Curriculum framework for preparing quality teachers for the future: developing guiding principles

Nagendralingan Ratnavadivel

Abstract

Globalization is constantly impacting on education and is radically transforming it in terms of the mode and culture of learning. The shift from product-economy to knowledge-economy has profound implications for the kind of education a nation has to offer its future generation. The need for knowledge workers places emphasis on new attributes for learners, particularly those which pertain to twenty-first century skills. The last decade and a half has also seen the emergence of international student ranking lists such as TIMSS, PISA, PIRLS, Olympiads, which have put tremendous pressure on education ministries. A response to this pressure of _rank and shame_ has been a flurry of education reform initiatives, including in Malaysia. The ability to develop learners who can think critically and creatively and to reason logically and to innovate is the challenge in education. The Malaysia Education Blueprint 2013-2025 has identified teacher education among the eleven shifts to transform the Malaysian education system. This paper will discuss how guiding principles for a teacher education curriculum frameworkis being developed in line with national needs and demands of international trends. Focus on teacher education would directly involve an investigation of teacher education curriculum, namely its planning, management and development. This concern is imperatively linked to the values, skills and knowledge of teachers. A teacher education curriculum frameworkneeds to strike a balance between standardization and allowing for flexibility and creativity so that teacher education does not stifle the creativity and holistic growth of teachers and their students. Keywords: Teacher Education; Curriculum Framework; Malaysia.

References

Barber, M., & Mourshed, M. (2007). How the World’s Best-Performing School Systems

Come Out on Top. Dubai: McKinsey & Co.

Berry, B., Byrd, A. & Wieder, A. (2013). Teacherpreneurs: innovative teachers who lead

but don’t leave. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

Bruner, J. (1996) The Culture of Education, Cambridge, Massachusetts : Harvard

University Press.

Darling-Hammond, L. & Lieberman, A. (2012). (eds.) Teacher Education around the

World: Changing policies and practices. New York: Routledge.

Darling-Hammond, L. (2013). Getting Teacher Evaluationn Right: What really matters

for effectiveness and improvement. New York: Teaachers College Press.

Dewey, J. (1933). How We Think: A Restatement of the Relation of Reflective Thinking to

the Educative Process. Chicago: Henry Regnery.

Elliot, (2002) Elliot, J. (2002). „Changing Philosophies and Emerging Curriculum

Trends‟ Keynote Address The Inaugural UPSI International Teacher Education

Conference May, 6, 2002.

Elliot,J. Ed. (1993) Reconstructing Teacher Education

Gopinathan, S. & Ponnusamy, L. D. (2011). “Teacher Education in Singapore: Charting

New Directions.Journal of Research, Policy& Practice of Teachers& Teacher

Education.Vol1, Number 1 December 2011. Tanjong Malim: Sultan Idris

Education University, Malaysia.

Hargreaves, A. & Fullan, M. (2012). Professional Capital: Transforming Teaching in

Every School. New York: Teachers College Press.

Hargreaves, A.&Shirely, D. (2012). The Global Fourth Way: The Quest for Educational

Excellence. Corwin: Thousand Oaks.

Mahathir, M. (1991) KonsepdanMisi “Malaysia as A Fully Developed Country - One

Definition An article circulated by Prime Ministers Department, Malaysia.

Ministry of Education Malaysia (2013).Malaysia Education Blueprint 2013-2025

(Preschoool to Post-Secondary Education).Putrajaya: KementerianPendidikan

Malaysia.

Mourshed, M., Chijioke, C., & Barber, M. (2010). How the world's most improved

school systems keep getting better. Retrieved 26 July 2011 from

http://ssomckinsey.darbyfilms.com/reports/schools/How-the-Worlds-Most-

Improved-School-Systems-Keep-Getting-Better_Download-version_Final.pdf

National Institute of Education (NIE). (2010). A teacher education model for the 21st

century (TE21). Singapore: National Institute of Education.

Ratnavadivel, N. (1995). “The Management of Innovation: An Evaluation Of Curriculum

Change In Malaysian Teacher Education. PhD thesis University of East Anglia.

(n.published)

Ratnavadivel, N. (1999) “Teacher Education: interface between practices and policies:

The Malaysian Experience 1979-1997. Teaching and Teacher Education An

International Journal of Research and Studies 15 (1993), 193-213.

Ratnavadivel (2007) TheSocial Origins of The Educational System in Penin sular

Malaysia 1957-1980. Tanjong Malim: Penerbit Universiti Pendidikan Sultan Idris

Reeves, T. C. (2006). Design research from a technology perspective. . In: Van den

Akker, J., Gravemeijer, K, McKenney, S. &Nieveen, N. (Eds). (2006).

Educational design research.London: Routledge, 52-66.

Sahlberg, P. (2010) Finnish Lessons: What can the world learn from educational change

in Finland? New York: Teachers College Press.

Schon, D. (1983).The Reflective Practitioner :How Professional think in Action. U.S.A:

Basic books.

Stenhouse,L. (1975) An Introduction To Curriculum Research and Development.

London:Heinemann.

Suzuki, S. & Howe, E. R. (2010).Asian Perspectives on Teacher Education. London:

Routledge.

Zeichner, K.M (1994). Research on Teacher Thinking and Different Views of Reflective

Practice in Teaching and Teacher Education, In Ingrid, C, Handal, G

&Vaage, S. (1994) eds. Teachers’ Minds and Actions: research on

TeachersThinking and Practice London: Falmer Press