INFORMACIÓN FINANCIERA POR SEGMENTOS

Dunphy (2008) suggests that the practices of primary school teachers have been shaped by the primary curriculum (DES 1999) and as part of that curriculum they have been enculturated into what constitutes appropriate ‘ways of being’ within that context.

Theories of how children learn and, accordingly, what constitutes appropriate practice, particularly in the last century, have been strongly informed by the field of developmental psychology. Developmental psychology views children as “becoming rather than being” fully human (Qvortrup, 1994, p. 2) and, as such, views them as unfinished, less competent or incomplete social actors (Jenks, 2005). This view locates childhood within a ‘need’ discourse which, Qvortrup (1994) suggests, persistently constructs the notion that children are innocent and incompetent. A practice that is rooted in this view of the child can only take the form of a teacher-led, didactic approach that excludes the child as an active, competent agent in the learning process. Moss (2012) argues that the perception of children who enter junior infants as needing to be filled with predetermined knowledge that should progress sequentially ignores their potential and readiness to learn (Moss 2012, p. 360). He posits that such an approach threatens to waste children’s capabilities and is more about controlling and predicting than creating learning based on shared learning, experimentation, and meaning-making (Moss, 2012, p. 360). Building on this, Rinaldi et al., (2006, p. 123) posits that ECE teachers should understand the child as competent in constructing theories to interpret and understand their lived experiences.

Teachers use their knowledge-base to make decisions on all aspects of teaching and also in adjusting to curriculum reform (Duffee & Aikenhead, 1992). It is therefore inevitable that teachers’ beliefs, attitudes, and tacit understanding of how children learn, will have

39

a direct and substantial impact on how the new primary language curriculum (DES, 2016) is enacted in relation to Aistear (NCCA, 2009). Supporting teachers to implement a play- based child-centred curriculum requires the development of policies that are sensitive to the different approaches to play as well as considering developmental objectives (Pylea, Delucaband & Dannielsaa, 2017). Fang (1996) and Pedersen and Liu (2003) point to the need to consider teachers’ beliefs alongside any curriculum reform to avoid resistance and misinterpretations. Additionally, Wallace and Louden (1992) posit that lack of success in curriculum reform efforts is attributed to the failure to take into account teachers’ beliefs and practices when developing a new curriculum. Studies have shown that changing educational practice is known to be notoriously difficult, and that sustained changes must be reinforced by re-alignments in teachers’ knowledge and beliefs (Edwards & Nuttall, 2009).

Research suggests that teachers develop views about teaching from their own learning experiences. Dahlberg and Taguchi (1994) in their study, which looked at the differences in pedagogical approach of pre-school teachers and primary school teachers, introduced the idea of a “vision of a meeting place” where differences in traditions and beliefs and understandings could be discussed and, through a co-construction, develop a new shared tradition, shared understanding, values, concepts and practices. However, Urban (2018) acknowledges that a coming together of different and not necessarily matching conceptualisations, understandings, terminologies, and accepted practices, creates new challenges.

A study conducted in Israel (Sverdlov et al., 2014) explored the impact of a new curriculum on kindergarten teachers’ beliefs, perceptions and literacy promoting practices six years after the publication of a new national pre-school literacy curriculum. Their study involved 120 teachers. The study found that six years after the new curriculum programme was introduced, 78% of kindergarten teachers used the literacy curriculum only once per week, and 19% used it less than once per week, ranging from once a month to several times a year. These findings are important as they suggest the need to understand what factors could support a more positive outcome in relation to curriculum reform, and the need to consider the contextual role that teachers’ beliefs, perceptions and values may have on the implementation of curriculum reform. Sverdlov and colleagues (2014) study fills a gap in the literature and is significant as it reminds us that the introduction of a new curriculum does not automatically ensure its enactment. Building on this, a study by Gallant (2009) of Kindergarten teachers’ experiences, reported that

40

many teachers felt frustrated by new requirements, disempowered, and pushed by administrators to implement new policies that were not compatible with their beliefs or their practical context.

In light of these empirical findings, researchers have emphasised the need to listen to and support teachers as they undergo curricular re-forms (Gallant, 2009; Van Veen & Sleegers, 2006; Zembylas, 2010). The findings from these studies are significant regarding ECE teachers’ enactment of the new primary language curriculum in relation to Aistear as they highlight the need to gain insights into teachers’ understandings, values, and belief systems and how these inform their responses to curricular change within their contextual settings. Research on teaching effectiveness by Bowman et al., (2001) has shown that teachers have implicit beliefs about the subject matter, their students, and their own roles and responsibilities.

Taken together, these elements collectively and individually influence the way teachers practice (Bowman et al., 2001). Fenwick (2008), underlining the importance of the individual and their beliefs, argues that individual differences in perspectives, dispositions, position, social and cultural capital, and forms of participation are often unaccounted for. Similarly, Yero (2002) argues that any reform made in the education system must take into account what teachers feel about those changes in the light of their beliefs and values, their social and ideological context, and their understandings of the practical implications in relation to a curriculum. Apart from the need to consider the teachers’ understandings, Li et al., (2011) and Lieber et al., (2009) argue that when introducing curriculum reform there is also a need to take into account other factors which include: the availability of support from colleagues, administrators and principals, the availability of effective professional development programmes, and the reform’s cultural and contextual fit.