
-0.17
0.14
-0.16
0.14

Location
Seoul
Large cities
Small cities
Private school
Coeducation
Size
PEE9
Entrance exam

0.01
0.12
0.19
0.00
-0.13
-0.01
0.03*
-0.12

Teacher level

0.8197

92

Instructional
strategies

Time
allocation

3.67**
3.87**
Teacher level
-0.14
-0.02
-0.01†
-0.01
0.06
-0.05
-0.14
-0.07
0.03
0.02
-0.07
-0.11
-0.03
0.03
0.17
0.11
0.05
-0.03
-0.20*
-0.23*
0.05
0.16†
0.21*
0.12
-0.06
-0.04
-0.36
-0.27*
0.42
0.34*
0.24*
0.25*
-0.14
-0.05
0.20†
0.15
-0.33
-0.24*
0.06
0.04
School level
0.22
0.51
0.43
-0.32
-0.25
-0.03*
0.05**
0.09

-0.43
0.02
0.51
-0.51
-0.27
-0.02
0.07**
-0.32

Variance components
0.6724
0.7298

Sequence
3.67**
-0.12
-0.01
0.05
-0.36
0.01
-0.04
-0.08
-0.04
0.07
0.01
-0.15†
-0.02
0.09
-0.18
-0.13
0.34*
-0.11
0.22†
-0.07
0.14

-0.16
0.18
0.39
-0.15
-0.18
-0.03*
0.05**
-0.08

0.7938

Table 21 (cont’d)
0.0001

School level
Deviance statistics

1140.894

Number of parameters
Deviance change

0.0001
0.0401
Model summary
1055.1
1108.985

0.0001
1127.04

31

31

31

31

19.56**

49.20**

26.55**

29.46**

Note
1) The degree to which teachers know about the decentralization of curriculum policy
2) The degree to which teachers agree with the decentralization of curriculum policy
3) Monthly private education expenditure per student
Discussion
The findings of this study reveal that teachers are likely to perceive less control over content
than other types of curriculum decision-making such as instruction, time allocation, and
sequence decisions. Teachers’ attention to curriculum materials and student contexts rarely
influence this pattern, while teacher knowledge and collaboration among teachers have
significant associations with their perception of curriculum control. This section provides a
discussion of the findings in consideration of how the results of the study are consistent or
inconsistent with previous studies, and how these results can be interpreted.
Teachers’ Perception of Curriculum Control
The findings of this study generally showed that teachers were likely to perceive relatively
low curriculum control and they perceive higher control over instruction, time allocation, and
sequence than content to teach. This finding was reinforces findings from previous studies
reporting that teachers were hesitant to add or delete content in curriculum standards and
teachers usually changed sequence or instructional strategies suggested in curriculum standards,
but did not frequently change content to teach (Archbald & Porter, 1994; Kim, 2004; Kim, 2005;
Seo, 2007).
Two explanations for this finding are possible. First, teachers may not feel any need to
93

change content to teach so that they are not likely to modify and add or delete content to teach
within curriculum standards. For example, the school subject of mathematics has a very linear
arrangement of topics so that mathematics teachers have relatively small room to change or alter
contents in curriculum standards, whereas social studies teachers can add more contextual
knowledge regarding cultural and historical environments around schools (Kim, 2005). Second,
it seems also hard for teachers to modify or change content to teach in curriculum standards,
which is tightly connected with assessments, and this is supported by the finding of the previous
studies (Kim, 2004; Lee & Hong, 2008; Seo, 2007). Teachers agree that they should prepare
students for to do well on the assessments, and to this end, they should cover most contents in
curriculum standards (usually textbook). Thus, teachers may admit that they cannot change or
modify contents in curriculum standards whereas they can have some choices with regard to
instructional strategies, time allocation, or sequence.
Attention to Curriculum Materials vs. Curriculum Control
Given that teachers showed highest attention to textbooks for curriculum decision-making, it
is interesting to note that teachers’ attention to textbooks does not show significant influence on
their perception of control over any types of curriculum decisions (Chapter 4). On the other
hand, teachers’ attention to teachers’ guides significantly influenced their control over
instructional strategies and time allocation. Considering that textbooks provide content to teach
and teachers’ guides includes information about how to use textbooks (e.g., how to show
contents in textbook), it is natural that teachers who pay attention to teachers’ guides may
perceive more control over instructional strategies. Interestingly, teachers’ attention to
assessments rarely influences their perception of curriculum control except control over time
allocation.

94

Archbald and Porter (1994) found that teachers perceived their curriculum control harmed
when curriculum materials were too specific or course-based testing policy was required.
Although curriculum pressure in their study does not exactly refer to teachers’ attention to
curriculum materials, it can be assumed that teachers’ perception of curriculum pressure
contradicts with their own responsibilities for curriculum decision-making. In the sense, the
results of this study seem very interesting.
Teacher Factors Matter
As the literature review suggested, there are three kinds of teacher factors that are related to perceived control over curriculum decisions, and most teacher factors such as teachers’ beliefs
about curriculum materials, teacher knowledge, and collaboration with peer teachers showed
strong and significant associations with teachers’ perception of curriculum control.
It is interesting to note that teachers who have more positive beliefs about curriculum
materials are likely to perceive higher curriculum control. Teachers’ beliefs about curriculum
materials played important roles in teachers’ use of curriculum standards, but relationships
between teacher beliefs on curriculum materials and their perception of curriculum control have
not been examined. It can be assumed that teachers are likely to be dependent on curriculum
materials when they think curriculum materials as good sources for curriculum decision-making,
and they tend to make curriculum decisions based on their own responsibilities rather than based
on contents in curriculum materials. However, this is not the case in this study. This result might
be interpreted that Korean teachers do not think that dependence on curriculum materials can
harm their curriculum control. In other words, teachers may assume that dependence on
curriculum materials and curriculum decision-making on their own do not conflict, but they can
have more curriculum control in consideration of contents in curriculum materials

95

simultaneously.
Teacher knowledge shows a significant association with their perception of curriculum
control. That is, teachers with more knowledge for teaching (i.e., content and pedagogical
knowledge and knowledge about student learning) help them make curriculum decisions. It is
interesting to see that teacher knowledge about how to use curriculum materials does not make a
significant difference, and shows negative influences on teachers’ curriculum control. In a
similar vein, Kim (2005) reported that teachers were not willing to change or modify contents in
textbooks because of the lack of content and pedagogical knowledge. These results imply that
teacher content and pedagogical knowledge is more useful for teachers to decide how and what
to teach than knowledge about how to utilize curriculum materials. That is, in order for teachers
make curriculum decisions, they need a broad range of knowledge rather than only knowledge
about utilizing curriculum materials.
It is noteworthy that collaboration with peer teachers for making curriculum decisions does
not have significant effects on teachers’ control over curriculum decisions, and this result is
supported by some of previous studies. Shin (2009) argues that teacher collaboration usually
helps teachers decide curriculum-related decisions but it might be a barrier (or hurdle) for
teachers when they do not have consensus about the goals of collaboration. Seo (2009) also
reported the case of one mathematics teachers who preferred to develop unit plans alone rather
than collaborating with peer teachers. He had experience in collaborating with other teachers in
order to develop unit plans, but did not like to spend much time in administrative works.
Teachers in the group in her study, however, reported that their collaboration help them share
experiences and knowledge, but in the early state, it was not easy for them to collaborate with
each other.

96

In summary, in order to help teachers have curriculum control, teacher beliefs about
curriculum materials, knowledge, and collaboration should be emphasized more than their
attention to curriculum materials.
Implications
Previous studies have usually reported how much control over curriculum decisions teacher
have, but rarely touched how their attention to curriculum materials and their characteristics
influence control over curriculum decisions. In addition, these previous studies have been rarely
conducted in the context of Korean education. In the sense, this study provides some implication
for policy makers and school educators who intend to encourage teachers to take responsibilities
for curriculum decision-making.
How Policy Makers and School Administrators Help Teachers
To appropriately help teachers make curriculum decisions on their own, it is important to
understand what kinds of curriculum decisions teacher can make on their own. In the study,
teachers perceive less control over content than over instructional strategies, time allocation, and
sequence. Teachers regard textbooks as a bible because assessment items come from contents in
textbooks, and even after the decentralization of curriculum policy has launched, pressure from
various types of assessments are not reduced. It is not very likely to reduce assessment pressure
in middle schools in Korea, and for some subjects, it is good to cover all contents in textbook to
provide equal learning opportunities for all middle school students nationwide. Thus, when
policy makers encourage teachers to have curriculum control, instructional strategies or time
allocation should be more emphasized than content.
Given that content and pedagogical knowledge encourages teachers to perceive more
curriculum control, and collaboration with peer teachers helps them improve teacher knowledge,

97

teachers should be provided enough learning opportunities to increase their knowledge through
collaborating with their peers. As shown in Seo’s study (2009), teachers can organize informal
group among teachers teaching the same subject matter and from the same or different schools.
One teacher in her study complained that administrative works hinders teachers from
concentrating on unit development. Policy makers can provide space and time for teachers who
want to collaborate with other teachers and school administrators should contribute to teacher
collaboration through cutting complicated process for making small groups of teachers for
developing unit plans.
Under the context of decentralized curriculum policy, teachers have been provided numerous
opportunities to learn what the decentralization of curriculum policy intend, but their knowledge
about the policy does not have important influences on teachers’ curriculum control. Rather
teacher knowledge for classroom teaching plays significant roles in their perception of
curriculum control. Policy makers or professional development designers should keep in mind
that teachers expect to learn specific and practice-related skills rather than general overview of
the curriculum policies. As Sung et al., (2004) point out, Korean teachers do not have enough
opportunities to learn about how to develop curriculum plans (e.g., designing tasks or student
activities), and they suggest that curriculum specialists at the district level should provide these
opportunities. More well-designed and teachers’ needs-based PD programs should be provided to
help teacher prepare for reconstructing and reorganizing contents in curriculum standards, and
this helps teachers have more curriculum control.

