English is solidly entrenched in Israel as the ‘first foreign language’, as defined in the Policy on Language Education in Israeli Schools. The English curriculum published in 2001 expresses the view that English is the world's most important language and therefore requires the highest standards of teaching. This research examined how English teachers perceive the curriculum and how they see their roles as evaluators of the curriculum. The research also examined how the professional knowledge which the designated in-service training course (NBA training) provided affected their role perception. The results of the research show that the new curriculum was missing key elements; most teachers had never studied curriculum evaluation; there is a gap between teachers and curriculum authors in the interpretation of curriculum flexibility; teachers did not perceive textbook potential. Finally, the research suggests that ascertaining teachers' perceptions can contribute to theoretical and practical aspects of curriculum planning.
AcornL. (2010), Types of interview questions. Winnipeg: Department of computer science, University of Manitoba.
2.
AdarL.FoxS. (1978), Analysis of History Curriculum and its Implementation in Schools in Israel. Jerusalem: Faculty of Education, Hebrew University.
3.
AlpertB. (2002), ‘Introduction: Concepts and ideas in the curriculum as leading texts.’, in HoffmanA.ChannelY. (ed.) Values and Goals in the Israeli Curriculum. Reches Publication, Israel.
4.
AlpertB.BecharS. (2007), ‘Collaborative Evaluation Research: A Case Research of teachers' and Academic researchers' Teamwork in a Secondary School’, Studies in Education Evaluation33 (3–4), 229–57.
5.
AndersonD. C. (1981), ‘Evaluating curriculum proposals’, New York: A Halsted Press Book.
6.
AssafM.HellerA.ToharVKeynanA. (ed.) (2009), ‘What Is Your Story? Models of Evaluating Naratives’, Beer-Sheva University, Israel.
7.
AvadorS. (2009), ‘Top of specialization and Expertise’, Panim47, 72–8.
8.
BallD. L.CohenD. K. (1996), ‘Reform by the book: What is - or might be - the role of curriculum materials in teacher learning and instructional reform?’, Educational Researcher, 25, 6–14.
9.
BaramL. (2002), ‘Students views and attitudes regarding alternative evaluation processes in English learning in schools as opposed to traditional evaluation’, Tel-Aviv University, Tel-Aviv, Israel.
10.
BaybarasM. G.KocakulahM. S. (2009), ‘Evaluation of Grade 9 Physics Curriculum Based on teachers' Views’, Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences1, 1121–6.
11.
Ben-AmosA.TamirP, (eds) (1995), The teacher between a mission and a profession, Tel-Aviv: Te-Aviv University.
12.
Ben-EliyahuS. (1999), ‘School achievement evaluation and matriculation exams’. InArticles Collection for Courses related to Modularity in Matriculation Exams. Ministry of Education, Israel.
13.
Ben-MenachemA.SelaL. (2005), ‘The Test as a Method of Evaluation’, Aurika21, 1–7.
14.
Ben-PeretzM. (1990), The Teacher-Curriculum Encounter: Freeing Teachers from the Tyranny of Texts, Albany: State University of New York Press.
15.
Ben-PeretzM. (1995), ‘Systemic Reform in National Assessment: The Determination of Policy and its Relation to Practice’, The European Conference on Educational Research, UK14–7. September.
16.
BerlinerD. C. (1987), ‘Simple Views of Effective Teaching and a Simple Theory of Classroom Instruction’, in BerlinerD. C.RosenshineB. V. (eds), Talks to Teachers: A Festschrift for N. L. Gage (pp. 93–110). New York: Random House.
17.
BloomB. S. (1956), Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, Handbook I: The Cognitive Domain, New York: David McKay.
18.
BirenbaumM. (1999), ‘Informed Evaluation: From Theory to Practice’, Ramot Publication, Tel-Aviv University, Israel.
19.
ByrdP, (1998), ‘Grammar from context’, in ByrdPReidJ. (eds). ‘Grammar in the composition classroom: Essays on teaching ESL for college bound students’, Boston: Heinle & Heinle, pp. 54–68.
20.
CassinL.Cromer-NevoM. (ed.) (2003), ‘Research Analysis in the Qualitative Research’. Ben-Gurion University Publication, Beer-Sheva, Israel.
21.
