Skip to main content
Have a personal or library account? Click to login
Investigating Estonian Teachers’ Expectations for the General Education Curriculum Cover

Investigating Estonian Teachers’ Expectations for the General Education Curriculum

Journal of Teacher Education for Sustainability
Volume 16 (2014): Issue 2 (December 2014)
By: ,   and    
Open Access
|Mar 2015
References

References

  1. Catlaks, G. (2003). Curriculum development and teacher training in Latvia. In. Retrieved April 15, 2013, from
    Search in Google Scholar
  2. Cheung, D., & H. Wong. (2002). Measuring teacher beliefs about alternative curriculum design.(2), 225–48.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  3. Craig, C. J. (2006). Why is dissemination so difficult? The nature of teacher knowledge and the spread of curriculum reform.(2), 257–293.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  4. Drake, C., & Sherin. M. G. (2006). Practicing change: Curriculum adaptation and teacher narrative in the context of mathematics education reform.(2), 153–187.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  5. [Estonian national curriculum for basic and secondary education]. (1996). Retrieved July 4, 2014, from
    Search in Google Scholar
  6. Eash, M. J. (1991). Curriculum components. In A. Lewy (Ed.),(pp. 67–69). Oxford: Pergamon Press.
    Search in Google Scholar
  7. Egelund, N. (2005). Educational assessment in Danish schools.(2), 203–212.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  8. Ennis, C. D., & Hooper, L. M. (1988). Development of an instrument for assessing educational value orientations., 277–280.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  9. Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency P9 Eurydice. (2007).. Retrieved May 29, 2014, from
    Search in Google Scholar
  10. Fraenkel, R. F., & Wallen, E. N. (2010).(7ed.). Boston: McGrow-Hill.
    Search in Google Scholar
  11. Handler, B. (2010). Teacher as a curriculum leader: A consideration of the appropriateness of that role assignment to classroom-based practitioners.(3), 32–42.
    Search in Google Scholar
  12. Jenkins, S. B. (2009). Measuring teacher beliefs about curriculum orientations using the modified-curriculum orientations questionnaire.(2), 103–120.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  13. Karlsen, G. E. (2000). Decentralized centralism: Framework for a better understanding of governance in the field of education.(5), 525–538.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  14. Kennedy, K. J. (2010). School-based curriculum development for new times: A comparative analysis. In E. H. F. Law & N. Nieveen (Eds.),(pp. 3–20). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
    Search in Google Scholar
  15. Kirk, D., & MacDonald, D. (2001). Teacher voice and ownership of curriculum change.(5), 551–567.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  16. Krull, E., & Trasberg, K. (2007).. Tartu: Tartu University.
    Search in Google Scholar
  17. Lam, C. C., & Yeung, S. S. Y. (2010). School-based curriculum development in Hong-Kong: An arduous journey. In E. H. F. Law & N. Nieveen (Eds.),(pp. 61–82). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
    Search in Google Scholar
  18. Law, E. H. F., Galton, M., & Wan, S. W. Y. (2007). Developing curriculum leadership in schools: Hong Kong perspectives.(2), 143–159.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  19. Lundahl, L. (2002). Sweden: Decentralization, deregulation, quasi-markets – and then what?(6), 687–697.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  20. Lundahl, L. (2005). A matter of self-governance and control. The reconstruction of Swedish education policy: 1980–2003.(1), 10–25.
    Search in Google Scholar
  21. McNeil, J. D. (1992). Curriculum organization. In M. C. Alkin (Ed.),(6ed.) (Vol 1., pp. 273–279). New York: Macmillan.
    Search in Google Scholar
  22. März, V., & Kelchtermans, G. (2013). Sense-making and structure in teachers’ reception of educational reform. A case study on statistics in the mathematics curriculum., 13–24.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  23. Nieveen, N., & Kuiper, W. (2012). Balancing curriculum freedom and regulation in Netherlands.(3), 357–368.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  24. Nilsen, S. (2010). Moving towards an educational policy for inclusion? Main reform stages in the development of the Norwegian unitary school system.(5), 479–497.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  25. Olek, H. (1998). Educational research in Central and Eastern Europe: A diverging tradition.,(1), 78–93.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  26. Osei, G. M., & Brock, C. (2006). Decentralisation in education, institutional culture and teacher autonomy in Ghana.(4), 437–458.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  27. Polyzoi, E., & Cerna, M. (2001). A dynamic model of forces affecting the implementation of educational change in the Czech Republic.,(1), 64–84.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  28. Priestley, M., Edwards, R., & Priestley, A. (2012). Teacher agency in curriculum making: Agents of change and spaces for manoeuvre.(2), 191–214.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  29. [National curriculum for basic schools and gymnasia]. (2002). Retrieved July 4, 2014, from