98

CHAPTER 6
TEACHERS’ BELIEFS ABOUT CURRICULUM MATERIALS
Purpose of the Study
Korean teachers have access to three types of curriculum materials: Curriculum guides for
subject matter provide standards and general direction, such as objectives, content, instructional
strategies, and assessments for each subject matter; textbooks address all contents that student
should learn and are the basis for various assessments; and teachers’ guides, which include
specific contents and instructional strategies to guide how to teach the contents in the textbooks.
Curriculum guides encourage teachers to take more responsibilities for curriculum decisionmaking whereas textbooks enable teachers to provide only standardized education rather than
diverse and student-centered education. Lee and Hong (2008) acknowledged that textbook-based
teaching helps teachers save time and effort to prepare for teaching and to teach many students
the same content at the same time, but hinders teachers from reflecting on students’ individual
needs, and so further results in teachers’ indifference. The researchers strongly recommended
curriculum standards-based teaching because it can motivate teachers to take into account
students’ individual needs and learning environments in consideration of curriculum standards
rather than just sticking to textbook.
One factor influencing teachers’ dependence on curriculum materials is teacher belief (or
attitude) about curriculum materials. Donnelly and Boone (2007) found that teachers who trust
curriculum standards as good sources for teaching were more likely to use curriculum standards.
Although many scholars in South Korean have criticized teachers’ heavy dependence on
curriculum materials, especially textbooks, few studies have systematically examined Korean
teachers’ beliefs about curriculum materials and how those beliefs influence their use of

99

curriculum materials.
In this sub-study, I examine teachers’ beliefs about curriculum materials such as curriculum
guides, textbooks, and teachers’ guides that Korean middle school teachers usually use when
they make curriculum decisions. Since these curriculum materials have different features from
one another, I examine teachers’ beliefs about each one individually. In addition, I will see how
teachers’ beliefs about curriculum materials influence their dependence on curriculum materials.
Three research questions are developed as follows.
1. What are Korean middle school teachers’ beliefs about curriculum guides, textbooks, and
teachers’ guides?
2. How are their beliefs on curriculum guides, textbooks, and teachers’ guides similar or
different?
3. How do school factor and teacher background variables influence teachers’ beliefs about
curriculum guides, textbooks, and teachers’ guides?
4. How do teacher beliefs on curriculum guides, textbooks, and teachers’ guides influence
their attention to these curriculum materials respectively?
Methods
This section presents variables used in the study and analysis methods to address research
questions.
Variables
Teacher beliefs
Measures of teachers’ beliefs consist of 11 items for curriculum guides, textbooks, and
teachers’ guides respectively. Eleven items include five positive beliefs and six negative beliefs
(Table 22). The participating teachers were asked to rate the degree to which they agreed with

100

beliefs using a 5 Likert Scale (1=strongly disagree through 5=strongly agree). The teachers'
statements of negative belief were reverse coded to reflect their degree of positive belief.
Table 22
Teachers’ Beliefs about Curriculum Materials
Positive beliefs

Negative beliefs

•

Provide a common foundation of
knowledge for students

•

Limit the depth of coverage with which
topics can be covered

•

Are helpful for unit-planning

•

Are mandated by the government

•

Encourage teachers in different school
districts to cover the same material
Align the content from one grade to the
next
Are good matches for my students'
abilities

•

Encourage breadth instead of depth of
understanding

•

Are too demanding for my students

•

Put pressure on teachers to get through
material

•

Are too specific

•
•

School factors and Teacher Characteristics
As in other analyses I included school factors and teacher characteristics as control variables.
School factors include school location, school size (number of classes), school type, monthly
private education expenditure per student, coeducation, and whether high school entrance
examination is mandatory. In South Korea, not all middle school graduates are required to take
high school entrance examination. Students in eight provinces and one city are required to, while
those in other areas move on to high school without entrance examination. Because high school
entrance examination is developed in consideration of the contents in curriculum materials, it can
be assumed that teachers who teach in the area of high school entrance examination might
experience more pressure to teach within contents in curriculum materials and might, therefore,
pay more attention to curriculum materials than their peers in non-exam areas.

101

Teacher background characteristics consist of gender, teaching experience (number of
teaching years), highest degree, subjects taught, and the number of grades taught. One of
important examinations in schools in Korea is the National Assessment of Student Achievement
(NASA). In this study, teachers who teach test-related subjects (language arts, social studies,
mathematics, science, and English) for NASA perceive less control than those who teach non
test-related subjects (e.g., moral education, physical education).
Teachers’ Attention to Curriculum Materials
Teachers’ attention to curriculum materials were measured by asking teachers how much
attention they give to curriculum materials (curriculum guides, textbooks, and teachers’ guides)
when making four types of curriculum decisions; 1) content to teach; 2) instructional strategies;
3) time allocation for units; and 4) sequence for units. Each question is answered with a 5 Likert
scale (1=no attention through 5=very much attention). That is, for each type of material, there are
four measures for teachers’ attention, representing four types of teaching decisions (content,
instructional strategies, time allocation, and sequence). Since this study focuses on teachers’
attention to curriculum materials in general, differences among these types of decisions are less
relevant so I computed a mean score for teachers’ attention to each curriculum material for the
four types of curriculum decisions. Mean scores of teachers’ attention to curriculum guide,
textbook, and teachers guide were 3.10, 3.89, and 3.44 respectively as shown Table 23. More
details about variables used in this study are addressed in Table 24.

102

Table 23
Descriptive Statistics of Teachers' Attention to Curriculum Materials

Decision-making
Content
Instructional Strategies
Time Allocation
Sequence
Average
Cronbach's Alpha

Curriculum guides
Mean
3.11
3.06
3.11
3.10

SD
0.708
0.675
0.774
0.829

3.10
0.831

Textbooks
Mean
4.06
3.84
3.83
3.83

SD
0.767
0.683
0.694
0.836

3.89
0.772

103

Teachers’ guides
Mean
3.46
3.45
3.46
3.39

SD
0.809
0.725
0.801
0.897

3.44
0.808

Table 24
Summary of Variables Used in the Third Sub-Study
Category

Teacher Beliefs

Teachers’ Attention to
Curriculum Materials

School Factors

Teacher
Characteristics

Variables
Positive beliefs (1=strongly agree through 5=strongly disagree)
Provide a common foundation of knowledge for students.
Are helpful for unit-planning.
Encourage teachers in different school districts to cover the same
material.
Align the content from one grade to the next.
Are good matches for my students' abilities
Negative beliefs (1=strongly disagree through 5=strongly agree)
Limit the depth of coverage with which topics can be covered.
Are mandated by the government.
Encourage breadth instead of depth of understanding.
Are too demanding for my students.
Put pressure on teachers to get through material.
Are too specific.
Curriculum guides (1=no attention through 5=very much attention)
Textbooks (1=no attention through 5=very much attention)
Teachers’ guides (1=no attention through 5=very much attention)
Location (Seoul=0, large cities=1, small cities=0, rural areas=3)
School type (public=0, private=1)
Coeducation (single sex=0, coeducation=1)
School size (number of classes)
Monthly private education expenditure per student
High school entrance examination (nonexam area=0, exam area=1)
Gender (female=0, male=1)
Teaching experience (number of teaching years)
Degree (bachelor’s=0, advanced=1)
Subject taught (non-test subject=0, test subject=1)
Number of teaching grades (single grade=0, multiple grades=1)

Analysis
In order to show what beliefs about curriculum materials Korean middle school teachers have
and how their beliefs similar or different among curriculum guides, textbooks, teachers’ guides, I
provide descriptive statistics of teachers’ beliefs about curriculum guides, textbooks, and
teachers’ guides (mean and standard deviation).