CassinL.Cromer-NevoM. (2010), ‘Research Analysis in the Qualitative Research’. Ben-Gurion University Publication, Beer-Sheva, Israel.
22.
CheungD.WongH. W. (2002), ‘Measuring teacher beliefs about alternative curriculum designs’, The Curriculum Journal13, (2) 225–48.
23.
ChanJ. K.-S. (2010). ‘Teachers' Responses to Curriculum Policy Implementation: Colonial Constraints for Curriculum Reform’. Educational Research for Policy and Practice9(2), 93–106.
24.
DayH. (2007), ‘Helicopters, Jigsaws, and Plaits: Revealing the Hidden Language and Literature Curriculum’, Pedagogy, 7 (3), 534–43.
25.
DresslerM. (2005), ‘External Evaluation in Science and Technology’, Aurika, 21, 20–5.
26.
EisnerE. W. (1979), The Educational Imagination: On the Design and Evaluation of School Programs. New York: Macmillan.
27.
EisnerE. W. (1985), The Art of Educational Evaluation: A Personal View, London: Falmer Press.
28.
EisnerE. W. (1994), Cognition and Curriculum Reconsidered, New York: Teachers College Press.
29.
FarrellT. S. C. (1999), ‘The Reflective assignment: Unlocking pre-service English teachers' beliefs on grammar teaching’, RELC Journal, 30 (2), 1–17.
30.
FieldsS. D. (2005), ‘Adaptation of an Existing HIV-Knowledge Questionnaire for use With Young men of Color who Have sex With men’, Journal of Multicultural Nursing and Health, 11 (1), 47–56.
31.
FloresM. A. (2005), ‘Teachers' Views on Recent Curriculum Changes: Tensions and Challenges’, The Curriculum Journal, 16 (3), 401–13.
32.
FrankK. A.ZhaoY.BormanK. (2004), ‘Social capital and diffusion of innovations within organizations: The case of computer technology in schools’, Sociology of Education, 77, 148–71.
33.
FriedmanA. (2000), ‘Educational Indicators for School Evaluation’, A Thesis Submitted for the Degree ‘Doctor of Philosophy’, Tel-Aviv University. Tel-Aviv, Israel.
34.
FriedmanA. (2001), ‘Educational Indicators for School Evaluation’, A Thesis Submitted for the Degree ‘Doctor of Philosophy’, Tel-Aviv University. Tel-Aviv, Israel.
35.
FullanM. G. (1988), What's Worth Fighting for in the Principalship. Toronto: Public School Teachers' Federation.
36.
FullanM. G. (1993), Change Forces: Probing the Depths of Educational Reform. London: Falmer Press.
GaliliT. (2009), ‘Careful thought is required’. Free Lesson, 86, 16–18.
39.
GewertzC. (2010), ‘States adopts standards at fast clip’. Education week, 29 (36), 1–2.
40.
GhorbaniM. R. (2011), ‘English Language Teaching, National Identity, Globalization in Iran: The Case of Public Schools’. International Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 1 (10), 181–6.
41.
GhorbaniM. R.AlaviS. Z. (2014), ‘Feasibility of Adopting English-Medium Instruction at Iranian Universities’. Current Issues in Education, 17 (1), 1–16.
42.
GlaserB.StraussA. L. (eds) (1967), The discovery of grounded theory. Chicago: Aldine.
43.
GoldrattA. (2000), The Connection Between the Perception of non-Certainty, Tolerance of Ambiguity and a Sense of Pressure and the Position of the Employees Towards Organizational Change, Ramat-Gan: Bar-Ilan University.
44.
GoodladJ. L. and associates, (1979), Curriculum Journal. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company.
45.
GrantS. G. (2000), ‘Teachers and tests: Exploring teachers' perceptions of changes in the New York State testing program’, Education Policy Analysis Archives, 8 (14). (Eric Document Reproduction No. EJ612349).
46.
Guri-RosenblitS.ZoharT. (eds) (1996), Curriculum planning - a reader, Tel-Aviv: Open University.
47.
HargreavesA. (2009), ‘A decade of educational change and a defining moment of opportunity: An Introduction’, Journal of Educational Change, 10 (2), 89–100.
48.
HaserÇ.StarJ. R. (2009), ‘Change in beliefs after first-year of teaching: The case of Turkish national curriculum context’, International Journal of Educational Development, 29, 293–302.