    Search in Google Scholar
  30. [National curriculum for basic schools]. (2011). Retrieved September 3, 2013, from
    Search in Google Scholar
  31. Schubert, W. H, Hansen, D. T., Wulf, C., Kliebard, H. M., Lawton, D., Connell, W. F., & Zhang, L. (1998). Curriculum history: National profiles. In T. Husén, T. N. Postlethwaite, B. R. Clark & G. Neave (Eds.),. Oxford: Elsevier Science Ltd.
    Search in Google Scholar
  32. Shawer, S. F. (2010). Classroom-level curriculum development: EFL teachers as curriculum developers, curriculum makers and curriculum-transmitters., 173–184.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  33. Shkedi, A. (1998). Can the curriculum guide both emancipate and educate teachers?(2), 209–229.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  34. Shkedi, A. (2006). Curriculum and teachers: An encounter of languages and literatures.(6), 719–735.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  35. Shriner, M., Schlee, B. M., & Libler, R. (2010). Teachers’ perceptions, attitudes and beliefs regarding curriculum integration.(1), 51–62.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  36. Silberstein, M., & Ben-Peretz, M. (1987). The concept of teacher autonomy in curriculum materials: An operative interpretation.(1), 29–44.
    Search in Google Scholar
  37. Sivesind, K. (2013). Mixed images and merging semantics in European curricula.(1), 52–66.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  38. Sloan, K. (2006). Teacher identity and agency in school worlds: Beyond the all-good/all-bad dscourse on accountability – explicit curriculum policies.(2), 119–152.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  39. Taba, H. (1962).. New York: Harcourt, Brace and World.
    Search in Google Scholar
  40. Tyler, R. W. (1949).. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
    Search in Google Scholar
  41. Unt, I., & Läänemets U. (Eds.). (1992).[Curriculum for basic schools]. Tallinn: Eesti Hariduse Arenduskeskus.
    Search in Google Scholar
  42. Unt, I., & Läänemets U. (Eds). (1993).[Curriculum for secondary schools]. Tallinn: Eesti Hariduse Arenduskeskus.
    Search in Google Scholar
  43. Van Driel, J. H., Bulte, A. M. W., & Verloop, N. (2007). The relationships between teachers’ general beliefs about teaching and learning and their domain specific curricular beliefs., 156–171.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  44. Van Driel, J. H., Bulte, A. M. W., & Verloop, N. (2008). Using the curriculum emphasis concept to investigate teachers’ curricular beliefs in the context of educational reform.(1), 107–122.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  45. Vulliamy, G., Kimonen, E., Nevalainen, R., & Webb, R. (1997). Teacher identity and curriculum change: A comparative case-study analysis of small schools in England and Finland.(1), 97–115.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  46. Wallace, C. S., & Priestley, M. (2011). Teacher beliefs and the mediation of curriculum innovation in Scotland: A socio-cultural perspective on professional development and change.(3), 357–381.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  47. Wermke, W., & Höstfält, G. (2014). Contextualizing teacher autonomy in time and space: A model for comparing various forms of governing the teaching profession.(1), 58–80.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  48. Wolf, R. M. (1997). Questionnaires. In John P. Keeves (Ed.),(2ed.) (pp. 422–427). New York: Pergamon.
    Search in Google Scholar
  49. Wong, J. (2006). Control and professional development: Are teachers being deskilled or reskilled within the context of decentralization?(1), 17–37.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  50. Wong, J. (2008). How does the new emphasis on managerialism in education redefine teacher professionalism? A case study in Guangdong Province of China.(3), 267–282.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  51. Zogla, I. (2001). Democratisation in Latvian Education: Teachers’ attitudinal change.,(2), 143–156.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/jtes-2014-0011 | Journal eISSN: 1691-5534 | Journal ISSN: 1691-4147
Journal RSS Feed
Language: English
Page range: 54 - 70
Published on: Mar 11, 2015
Published by: Daugavpils University
In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services
Keywords:
Curriculum,
curriculum development,
teachers’ autonomy,
general education,
questionnaire
Related subjects:
Social sciences,
Education,
Education, other

© 2015 Piret Viirpalu, Edgar Krull, Rain Mikser, published by Daugavpils University
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 3.0 License.

Volume 16 (2014): Issue 2 (December 2014)
Previous article
Next article