104

How school factors and teacher background characteristics influence teachers’ beliefs about
curriculum materials and how teachers’ beliefs about curriculum materials influence their
attention to curriculum materials was examined by correlations and Hierarchical Linear
Modeling (HLM) (Bryk & Raudenbush, 1992). Since the participating teachers were nested
within schools, it is possible to estimate the effects of teacher and school level variables
simultaneously.
Results
Descriptive Statistics
As shown in Table 25, the descriptive statistics indicated that teachers generally agreed with
positive beliefs more than negative beliefs. Teachers strongly agreed that curriculum materials
contributed to alignment across schools (3.66 on average) and grades (3.76 on average). For both
beliefs, teachers agreed more strongly when thinking about textbooks (3.72 for alignment across
schools and 3.80 for alignment across grades) than when thinking about curriculum guides (3.58
and 3.69 respectively) or teachers’ guides (3.70 and 3.78 respectively). In contrast, teachers
rarely agreed that curriculum materials were good matches with student abilities (3.03 on
average), and the curriculum guides (2.99) were least trusted by teachers with regard to matching
student abilities compared to textbooks (3.06) and teachers’ guides (3.04).
With respect to the negative beliefs, teachers either somewhat agreed with or were not sure
about most negative beliefs. Teachers agreed least that curriculum materials limited the depth of
content coverage (2.60 on average), and did not show strong agreement with statements that
curriculum materials are too demanding (2.74 on average), too specific (2.75 on average), and
put pressure on teachers to cover all materials in curriculum materials (2.78 on average). On the
contrary, teachers more strongly agreed that curriculum materials encourage breadth rather than

105

the depth (3.37 on average). Especially, teachers’ agreement with this belief was stronger for
textbooks (3.50) than for curriculum guides (3.40) and teachers’ guides (3.21).
As shown Figure 3, teachers usually held more positive beliefs about textbooks, and least
positive beliefs about curriculum guides. Teachers agreed strongly that textbooks encouraged to
cover the same materials across schools (3.72) and provided common foundation of knowledge
(3.78) compared to curriculum guides (3.58 and 3.55 respectively) and teachers’ guides (3.69 and
3.60 respectively). Only the beliefs that curriculum materials were helpful for unit planning
showed the highest score for teachers’ guides (3.74) compared to textbooks (3.57) and teachers’
guides (3.51).
Generally, as shown in Figure 4, teachers’ negative beliefs did not show dramatic differences
among curriculum guides, textbooks, and teachers’ guides, and showed relatively lower scores
than positive beliefs indicating that the participating teachers had positive beliefs about
curriculum materials. Specifically, teachers believed more strongly that textbooks (3.50)
encouraged the breadth than they believed about curriculum guides (3.40) teachers’ guides (3.21)
or textbooks (2.83) were too specific compared to curriculum guides (2.73) and teachers’ guides
(2.70). They also believed more strongly that curriculum guides (3.41) were mandated by the
government than textbooks (3.38) and teachers’ guides (3.29). Teachers also showed highest
score for curriculum guides in the belief that curriculum guides (2.70) limited the depth of
coverage compared to textbooks (2.60) and teachers’ guides (2.52). Frequencies and percentages
of teachers who agreed or disagreed with the beliefs are provided in Appendix F.

106

Table 25 Descriptive Statistics of Teachers’ Beliefs about Curriculum Materials
Curriculum guides

Textbooks

Teachers' guides

Average

Mean

SD

Mean

SD

Mean

SD

Aligns the content across grades

3.70

0.729

3.80

0.684

3.78

0.676

3.76

Encourages us to cover the same materials across
schools

3.58

0.832

3.72

0.762

3.69

0.786

3.66

Provides common foundation of knowledge

3.55

0.804

3.76

0.729

3.60

0.782

3.64

Helpful for unit-planning

3.51

0.84

3.57

0.821

3.74

0.783

3.61

Good match for students' abilities

2.99

0.917

3.06

0.931

3.04

0.934

3.03

Encourages breadth rather than depth

3.40

0.789

3.50

0.871

3.21

0.904

3.37

Mandated by the government

3.41

0.860

3.38

0.917

3.29

0.913

3.36

Too specific

2.78

0.877

2.76

0.877

2.79

0.875

2.77

Pressure on teachers to get through materials

2.73

0.906

2.83

0.945

2.70

0.905

2.75

Too demanding for my students

2.76

0.933

2.82

0.979

2.64

0.887

2.74

Limits the depth of coverage

2.70

0.859

2.60

0.888

2.52

0.835

2.61

Positive beliefs

Negative beliefs

107

Curriculum guides

Textbooks

Teachers' guides

4.00
3.50
3.00
2.50
2.00
1.50
1.00

Align the content Encourage to Provide common Helpful for unit- Good match for
across grades cover the same foundation of
planning
students'
materials across
knowledge
abilities
schools
Figure 3 Comparisons of Positive Beliefs about Curriculum Materials
Curriculum guides

Textbooks

Teachers' guides

4.00
3.50
3.00
2.50
2.00
1.50
1.00

Encourage the Mandated by Too specific
breadth
the
rather than government
depth

Pressure on
teachers to
get through
materials

Too
demanding
for my
students

Figure 4 Comparisons of Negative Beliefs about Curriculum Materials

108

Limit the
depth of
coverage

Factors Influencing Teachers’ Beliefs about Curriculum Materials
To understand how school factors and teacher background characteristics were associated
with teachers’ beliefs about curriculum materials, HLM modeling was used. I created outcome
variables as mean scores for 11 teacher beliefs about curriculum guides, textbooks, and teachers’
guides respectively (Table 26). The higher score indicates the more positive beliefs about
curriculum materials.
Table 26
Descriptive Statistics of Mean Scores of Teachers' Beliefs about the Advantages or Drawbacks of
Curriculum Materials
N

Min

Max

Mean

SD

Curriculum guides

574

1.73

4.73

3.19

.409

Cronbach's
alpha
0.673

Textbooks

591

1.91

4.82

3.25

.381

0.595

Teachers' guides

591

1.73

5.00

3.18

.408

0.687

As shown in Table 27, a number of school factors and teacher background characteristics
showed significant influences on teachers’ beliefs about curriculum guides, textbooks, and
teachers’ guides. With regard to school location, teachers in small cities showed less positive
beliefs about curriculum guides (effect size = -.20, p < .10), textbooks (effect size = -.28, p
< .05), and teachers’ guides (effect size = -.20, p < .10) than those in Seoul, large cities, and rural
areas. In addition, school size had significant associations with textbooks (effect size = .01, p
< .05) and teachers’ guides (effect size = .01, p < .10) indicating that teachers were likely to show
less positive beliefs about textbooks and teachers’ guides as school size decreased. Private school
teachers showed significantly more positive beliefs about teachers’ guides (effect size = .17, p
< .05) than public school teachers.

109

Among teacher background variables, teaching experience was significantly associated with
teachers’ beliefs about curriculum guides (effect size = .01, p < .05) and teachers’ guides (effect
size = .01, p < .10) suggesting that teachers’ beliefs become more positive as their teaching
experience increased. Teachers’ degree also showed significant associations with teacher beliefs
about textbooks (effect size = -.08, p < .05) and teachers’ guides (effect size = -.11, p < .05)
indicating that teachers who had advanced degrees were likely to have less positive beliefs about
textbooks and teachers’ guides. Teachers’ belief about textbooks was significantly associated
with subject taught (effect size = .13, p < .01) indicating that test subject teachers showed more
positive belief about textbooks, but no significance differences were found in teacher beliefs
about curriculum guides and teachers’ guides.
Gender, whether teaching single or multiple grades, coeducation, private education
expenditure, and whether high school entrance examination is mandatory did not show any
significant associations with teacher beliefs about any curriculum materials.

110

Table 27
Factors Influencing Teachers’ Beliefs about the Value of Curriculum Materials
Curriculum guides
Intercept

-0.20

Gender
Teaching experience
Advanced degree
Test subject
Teaching multiple grades

0.04
0.01*
-0.02
0.11
0.12

Location
Seoul
Large cities
Small cities
Private school
Coeducation
School size
Private Education Expenditure
Exam areas

0.01
-0.12
-0.20†
0.14
0.07
0.01
-0.01
0.05

Deviance Statistics
Number of Parameters
†
p < .10, * p < .05, ** p < .01

Textbooks

Teachers' guides

0.01
Teacher level
-0.01
0.00
-0.08*
0.13**
0.03
School level
-0.07
-0.27*
-0.28*
0.18
0.04
0.01*
-0.01
-0.01
Model Summary

445.09
16

-0.02

-0.05
-0.20
-0.20†
0.17*
0.06
0.01†
-0.01
-0.01

364.37
16

0.00
0.01†
-0.11*
0.06
-0.05

419.49
16

Teachers’ Beliefs about Curriculum Materials and Attention to Curriculum Materials
In the HLM model for each type of curriculum material (curriculum guides, textbooks, and
teachers’ guides), outcome variables were teachers’ attention to curriculum materials. Table 28
indicated that school factors and teacher background characteristics were included to control
when reporting influences of teachers’ beliefs about curriculum materials. In each model,
teachers’ beliefs about and their attention to each curriculum material were matched. For
example, when outcome variable was teachers’ attention to textbooks, teacher beliefs about
textbooks were included as independent variables.
111

After controlling for school factors and teacher background characteristics, only a small
number of teachers’ beliefs about curriculum materials were significantly related to the degree of
attention they paid to curriculum materials when making curriculum decisions. With respect to
positive beliefs, teachers who had positive beliefs about curriculum guides were likely to pay
attention to curriculum guides while teachers’ positive beliefs were slightly associated with their
attention to textbooks. The belief that curriculum guides provided a common foundation of
knowledge showed significant association with teachers’ higher attention to curriculum guides
(effect size = .22, p < .01), and the belief that curriculum guides were helpful for unit-planning
was also significantly associated with their higher attention to curriculum guides (effect size
= .12, p < .01). Teachers’ negative beliefs rarely showed significant association with their
attention to teachers’ guides, but exceptionally the belief that teachers’ guides encouraged to
cover the same materials across schools was significantly associated with teachers’ higher
attention to teachers’ guides (effect size = .12, p< .10). There was not belief about textbooks that
showed significant influence on teachers’ attention to textbooks.
Teachers’ negative beliefs showed a few significant associations with their attention to
curriculum materials. Interestingly, teachers paid higher attention to textbooks even if they had
more negative beliefs about textbooks. The belief that textbooks limited depth of content
coverage was significantly associated with teachers’ attention to textbooks (effect size = -.11, p
< .05) indicating that teachers who had this belief were likely to pay high attention to textbooks,
and the belief that textbooks put pressure on teachers to cover materials was significantly
influenced their attention to textbooks (effect size = .-07, p < .10). These results indicated that
teachers paid high attention to textbooks when making curriculum decisions even though
textbooks had drawbacks. Other than these two beliefs, teachers paid higher attention to