49.
HendersonE.PerryG. W. (1981), Change and Development in Schools: Case Studies in the Management of School-Focused in-Service Education, London: McGraw-Hill.
50.
HisherikM.ReingoldR. (2009), ‘From Practice to Expanding Horizons’. Panim, 47, 86–93.
51.
InbarD. (2001), ‘Is There Improvement in the Educational System?’, Academy: The Journal of the Committee of University Heads, 10, 10–14.
52.
KellyA. V. (1994), The National Curriculum, A Critical Review, London: Paul Chapman Publishing Ltd.
53.
KirkD.McDonaldD. (2001), ‘Teacher Voice and Ownership of Curriculum Change’, Curriculum Studies, 33 (5), 551–67.
54.
KorkmazI. (2008), ‘Evaluation of Teachers for Restructured Elementary Curriculum (Grades 1 to 5)’, Education, 129 (2), 250–60.
55.
LandauR.SchefflerG. (ed.) (2007), Research Ethics. Magnes Publication, Hebrew University, Jerusalem.
56.
LautmanD. (2009), ‘Quality qualitative management for schools' success’, Multi Disciplinary Thought in Humanistic Education. 5, 101–2.
57.
LemZ. (1993), ‘The 21st Century Coming to an End’, Joint Education, 73, 148–9.
58.
LevinT. (2000), ‘Process of change in schools experiencing constructivist interdisciplinary learning: Action research’. Ministry of Education, department of programs and methods, Jerusalem, Israel.
59.
LevinT.HorinA. (1998), ‘Fostering awareness to learning processes of third year Students through “Matsig” Portfolio’, Theory and Practice in Curriculum Planning, 13, 184–218.
60.
LiS. C. (2010), ‘Social capital, empowerment and educational change: A scenario of permeation of one-to-one technology in school’, Journal of Computer Assisted Learning26, 284–95.
61.
MacnabD. S. (2001), ‘Curriculum development and HM inspection of schools: A Scottish case-study’, Oxford Review of Education, 27 (1), 85–101.
62.
MartinJ. (1976), ‘What Should we do With a Hidden Curriculum When we Find one?’Curriculum Inquiry, 6 (2), 135–51.
63.
MenkenK. (2006), ‘Teaching to the test: How standardized testing promoted by No Child left Behind impacts language policy, curriculum, and instruction for English language learners’, Bilingual Research Journal, 30 (2), 521–46.
64.
MereeA. (1996), English Teaching in the Arab District. Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel.
65.
MetserD.RomA. (2002), Achievement Evaluation in School Context. Open University Publication, Tel-Aviv, Israel.
66.
MetzK. E. (2009), ‘Elementary School Teachers as ‘targets and Agents of change’: Teachers Learning in Interaction With Reform Science Curriculum’, Science Education, 93 (5), 915–54.
67.
Ministry of Education (1982), ‘Pedagogical Grammar Teaching’, in GefenR., (ed.) In accordance with the English curriculum, Jerusalem, Israel.
68.
Ministry of Education (1988), English Curriculum, Jerusalem, Israel.
69.
Ministry of Education (2001), English Curriculum, Benchmarks and Standards for Teaching English as a Foreign Language, Jerusalem: T'L.
70.
Ministry of Education (2004), Professional Standards for English Teachers: Knowledge and Performance, Jerusalem: Curriculum Department.
71.
Ministry of Education (2013), Revised English Curriculum, Principles and Standards for Learning English as an International Language for all Grades, Jerusalem: Language Department.
72.
MooreF. M. (2008), ‘Agency, Identity and Social Justice Education: Preservice teachers' Thoughts on Becoming Agents of Change in Urban Elementary Science Classrooms’, Research in Science Education, 38 (5), 589–610.
73.
NiL. (2009), ‘What makes CS teachers change? Factors influencing CS teachers' adaptation of curriculum innovations’, Journal of the Association for Computing Machinery, 41 (1), 544–8.
74.
NourielI. (2002), ‘The life of a teacher’, Kesher Ayin, high school teachers' organization monthly magazine121, 22.
75.
Ofsted (2005), The key Stage 4 Curriculum: Increased Flexibility, Work-Related Learning and Young Apprenticeship Programmers, London: Alexandra House.
76.