112

textbooks when scores for their negative beliefs were low, and the belief that textbooks were too
specific was significantly associated with their less attention to textbooks (effect size = .13, p
< .05).
The results were mixed with regard to negative beliefs. Some of negative beliefs were
significantly associated with teachers’ higher attention to curriculum guides while the other
negative beliefs showed associations with their lower attention to curriculum guides. Significant
relationships were shown in the beliefs that curriculum guides limited the depth of coverage
(effect size = .10, p < .05) and that teachers’ guides were too demanding for students (effect size
= .09, p < .10) indicating that teachers who had the former belief showed less attention to
curriculum guides, and that teachers who had the latter beliefs showed less attention to teachers’
guides.

113

Table 28
Teachers’ Beliefs Influencing Their Attention to Curriculum Materials
Curriculum
Teachers’
Textbooks
guides
guides
Intercept
3.20**
3.97
3.33
Teacher Characteristics
Male
0.10
-0.18
-0.07
0.00
0.00
0.01†
Teaching experience
Advanced degree
-0.01
-0.07
0.01
†
Test subject
-0.12
0.04
0.10
Teacher Beliefs
0.22**
0.05
0.09
Provide common foundation of knowledge
0.12**
0.03
0.10
Helpful for unit-planning
-0.03
0.12†
Encourage to cover the same materials across schools -0.02
-0.05
0.06
-0.04
Align the content across grades
0.02
-0.05
0.00
Good match for students' abilities
0.10*
-0.11*
0.00
Limit the depth of coverage
-0.01
0.03
0.05
Mandated by the government
†
-0.05
0.06
-0.06
Encourage the breadth rather than depth
0.06
0.07
0.09†
Too demanding for my students
-0.06
-0.07†
-0.02
Pressure on teachers to get through materials
0.13*
-0.03
-0.01
Too specific
School Factors
Location
Seoul
-0.15
0.09
-0.14
Large cities
-0.33
-0.01
-0.21
†
Small cities
-0.30
-0.12
-0.13
Private school
0.37*
0.06
0.23†
Coeducation
0.14
-0.07
0.14
†
School size
0.02
0.00
0.01
Private education expenditure
-0.02
0.00
0.01
Entrance exam
0.00
0.11*
0.07
Model Summary
Deviance
732.69
739.06
854.28
Number of parameters
26
26
26
†
p < .10, * p < .05, ** p < .01
Discussion
This paper examines teachers’ beliefs about curriculum materials, what factors associated
114

with their beliefs about curriculum materials, and how these beliefs influence their attention to
curriculum materials. Teachers generally have positive beliefs about curriculum materials, and
particularly they have more positive beliefs about textbooks than about curriculum guides and
teachers’ guides. Teachers agree that textbooks provide students with a common foundation of
knowledge, help them align content coverage across schools and grades, and are helpful for
curriculum-planning. In Kim’s study (2005), teachers teaching language arts, mathematics and
English regarded textbooks as valuable resources including proper contents for learning goals.
These results enable us to understand why teachers pay a lot of attention to textbooks when they
decide content to teach and instructional strategies. Teachers have been criticized that they
showed textbook-based teaching (i.e. teaching within contents in textbooks, but rarely pay
attention to other types of materials and students’ needs), which helps them save time and effort
to prepare for teaching and teach many students the same content at the same time (Lee & Hong,
2008). The results in the study suggest that teachers also perceive many virtues in their
textbooks. The textbooks save them time, plus they are valuable for other reasons.
Teachers show comparatively little agreement with negative beliefs and this result contradicts
many general assumptions about curriculum materials. Teachers complain about curriculum
materials, especially textbooks. For example, in several studies conducted in Korean education
context, teachers pointed out problems of textbook adoption but they rarely talked about the
quality of textbook (e.g., whether it includes a common foundation of knowledge).
It is important to note that only a small number of teachers agree that curriculum materials
are good matches for student abilities. In the context of decentralized curriculum policy, teachers
have been encouraged to consider students’ needs, but this has not been the case (see Chapter 4).
Teachers’ lower attention to students’ needs might be explained by the fact that textbooks rarely

115

help teachers consider students’ needs because textbooks are not well-matched with student
abilities.
This study also reveals factors influencing teachers’ beliefs about the value of curriculum
materials. Previous studies have usually focused on how teacher beliefs about curriculum
materials influenced their use of curriculum materials but rarely touched on how school factors
and teacher backgrounds influence their beliefs about curriculum materials. One interesting
finding here is that teachers teaching test subjects show more positive beliefs about textbooks,
which receive the greatest attention by teachers when making curriculum decisions than those
teaching non-test subjects (Chapter 5). Considering that teachers who teach test subjects pay
more attention to textbooks than those who teach non-test subjects (Chapter 4), test subject
teachers have more time to find out benefits of textbooks than their peers teaching non-test
subjects. Teachers who have more teaching experience have more positive beliefs about
curriculum materials. In a similar vein, more experienced teachers spend more time to use
curriculum materials than young teachers, and that might be why the former showed more
positive beliefs about curriculum materials than the latter.
Another interesting finding is that teachers who have advanced degrees have less positive
beliefs about textbooks and teachers’ guides than those who have bachelor’s degree. It might be
that teachers who pursued advanced degrees have more knowledge about teaching and learning
and so they have more room to pay attention to other types of curriculum materials in addition to
curriculum guides, textbooks, and teachers’ guides. However, this study does not show a clear
relationship between teachers’ degree and their knowledge so that further research should
examine whether teachers’ degree is associated with their knowledge and how teachers’ learning
during pursuing advanced degrees influence their beliefs about and use of curriculum materials.

116

Maybe they are just more confident that they can make their own decisions.
With respect to school factors, school locations and school size make differences in teachers’
beliefs about curriculum materials. Specifically, teachers in small cities are likely to have less
positive beliefs about curriculum materials than their peers in other areas. In addition, teachers in
larger schools show more positive beliefs about curriculum materials than their peers in small
schools. Given that usually large schools are located in Seoul and large cities and small or midsized schools are located in small cities and rural areas, these two results seem in the same line. It
is hard to see, however, exactly what makes differences in teacher beliefs about curriculum
materials between large and small schools. Generally, large schools in Seoul and large cities have
more competitive education environment than small schools in small cities and rural areas, but in
the study, monthly private education expenditure, which indirectly show the degree of
competitiveness in education, do not show significant influence.
The analysis also reveals other interesting points. The degree to which teachers pay attention
to curriculum materials is rarely related to their beliefs about the advantages or disadvantages of
those curriculum materials, and this result contradicts with Donnelly and Boone (2007), Sosniak
and Stodolsky (1993), and Freeman and Porter (1989). These studies report that teachers’ use of
curriculum standards was explained by positive beliefs about the curriculum standards (i.e.,
teachers regarded curriculum standards as useful and appropriate for students) and by belief that
curriculum standards were mandated by state. I found no significant association between
teachers’ attention to curriculum materials and their belief that curriculum materials were good
matches for students’ abilities or were mandated by the government. In case of curriculum
guides, teachers paid less attention to curriculum guides even though they understood that
curriculum guides are mandated by the government.

117

In summary, Korean middle school teachers tend to use curriculum materials regardless of
their beliefs about curriculum materials. Teachers have slightly different beliefs on curriculum
guides and textbooks with teachers’ guides suggesting that teachers seem to trust textbooks as a
better source for their curriculum planning than curriculum guides and teachers’ guides.
Implication
This study allows education policy makers and researchers to understand what attitudes
towards curriculum materials Korean middle school teachers have and how to improve
curriculum materials to better meet teachers’ needs when they use curriculum materials. Teachers
perceive that curriculum materials are generally useful when preparing for their teaching, but
they rarely agree that curriculum materials are good sources to help teachers meet students’
needs. Because curriculum materials include a broad content to be covered by teachers, they feel
pressure to cover all contents and student activities in curriculum materials (Kim, 2005), and this
may be why teachers rarely agree that curriculum materials are good matches with students’
abilities. Thus, participants who join in developing and publishing curriculum materials should
develop curriculum materials in consideration of what teachers need to better meet their students’
needs.
The decentralization of curriculum policy encourages teachers to be less dependent on
textbooks and to increase their attention to curriculum guides, but teachers still seem to depend
more on textbooks compared to curriculum guides and teachers’ guides regardless of their beliefs
about these curriculum materials. In Lee and Hong’s study (2008), teachers did not use
curriculum guides as often as textbooks because curriculum guides did not provide specific
resources for curriculum planning even though they agreed with the idea of curriculum guidesbased teaching. For example, policy makers and education researchers help teachers increase

118

their knowledge. In the second sub-study (Chapter 5), teachers who perceive they have more
content and pedagogical knowledge show higher perception of curriculum control, and their
knowledge about the decentralization of curriculum policy increase their attention to curriculum
materials and student contexts when making curriculum decisions.

119

APPENDICES

120

Appendix A: Teacher Questionnaire
Background Information
1. Location of School:

Seoul

Metropolitan Cities

Small cities

2. Type of School:

Rural areas

Public / National

Private

3. # of classes in your school:

4. Subject matter

Language Arts

Mathematics

English

Science

Social Studies

Moral Education

Chinese Literature

Music

Fine Arts

World Languages

Home economics/ Technology

Physical education

Etc.

Female

M

5. Gender:

ale

6. Grade level you teach in this school year:

1

2

33

7. Number of students in your classroom:
(If you teach several classes or subject matters, please consider the class you most frequently

3

In Korean education system, 1st to 3rd grades in middle school refer to 7th through 9th grades
in the US.
121

teach)
8. Average achievement level of students in your classroom this year
(If you teach several classes or subject matters, please consider the class you most frequently
teach)
Mostly high achieving
Mostly average achieving
Mostly low achieving
Students at a range of achievement levels

9. Your teaching experience as a full time teacher:

Years,

months

10. Please indicate your highest degree(s)
BA/BS

MA/MS

Ed. D/Ph. D

Other (Please specify: ______________)

11. Which teachers’ union are you in?
Korean Federation of Teachers’ Associations
The Korean Teachers and Education Workers’ Union
I have not joined any teachers’ union
Other (Please specify

)

12. In your areas, do students have to take high school entrance examination?

Yes

No

122

13. Please indicate how much you know about the decentralization of curriculum policy
Very Poor

Poor

Adequate

Good

Excellent

14. Please indicate how much you agree or disagree with the decentralization of curriculum
policy.

Strongly
disagree

Disagree

Not sure

Agree

Strongly
agree

Teachers’ Control over Curriculum Decision Making

1. How much control do you actually have when you do the following activities?

No
control
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.

Little
control

Selecting content to teach
Selecting instructional strategies
Allocating time to each unit
Sequencing units
Evaluating and grading students

123

Some
control

Much
control

Very
much
control

Curriculum Standards Influencing on Curriculum Decision-Making
2.1 When you decide on the specific content you will teach, how much attention do you pay to
each of the following resources?
Very
No
Little
Some
Much
much
a. Curriculum guides for
subject matter
b. Textbooks
c. Teacher guides
d. All assessments
administered by your
school
e. The national assessment of
student achievement (only
in case)
f. High school entrance exam
(only for teachers in case)
g. Local contexts
h. Students’ individual needs

2.2 Have your attention to each resource been increased or decreased by the decentralization of
curriculum policy?
Decreased Decreased
Not
Increased Increased
a lot
changed
a lot
a. Curriculum guides for
subject matter
b. Textbooks
c. Teacher guides
d. All assessments
administered by school
e. The national assessment of
student achievement (only
in case)
f. High school entrance exam
(only for teachers in case)
g. Local contexts
h. Students’ individual needs

124

3.1 When you decide instructional strategies you will teach, how much attention do you pay to
each of the following resources?
Very
No
Little
Some
Much
much
a. Curriculum guides for
subject matter
b. Textbooks
c. Teacher guides
d. All assessments
administered by your
school
e. The national assessment of
student achievement (only
in case)
f. High school entrance exam
(only for teachers in case)
g. Local contexts
h. Students’ individual needs

3.2 Have your attention to each resource been increased or decreased by the decentralization of
curriculum policy?
Decreased Decreased
Not
Increased Increased
a lot
changed
a lot
a. Curriculum guides for
subject matter
b. Textbooks
c. Teacher guides
d. All assessments
administered by school
e. The national assessment of
student achievement (only
in case)
f. High school entrance exam
(only for teachers in case)
g. Local contexts
h. Students’ individual needs

125

4.1 When you decide time allocation for units you will teach, how much attention do you pay to
each of the following resources?
Very
No
Little
Some
Much
much
a. Curriculum guides for
subject matter
b. Textbooks
c. Teacher guides
d. All assessments
administered by your
school
e. The national assessment of
student achievement (only
in case)
f. High school entrance exam
(only for teachers in case)
g. Local contexts
h. Students’ individual needs

4.2 Have your attention to each resource been increased or decreased by the decentralization of
curriculum policy?
Decreased Decreased
Not
Increased Increased
a lot
changed
a lot
a. Curriculum guides for
subject matter
b. Textbooks
c. Teacher guides
d. All assessments
administered by school
e. The national assessment of
student achievement (only
in case)
f. High school entrance exam
(only for teachers in case)
g. Local contexts
h. Students’ individual needs

126

5.1 When you sequence units you will teach, how much attentions do you pay to each of the
following resources?
Very
No
Little
Some
Much
much
a. Curriculum guides for
subject matter
b. Textbooks
c. Teacher guides
d. All assessments
administered by your
school
e. The national assessment of
student achievement (only
in case)
f. High school entrance exam
(only for teachers in case)
g. Local contexts
h. Students’ individual needs

5.2 Have your attention to each resource been increased or decreased by the decentralization of
curriculum policy?
Decreased Decreased
Not
Increased Increased
a lot
changed
a lot
a. Curriculum guides for
subject matter
b. Textbooks
c. Teacher guides
d. All assessments
administered by school
e. The national assessment of
student achievement (only
in case)
f. High school entrance exam
(only for teachers in case)
g. Local contexts
h. Students’ individual needs

127

Teacher Factors

Teacher beliefs about the authority of curriculum standards
3. Please indicate how much you agree or disagree with following statements about curriculum
guides.
Strongly
Strongly
Disagree Not sure
Agree
disagree
agree
a. Limit the depth of coverage with
which topics can be covered.
b. Are mandated by the government.
c. Provide a common foundation of
knowledge for students.
d. Encourage breadth instead of
depth of understanding.
e. Are too demanding for my
students.
f. Are helpful for unit-planning.
g. Put pressure on teachers to get
through material.
h. Encourage teachers in different
school districts to cover the same
material.
i. Align the content from one grade
to the next.
j. Are a good match for my students'
abilities.
k. Are too specific.

4. Please indicate how much you agree or disagree with following statements about textbooks.
Strongly
Strongly
Disagree Not sure
Agree
disagree
agree
a. Limit the depth of coverage with
which topics can be covered.
b. Are mandated by the government.
c. Provide a common foundation of
knowledge for students.
d. Encourage breadth instead of
depth of understanding.
e. Are too demanding for my
students.
f. Are helpful for unit-planning.
128

g. Put pressure on teachers to get
through material.
h. Encourage teachers in different
school districts to cover the same
material.
i. Align the content from one grade
to the next.
j. Are a good match for my students'
abilities.
k. Are too specific.

5. Please indicate how much you agree or disagree with following statements about teacher
guides.
Strongly
Strongly
Disagree Not sure
Agree
disagree
agree
a. Limit the depth of coverage with
which topics can be covered.
b. Are mandated by the government.
c. Provide a common foundation of
knowledge for students.
d. Encourage breadth instead of
depth of understanding.
e. Are too demanding for my
students.
f. Are helpful for unit-planning.
g. Put pressure on teachers to get
through material.
h. Encourage teachers in different
school districts to cover the same
material.
i. Align the content from one grade
to the next.
j. Are a good match for my students'
abilities.
k. Are too specific.

129

Teacher knowledge

6. How would you rate your knowledge about each of the following?

Very
Poor

Poor

Adequate Good Excellent

a. Content knowledge on subject matter
b. General classroom management
c. Knowledge about how students learn
subject matter
d. Teaching strategies/methods (e.g.,
cooperative groups)
e. Ways of using curriculum standards

Teacher Collaboration

7. To what extent does collaboration with peer teachers help you when you do following
activities?

Very
Somewhat
Very
Unhelpful
Helpful
unhelpful
helpful
helpful
a. Select content for curriculum
planning
b. Select instructional strategies
c. Allocate time for each unit
d. Decide sequence for units
e. Increase understanding and
interpretation of what the national
curriculum requires teachers to do
f. Increase my content knowledge
g. Increase my knowledge of
instructional strategies

THANK YOU!!!
130

Appendix B: Key Features of the Questionnaire
Table 29
Key Features of the Questionnaire
Categories

Subcategories

Teachers’ perception of
curriculum control

The extent to which
teachers attention to
curriculum materials
and student contexts

Content to teach
Instructional strategies
Time allocation
Sequence

Changes in the extent to
which teachers pay
attention to curriculum
materials and student
contexts in response to
the decentralization of
curriculum policy

Content to teach
Instructional strategies
Time allocation
Sequence

Teachers’ beliefs about
curriculum materials

Curriculum guides
Textbooks
Teacher guides

Specific items
Content to teach
Instructional strategies
Time allocation
Sequence
Evaluating students
Curriculum materials
Curriculum guides
Textbooks
Teacher guide
Assessments
Student contexts
Local contexts
Student’ needs
Curriculum materials
Curriculum guides
Textbooks
Teacher guide
Assessments
Student contexts
Local contexts
Student’ needs
Positive beliefs (8 items)
Negative beliefs (7 items)

Teacher knowledge

When curriculum planning
about
Teacher collaboration
When increasing knowledge
for curriculum planning

131

Content
Instructional strategies
Classroom management
Student learning
Using curriculum standards
Modifying curriculum standards
Content
Instructional strategies
Time allocation
Sequence
Increase understanding of the
national curriculum standards
Increase content knowledge
Increase knowledge of instructional
strategies

Appendix C: Monthly Private Education Expenditure per Middle School Student by
Locations
Table 30
Monthly Private Education Expenditure per Middle School Student by Locations
Location

PEE

Location

Korean
won
Seoul
Busan
Daegu
Incheon
Gwangju
Daejeon
Ulsan
Gyeonggi
Total

US dollar

309,000

291.51

228,000

215.09

312,000

294.34

220,000

207.55

236,000

222.64

221,000

208.49

234,000

220.75

279,000

263.21

255,000

240.57

PEE
Korean
won

Gangwon
Chungbuk
Chungnam
Jeonbuk
Jeonnam
Gyoengbuk
Gyeongnam
Jeju

Note: Currency exchange rate July, 14, 2011 was considered.