OnwuegbuzieA. J.LeechN. L. (2003), ‘A typology of errors and myths perpetuated in educational research textbooks’. Current Issues in Education [On-line], 8(7). Eric Document Reproduction No. EJ875549.
77.
Orland-BarakL. (2002), ‘What's in a Case?: What mentors' Cases Reveal About the Practice of Mentoring’, Journal of Curriculum Studies, 34 (4), 451–68(18).
78.
PassigD. (2000), Future Learning and Thinking Skills, Ramat-Gan: Bar-Ilan University.
79.
PosnerG. J. (1992), Analyzing the Curriculum. New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc.
80.
RigelmanVHarirS.StopelM. (2006), ‘The Test as a way to Check Knowledge and Achievements in Mathematics and Physics’, Sha'anan: Religious Education College Yearbook, 11, 351–76.
81.
Sabar Ben-YehoshuaN. (1999), The Qualitative Research in Teaching and Learning. Modan Publication, Tel-Aviv, Israel.
82.
Sabar Ben-YehoshuaN.SilversteinM. (1999), ‘From uniformity to variation: The development of educational planning in Israel’, in PeledE. (ed.) Jubilee to the educational system in Israel, 193–203.
83.
SarasonS. (1996), ‘Revisiting “The case of computer of the school and the problem of Change”’, New York: Teachers College Press.
84.
SchiroM. (1992), ‘Educators' perceptions of the changes in their curriculum belief system over time’, Journal of Curriculum Supervision, 7 (3), 250–86.
85.
SchwabJ. J. (1964), ‘Problems, Topics and Issues’, in EilamS., (ed.) Education and the Structure of Knowledge (pp. 4–47). Chicago: Rand McNally.
86.
SchwabJ. J. (1973), ‘The Practical 3: Translation into Curriculum’, School Review, 81, 501–22.
87.
SchwabJ. J. (1983), ‘The Practical 4: Something for Curriculum Professors to do’, Curriculum Inquiry, 13 (3), 239–65.
88.
ShkediA. (2003), ‘Words which Try to Touch: Qualitative Research-’, Theory and Application, Ramot Publication, Tel-Aviv, Israel.
89.
ShlaskyS.AlpertB. (2007), Ways of Writing a Qualitative Research. Tel Aviv, Israel: Mofet Institute.
90.
SiedentopD.LockeL. (1997), ‘Making a difference for physical education: What professors and practitioners must build together’, Journal of Physical Education, Recreation and Dance, 68 (4), 25–33.
91.
SnyderB. R. (1971), The Hidden Curriculum, New York (Alfred A. Knosf).
92.
SoyaR.WeizmanM. (1999), ‘Combining qualitative and quantitative research methods in curriculum evaluation’, Society and Welfare: A Quarterly for Social Working, 3 (19), 323–35.
93.
ShulmanL. (1987), ‘Knowledge in teaching: Foundations of the new reform.’, Harvard Education Review, 57 (1), 1–22.
TamirP.ZivS. (2006), Analysis of Curriculum and Textbooks in Science in Israel in Comparison With Other Countries, Jerusalem: Curriculum Department.
96.
TulasiewiczW.AdamsA. (eds) (1989), ‘Teachers expectations and teaching reality’, London: Routledge.
97.
TsabarB.-Y. (1990). Qualitative Research in Teaching and Learning. Modan publication, Ben-Shemen, Israel.
98.
TylerL. (1971). Critique of ‘Curriculum Theory and the Context of curriculum’, Curriculum Theory Network, 6, 66–70.
99.
WatsonS.MillerL. T.DriverJ.RutledgeVMcAllisterD. (2005), ‘English language learner representation in teacher education textbooks: A null curriculum?’Education, 126 (1), 148–58.
100.
ZeiraA. (2002), Development, Operation and Evaluation of Computer Laboratory on the Immune System. A Thesis Submitted for the Degree ‘Doctor of Philosophy’, Ramat-Gan: Bar-Ilan University.
101.
ZigersonVBuchnikN.ZamirS.LibmanT.NaumanM.ParnasZ. (2007), ‘A modular curriculum- a shattered dream’, Ale, 37, 70–80.
102.
ZilbersteinM. (ed.) (1989). Evaluation as Curriculum Planning Tool for Teachers. Jerusalem: Curriculum Department.