132

US dollar

231,000

217.92

210,000

198.11

192,000

181.13

200,000

188.68

207,000

195.28

210,000

198.11

232,000

218.87

245,000

231.13

Appendix D: Bivariate Correlations between Teachers’ Attention to Curriculum Materials and Student Contexts
Table 31
Correlations between Local Contexts and Students' Needs
DecisionMaking

Content
Factors

Content

Instruction

Time
allocation

Sequence

Content

Local contexts

Instruction

Time
allocation

Sequence

Students’ needs

1

.614

.635

.552

.516

.369

.385

.382

.614

1

.673

.646

.452

.576

.434

.434

.635

.673

1

.701

.450

.409

.575

.449

Sequence

.552

.646

.701

1

.417

.379

.439

.674

Content

.516

.452

.450

.417

1

.540

.535

.473

.369

.576

.409

.379

.540

1

.615

.506

.385

.434

.575

.439

.535

.615

1

.581

.382

.434

.449

.674

.473

.506

.581

1

Instruction
Time allocation

Instruction
Time allocation
Sequence

Local
contexts

Students’
needs

133

Table 32
Correlations between Curriculum Guides and Teachers' Guides
DecisionMaking

Content
Factors

Content

Instruction

Time
allocation

Sequence

Content

Curriculum guides

Instruction

Time
allocation

Sequence

Teachers’ guides

1

.563

.511

.496

.482

.318

.308

.338

.563

1

.572

.529

.342

.462

.302

.323

.511

.572

1

.622

.344

.352

.561

.463

Sequence

.496

.529

.622

1

.335

.345

.410

.621

Content

.482

.342

.344

.335

1

.589

.517

.479

.318

.462

.352

.345

.589

1

.573

.538

.308

.302

.561

.410

.517

.573

1

.599

.338

.323

.463

.621

.479

.538

.599

1

Instruction
Time allocation

Instruction
Time allocation
Sequence

Curriculum
guides

Teachers’
guides

134

Table 33
Correlations between Textbooks and Assessments
DecisionMaking

Content

Instruction

Factors

Time
allocation

Sequence

Content

Textbooks

Instruction

Time
allocation

Sequence

Assessments

Content

1

.557

.493

.332

.440

.258

.248

.209

Instruction

.557

1

.592

.482

.329

.462

.348

.338

Time allocation

.493

.592

1

.455

.292

.344

.482

.356

Sequence

.332

.482

.455

1

.184

.286

.250

.465

Content

.440

.329

.292

.184

1

.488

.432

.410

Instruction

.258

.462

.344

.286

.488

1

.538

.530

Time allocation

.248

.348

.482

.250

.432

.538

1

.535

Sequence

.209

.338

.356

.465

.410

.530

.535

1

Textbooks

Assessments

135

Appendix E: Bivariate Correlation Matrix for Items Related to Teachers’ Curriculum Control
Table 34
Correlations between Teachers' Perceived Control over Content to Teach and Teacher Factors
CG
Content Control
.247**
Collaboration for curriculum use
.340**
(CCU)
Collaboration for improving
.237**
knowledge (CIK)
Collaboration for content
.146**
decision (CCD)
Teacher knowledge curriculum
.245**
use (KCU)
Teacher knowledge in general
.166**
(KIG)
Positive beliefs (PB)
.146**
Negative beliefs (NB)
.051**
Attention to Students' needs
.193**
(SN)
Attention to local contexts (LC) .285**
Attention to assessments (AS) .171**
Attention to teachers' guide
.455**
(TG)
Attention to textbook (Text)
.231**
Attention to curriculum guide
(CG)
* p < .05 ** p < .001

Text

TG

AS

LC

SN

NB

PB

KIG

KCU

CCD

CIK

CCU

-.032** .097** .075** .177** .153** -.132** .061** .139** .016** .160** .178** .198**
.022** .158** .077** .241** .180** .028** .172** .270** .283** .452** .619**
.131** .117** .220** .123** .103** .037** .165** .138** .218** .517**
.105** .099** .110** .129** .132** -.007** .148** .146** .228**
.081** .249** .010* .138** .121** .074** .165** .609**
.025** .131** .107** .239** .193** .065** .066**
.113** .238** .055** -.015** .042** .124**
.018** .059** .026** .037** .037**
.141** .166** .167** .531**
.138** .207** .306**
.403** .220**
.443**

136

Table 35
Correlations between Teachers' Perceived Control over Instructional Strategies and Teacher Factors
CG
Instruction Control
.105*
Collaboration for curriculum
.325**
use (CCU)
Collaboration for improving
.234**
knowledge (CIK)
Collaboration for content
.172**
decision (CCD)
Teacher knowledge
.242**
curriculum use (KCU)
Teacher knowledge in general
.143**
(KIG)
Positive beliefs (PB)
.161**
Negative beliefs (NB)
.026
Attention to students' needs
.194**
(SN)
Attention to local contexts
.255**
(LC)
Attention to assessments (AS) .163**
Attention to teachers' guide
.392**
(TG)
Attention to textbook (Text) .153**
Attention to curriculum guide
(CG)
†
p < .10 * p < .05 ** p < .001

Text

TG

AS

.054

-.003

.065

.091*

LC

SN

KIG

KCU

CCD

.096* .102* .083*

-.161** .116* .045

-.030

.140* .137*

.127* .202** .113*

.028

.172** .270** .283** .508** .619**

.163** .093*

.164** .041

.099*

.037

.165** .138* .218** .602**

.118* .072

.186** .080

.132*

.005

.096* .191** .191**

.088* .190** .137* .147** .067

.074

.165** .609**

.051

.065

.066

.089*

.197** .212** .136*

.123* .223** .128* .054
.073
.036
-.021 .065
.227** .253** .340** .530**
.183** .221** .314**
.424** .322**
.538**

137

-.025
.015

NB

.124

PB

CIK

CCU
.047

Table 36
Correlations between Teachers' Perceived Control over Time Allocation and Teacher Factors
CG
Time Control

Text

TG

AS

.062

.051

-.025

.183** .108* .127* -.102* .092* .076†

Collaboration for curriculum
.278**
use (CCU)
Collaboration for improving
.200**
knowledge (CIK)
Collaboration for content
.179**
decision (CCD)
Teacher knowledge curriculum
.228**
use (KCU)
Teacher knowledge in general
.202**
(KIG)
Positive beliefs (PB)
.204**
Negative beliefs (NB)
.110*
Attention to Students' needs
.242**
(SN)
Attention to Local contexts
.359**
(LC)
Attention to assessments (AS) .164**
Attention to teachers' guide
.516**
(TG)
Attention to textbook (Text) .237**
Attention to curriculum guide
(CG)
†
p < .10 * p < .05 ** p < .001

LC

SN

NB

PB

KIG

KCU

CCD

CIK

CCU

-.003

.085* .155

.075†

.085* .163** .117* .301** .185** .028

.172** .270** .283** .418** .619**

.124* .162** .168** .106* .115* .037

.165** .138** .218** .377**

.097* .143** .190** .238** .215** -.044

.096* .164** .130*

.183** .232** .107* .184** .184** .074†

.165** .609**

.167** .158** .165** .258** .209** .065

.066

.143** .262** .080†
.083* .116* -.023

.074†
.079†

.205** .221** .335** .601**
.143** .211** .247**
.425** .253**
.456**

138

.094* .124*
.034

Table 37
Correlations between Teachers' Perceived Control over Sequence and Teacher Factors
CG

Text
†

Sequence Control
.068
Collaboration for curriculum
.288**
use (CCU)
Collaboration for improving
.218**
knowledge (CIK)
Collaboration for content
.168**
decision (CCD)
Teacher knowledge
.181**
curriculum use (KCU)
Teacher knowledge in
.174**
general (KIG)
Positive beliefs (PB)
.119*
Negative beliefs (NB)
.137*
Attention to Students' needs
.218**
(SN)
Attention to Local contexts
.314**
(LS)
Attention to assessments
.236**
(AS)
Attention to teachers' guide
.591**
(TG)
Attention to textbook (Text) .360**
Attention to curriculum guide
(CG)

TG

AS

.058

.056

.003

.008

.140** .110*

LC

SN

.109*

.058

KIG
†

KCU

.139** .007

CCD

CIK

.172** .270** .283** .472** .619**

.041

.037

.165** .138** .218** .468**

.144** .146** .052

.060

.034

.074†

.165** .609**

.162** .075†

.192** .230** .146** .065

-.003 .177** .108*
.113* .149** .082*

.080† .024
.159** .086*

.138** .159** .248** .630**
.095* .229** .332**
.416** .283**
.563**

139

.124*

.066

.169** .164**

CCU

.180** .198** .170**

.028

.139** .122*

.150** .096*

PB

.149** -.087* -.076

.249** .108*

.145** .174** .163** .027
.081* .108*

NB

Appendix F: Frequency and Percent of Teachers’ Agreement with Beliefs about Curriculum Materials
Table 38
Frequency and Percent of Teachers' Positive Beliefs about Curriculum Materials
Curriculum guide

Textbook

Teachers' guide

Disagree Not sure Agree Disagree Not sure Agree Disagree Not sure Agree
Provide common foundation of knowledge

Good match for students' abilities

53

443

83

89

403

(16.7)

(66.4)

(10.3)

(8.7)

(73.6)

(13.7)

(14.8)

(67.0)

100

111

388

60

55

449

65

66

431

(18.4)

(64.5)

(9.9)

(9.1)

(74.6)

(10.7)

(11.0)

(71.7)

92

91

418

98

79

399

65

62

419

(15.3)

(15.2)

(69.5)

(16.2)

(13.1)

(66.4)

(10.8)

(10.3)

(69.7)

63

84

452

55

46

463

50

62

456

(14.0)

(75.1)

(9.1)

(7.6)

(76.9)

(8.2)

(10.3)

(75.8)

219

165

214

213

122

252

218

135

230

(36.4)

Align the content across grades

62

(10.5)

across schools

400

(16.6)
Encourage to cover the same materials

101

(15.9)
Helpful for unit-planning

96

(27.5)

(35.6)

(35.3)

(20.2)

(41.9)

(36.2)

(22.4)

(38.2)

* ( ) is percent.
140

Table 39
Frequency and Percent of Teachers' Negative Beliefs about Curriculum Materials
Curriculum guide

Textbook

Teachers' guide

Disagree Not sure Agree Disagree Not sure Agree Disagree Not sure Agree
Limit the depth of coverage

374

107

100

393

(29.8)

(49.8)

(21.3)

(16.6)

(62.1)

(17.8)

(16.6)

(65.3)

358

114

126

363

87

149

331

103

167

(18.9)

(21.0)

(60.4)

(14.5)

(24.8)

(55.0)

(17.1)

(27.8)

309

200

88

385

107

110

294

130

176

(33.2)

(14.7)

(63.9)

(17.7)

(18.4)

(48.8)

(21.6)

(29.3)

161

120

321

193

105

303

165

92

344

(26.8)

(19.9)

(53.3)

(32.0)

(17.5)

(50.3)

(27.5)

(15.3)

(57.2)

162

134

301

212

67

321

134

122

345

(22.2)

(50.0)

(35.2)

(11.1)

(53.4)

(22.3)

(20.3)

(57.3)

147

179

270

154

144

302

157

158

286

(24.3)

Too specific

100

(26.9)

Too demanding for my students

128

(51.4)
Pressure on teachers to get through
materials

300

(59.5)
Encourage the breadth rather than depth

179

(19.7)
Mandated by the government

118

(29.8)

(44.9)

(25.6)

(23.9)

(50.2)

(26.1)

(26.3)

(47.4)

* ( ) is percent.
141

REFERENCES

142

REFERENCES
Au, W. (2007). High-stakes testing and curricular control: A qualitative synthesis. Educational
Researcher, 36(5), 258-267.
Bay, J. M., Reys, B. J., Reys, R. E. (1999). The top 10 elements that must be in place to
implement standards-based mathematics curricula. The Phi Delta Kappan, 80(7), 503506.
Baek, K. (2007). A study on input system of social needs for the national curriculum standards
development. The Journal of Curriculum Studies, 25(2), 37-62.
Bryk, A. S., & Raudenbush, S. W. (1992). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data
analysis methods. Newbury, CA: Sage.
Carroll, J. (1963). A model for school learning. Teachers College Record, 64, 723-733.
Cho, D. (2002). The reconsideration on the meaning and procedure of school-based curriculum:
Focused on the professional development and autonomy of a teacher. The Journal of
Curriculum Studies, 20(3), 23-44.
Choi, H. (1996). Issues and prospect of school-based curriculum. The Journal of Curriculum
Studies, 14(1), 78-105.
Choi, J.-y. (2007). Influences of school contexts, teacher capacity & will, and teachers' learning
opportunities on elementary teachers' implementation of performance assessment in
social studies. The Journal of Elementary Education, 20(3), 349-375.
Choi, J.-y., & Lee, K.-j. (2009). The relationship between elementary teachers’ beliefs and
knowledge and their curriculum implementation in terms of depth of implementation:
Focusing on implementation of performance assessment in social studies. The Journal of
Curriculum Studies, 26(1), 103-126.
Choe, B. (1998). Teachers’ participation and role in school-based curriculum development. The
Journal of Korean Teacher Education, 15(1), 285-303.
Chung, J. Y. (2008). A study of an autonomous school policy: Rising issues and tasks for
success. The Journal of Educational Administration, 26(2), 415-435.
Cohen, D. K. (1989). Teaching practice: Plus ça change. In P. W. Jackson (Ed.), Contributing to
educational change: Perspectives on research and practice (pp. 27-84). Berkeley, CA:
McCutchan.
Cohen, D. K. (1990). A revolution in one classroom: The case of Mrs. Oublier. Educational
Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 12(3), 311-329.
Cohen, D. K., & Hill, H. C. (1998). State policy and classroom performance: Mathematics
143

reform in California. CPRE Policy Brief (No. RB-23). Philadelphia: Consortium for
Policy Research in Education.
Cohen, D. K., & Hill, H. C. (2001). Learning policy: When state education reform works. New
Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Coburn, C. E. (2001). Collective sensemaking about reading: How teachers mediate reading
policy in their professional communities. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis,
23(2), 145-170.
Doonelly, L. A., & Boone, W. J. (2007). Biology teachers’ attitudes toward and use of Indiana’s
evolution standards. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(2), 236-257.
Elmore, R. F. (1996). Getting to scale with good educational practice. Harvard Educational
Review, 66(1), 1-26.
Floden, R. E. (2002). The measurement of opportunity to learn. In A. C. Porter & R. E. Floden
(Eds.), Methodological advances in cross-national surveys of educational achievement,
Board on international comparative studies in education (pp. 231-264). Washington, DC:
National Academy Press.
Floden, R. E., Porter, A. C., Schmidt, W. H., Freeman, D. J., & Schwille, W. H. (1981). Response
to curriculum pressures: A policy-capturing study of teacher decisions about content.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 73(2), 129-141.
Freeman, D. J., & Porter, A. C. (1989). Do textbooks dictate the content of mathematics
instruction in elementary schools? American Educational Research Journal, 26(3), 403421.
Freire, P. (2000). Pedagogy and the oppressed. Continuum International Publishing Group.
Fullan, M. (2007). The new meaning of educational change (Fourth ed.). NY: Teachers College
Press.
Gill, M. J., & Hoffman, B. (2009). Shared planning time: A novel context for studying teachers’
discourse and beliefs about learning and instruction. Teachers College Record, 111(5),
1242-1273.
Gonzales, P., Williams, T. Jocelyn, L. Kastberg, S., & Brenwald, S. (2009). Highlights from
TIMSS 2007. (No. NCES 2009-001 REVISED): National Center for Education Statistics.
Griffin, G. A. (1991). Teacher education and curriculum decision making: The issue of teacher
professionalism. In M. F. Klein (Ed.), The politics of curriculum decision-making: Issues
in centralizing the curriculum (pp. 121-150). Albany: State University of New York
Press.
Hess, F. M., & Petrilli, M. J. (2006). No child left behind. New York: Peter Lang Publishing.
144

Hong, H.-J. (2002). Particularization of individual school curriculum at the college-bound high
schools in Korea. The Journal of Curriculum Studies, 20(3), 119-152.
Hur, S. (2001). Developing teachers' professionalism for the implementation of curriculum. The
Journal of Korean Teacher Education, 18(3), 45-62.
Jeon, Y. M. (2006). Understanding American teachers’ use of teachers’ manuals: Two case
studies. The Journal of Korean Teacher Education, 23(2), 5-24.
Joo, S. (2002). The change in the teachers' attitude of the development in the school curriculum.
The Journal of Korean Teachers Education, 19(3), 235-252.
OECD (2006). Teachers matter: Attracting, developing and retaining effective Teachers. (Kim,
E., Park, Y., Han, M., Hong, Y., Paik, S., & Kim, E, Trans). Korean Educational
Development Institute, Seoul.
Kennedy, M. M. (2006). Inside teaching: How classroom life undermines reform. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press.
Kennedy, M. M. (2010). Attribution error and the quest for teacher quality. Educational
Researcher, 39(8), 591-598.
Kim, B., Chung, I., Seo, J., & Jung, H. (2010). An analysis of the teachers’ perception on school
autonomy level. The Journal of Korean Teacher Education, 27(2), 73-96.
Kim, J. W. (2004). Education reform policies and classroom teaching in South Korea.
International Studies in Sociology of Education, 14(2), 125-146.
Kim, P.-g. (2004). How are secondary teachers reorganizing content of the textbooks and
teachers’ guide? The Journal of Curriculum Studies, 23(4), 91-130.
Kim, S. (1997). The nature of 'Curriculum 2000' in consideration of our school curriculum after
the rehabilitation The Journal of Curriculum Studies, 15(2), 171-198.
Kim, S. H. (2010). An analytic study on structure and issues of textbook authorization system in
Korea. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 28(2), 177-204.
Kim, Y. (2004). An analysis on the standards operating procedures of school organization in
terms of curriculum management: A case of public high school in equalization policy
region. The Journal of Curriculum Studies, 22(3), 123-147.
Knapp, M. S. (2003). Professional development as a policy pathway. Review of Research in
Education, 27, 109-157.
Kuhs, T., Porter, A., Floden, R., Freeman, D., Schmidt, W., & Schwille, J. (1985). Differences
among teachers in their use of curriculum-embedded tests. The Elementary School
Journal, 86(2), 141-153.
145

Lee, K., & Kim K. (2005). The meaning of curriculum and the teachers’ roles focusing on the
practical process of curriculum implementation. The Journal of Curriculum Studies,
23(3), 57-80.
Lee, S. (2009). A study on the curricular autonomy in the history of the general guideline of the
national curriculum. The Journal of Curriculum Studies, 27(2), 83-112.
Lee, S. (1997). Curriculum and evaluation. Seoul, Korea: Yangseowon.
McLauren, P. (1995). Critical pedagogy and predatory culture: Oppositional politics in a
postmodern era.
MEST. (2009). 2009 school curriculum. Seoul, Korea.
Min, Y. (2008). The limitations and possibilities on expanding the autonomy of school
curriculum in Korea: An analysis of the 2007 new national curriculum organization and
implementation guidelines. Research of Student-Centered Subject Matter Education,
8(2), 1-23.
Monfils, L. F., Firestone, W. A., Hicks, J. E., Martinez, M. C., Schorr, R. Y., & Camilli, G.
(2004). Teaching to the test. In W. Firestone, R. Y., Schorr & L. F. Monfils (Eds.). The
ambiguity of teaching to the test (pp. 19-36). Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates, Inc.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2005). The conditions of education 2005 in brief
(Publication No. NCES 2005-095). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
NGA, CCSSO, and Achieve (2010). Benchmarking for success: Ensuring U.S. students receive a
world-class education. Washington DC: National Governors Association.
Paik, S., Zhang, M., Lundeberg, M. A., Eberhardt, J., Shin, T. S., & Zhang, T., (2011).
Supporting science teachers in alignment with state curriculum standards through
professional development: Teachers’ preparedness, expectations and their fulfillment.
Journal of Science Education and Technology, 20(4), 422-434.
Palardy, G.J., & Rumberger, R. W. (2008). Teacher effectiveness in first grade: The importance
of background qualifications, attitudes, and instructional practices for student learning.
Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 30(2), 111-140.
Park, C. (2003). A study on the rights for the organization of the curriculum: The Journal of
Curriculum Studies, 21(1), 98-110.
Park, K. (2008). A case study on instructional planning process of teachers. The Journal of
Korean Teacher Education, 25(3), 379-405.
Park, S.-K. (2008). A beginning discussion on searching for the startingpoint and direction of
146

curriculum decentralization in Korea. The Journal of Curriculum Studies, 26(2), 87-105.
Park, S.-w. (2009). Analysis and tasks of the primary teacher preparation education from the
perspective of school autonomy policy. The Journal of Korean Teacher Education, 26(1),
85-107.
Porter, A. C., Floden, R., Freeman, D., Schmidt, W., & Schwille, J. (1988). Content determinants
in elementary school mathematics. In D. A. Grouws, T. J. Cooney & D. Jones (Eds.),
Perspectives on research on effective mathematics teaching (pp. 96-113). Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Porter, A. C. (1989a). A curriculum out of balance: The case of elementary school mathematics.
Educational Researcher, 18(5), 9-15.
Porter, A. C. (1989b). External standards and good teaching: The pros and cons of telling
teachers what to do. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 11(4), 343-356.
Porter, A. C. (1991).Creating a system of school process indicators. Educational Evaluation and
Policy Analysis, 13(1), 13-29.
Porter, A. C. (2002). Measuring the content of instruction: Uses in research and practice:
Educational Researcher, 31(7), 3-14.
Porter, A. C., & Smithon, J. L. (2001). Are content standards being implemented in the
classroom? A methodology and some tentative answers. In S. H. Fuhrman (Ed.), From
the capitol to the classroom: Standards-based reform in the states (pp. 60-79). Chicago:
The University of Chicago Press.
Porter, A. C., McMaken, J., Hwang, J., & Yang R. (2011). Common core standards: The new
U.S. intended curriculum. Educational Researcher, 40(3), 103-116.
Remillard, J. T. (1999). Curriculum materials in mathematics education reform. A framework for
examining teachers' curriculum development. Curriculum Inquiry, 29(3), 315-342.
Raudenbush, S. W., & Bryk, A. S. (2002). Hierarchical Linear Models: Applications and data
analysis methods (2nd ed). CA, Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, Inc.
Population & Social Statistics Bureau (2010). The 2010 survey of private education expenditure.
Daejeon: Statistics Korea.
Senger, E. S. (1999). Reflective reform in mathematics: The recursive nature of teacher change.
Educational Studies in Mathematics, 37(3), 199-221.
Seo, K.-H. (2009). Teachers’ experiences of reconstructing national curriculum. Journal of
Curriculum Studies, 27(3), 159-189.
Shavelson, R. McDonnell, L., Oakes, J., & Carey, N. (1987). Indicator systems for monitoring
147

mathematics and science education. Santa Monica, CA: The RAND corporation.
Shin, K.-H. (2009). American teachers’ autonomy in curriculum and its implications for Korean
education. The Journal of Curriculum Studies, 27(3), 191-212.
Shkedi, A. (1998). Can the curriculum guide both emancipate and educate teachers? Curriculum
Inquiry, 28(2), 209-229.
Schmidt, W.H., & Buchmann, M. (1983). Six teachers’ beliefs and attitudes and their curricular
time allocation. The Elementary School Journal, 84(2), 162-171.
Schmidt, W. H., Raizen, S. A., Britton, E. D., Bianchi, L. J., & Wolfe, R. G. (1997). Many
visions, many aims volume 2:A cross-national investigation of curricular intentions in
school science. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Schmidt, W. H., Houang, R., & Shakrani, S. (2009). International lessons about national
standards: Thomas B. Fordham Institute.
Schmidt, W. H., Raizen, S. A., Britton E. D., Bianchi, L. J., & Wolfe, R. G. (1997). Many visions,
many aims volume 2: A cross-national investigation of curricular intention in school
science. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Schorr, R. Y., Byglar, S., Razze J. S., Monfils, L. F., & Firestone, W. A. (2004). Teaching
mathematics and science. In W. Firestone, R. Y., Schorr & L. F. Monfils (Eds.). The
ambiguity of teaching to the test (pp. 19-36). Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates, Inc. 0
Schwille, J. R., Porter, A. C., Alford, L., Floden, R. E., Freeman, D. J., Irwin, S., & Schmidt, W.
H. (1988). State policy and the control of curriculum decisions. Educational Policy, 2(1),
29-50
Son, J., & Choi, J. (2008). Elementary school teachers’ use of mathematics textbook: Cognitive
demands and influential factors. The Journal of Curriculum Studies, 26(3), 155-189.
Sosniak, L. A., & Stodolsky, S. S. (1993). Teachers and textbooks: Materials use in four fourthgrade classrooms. The Elementary School Journal, 93(3), 249-275.
Spillane, J. P. (2004). Standards deviation: How schools misunderstand educational policy.
Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
Spillane, J. P., & Zeuli, J. S. (1999). Reform and teaching: Exploring patterns of practice in the
context of national and state mathematics reforms. Educational Evaluation and Policy
Analysis, 21(1), 1-27.
Stigler, J., & Hiebert, J. (1999). The teaching gap: Best ideas from the world’s teachers for
improving education in the classroom. New York: The Free Press.
148

Sung, B., & Park, S. (2008). Analyzing recognition of teachers and students about the method of
entering general high school by school life records. Journal of Fishing and Marine
Science Education, 20(3), 452-462.
Swanson, C. B., & Stevenson, D. L. (2002). Standards-based reform in practice: Evidence on
state policy and classroom instruction from the NAEP state assessments. Educational
Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 2002(24), 1-27.
Tyler, R. W. (1950). Basic principles of curriculum and instruction. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
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. The Elementary
School Journal, 107(1), 93-120.
Weinbaum, E. H., Cole, R. P., Weiss, M. J., & Supovitz, J. A. (2008). Going with the flow:
Communication and reform in high school. In J. A. Supovitz & E. H. Weinbaum (Eds),
The implementation gap: Understanding reform in high schools (pp. 68-102). NY:
Teachers College Press.
Yeom, M., & Ginsburg, M. (2007). Professionalism and the reform of teacher and teacher
education in the Republic of Korea & the United States of America. Asia Pacific
Education Review, 8(2), 298-310.

149