Implementation of Single National Curriculum Mathematics 2020 Intended and Enacted Determinants Perspective at Primary Level in Punjab

##plugins.themes.academic_pro.article.sidebar##

Published Jun 1, 2024
https://doi.org/10.61506/02.00302
Download
PDF
Statistic
Vol. 10 No. 2 (2024): Journal of Policy Research

##plugins.themes.academic_pro.article.main##

Muhammad Mateen
MPhil Scholar, National College of Business Administration and Economics (NCBA&E), Lahore, Punjab-Pakistan
Haq Nawaz
PhD, Assistant Professor, Department of Education NCBAE&E Lahore, Punjab-Pakistan
Zeeshan Aslam
MPhil Scholar, National College of Business Administration and Economics (NCBA&E), Lahore, Punjab-Pakistan

Abstract

The current study was framed to determine the gap between intended and enacted single national mathematics curriculum implementation determinants instructional material, teaching methods, formative assessment, and teachers’ professional development. The nature of the study was quantitative descriptive based on the survey method. Single National Curriculum of Mathematics Implementation Questionnaire for Teachers (SNCMIQT) was developed for data collection from public primary school mathematics teachers. Content validity of SNCMIQT was ensured by five curriculum education experts and reliability was calculated employing Cronbach’s Alpha score; .918, and used to collect the data from the sample of 230 teachers selected through a simple random sampling technique. The collected data were analyzed by applying descriptive and inferential statistics. The study results revealed that 82% of mathematics curriculum determinants were implemented and an 18% gap existed regarding SNC mathematics. The results further, showed that 78% of instructional materials were in use and a 22% gap existed regarding instructional materials. The results declared that 78% of teaching methods were used according to the SNC and a 22% gap existed in teaching methods. The results declared that 87% of formative assessment techniques were in use, while a 13% gap existed regarding the usage of formative assessment. The results revealed that 87% of teachers were provided with teacher training, while 13% were not provided with teacher training, furthermore, results declared no significant difference between locale curriculum implementation determinants. Based on the results of the study, it was recommended that the government provide funds for mathematics instructional materials; learning labs, teaching kits, and learning gadgets for the mathematics curriculum. The education department and head teachers ensured the implementation of curriculum-based teaching methods and formative assessment strategies. Teachers training institutions may provide mathematics curriculum-based teachers training on the usage of instructional materials, teaching methods, and assessment. Head teachers may bind teachers in using instructional materials, teaching methods, and formative assessment techniques for effective SNC mathematics curriculum implementation.

##plugins.themes.academic_pro.article.details##

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

How to Cite
[1]
Mateen, M. , Nawaz, H. and Aslam, Z. 2024. Implementation of Single National Curriculum Mathematics 2020 Intended and Enacted Determinants Perspective at Primary Level in Punjab. Journal of Policy Research. 10, 2 (Jun. 2024), 826–833. DOI:https://doi.org/10.61506/02.00302.
Crossref
Scopus
Google Scholar
Europe PMC

References

  1. Adesua, V. O. (2015). Curriculum implementation and instructional materials as correlates of Academic performance of senior secondary school students in South West Nigeria. Social Science Education Journal, 1(1), 89-94.
  2. Apple, M. W. (2014). Official Knowledge: Democratic Education in a Conservative Age. New York, NY: Routledge. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203814383
  3. Arisoy, B., & Aybek, B. (2021). The effects of subject-based critical thinking education in mathematics on students' critical thinking skills and virtues. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 92, 99-119. DOI: https://doi.org/10.14689/ejer.2021.92.6
  4. Brown, H. D. (2007). Teaching by Principles: An interactive approach to language pedagogy (3rd ed.). New York: Longman.
  5. Burton, D. M. (2011). The history of mathematics: An introduction (7th ed.). McGraw-Hill.
  6. Cohen, D. K., & Hill, H. C. (2001). Learning policy: When state education reform works. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.12987/yale/9780300089479.001.0001
  7. Dilshad, S. A., Rehmat Shah, D., & Ahmad, N. (2023). Implementation of SNC at Primary level: Problems and practices in district Khushab. Journal of Positive School Psychology, 7(4), 465-476.
  8. Ediger, M., & Rao, D. B. (2006). Issues in school curriculum. New Delhi: Discovery Publishing House.
  9. Fatimah, A. (2024). Understanding policy enactment in diverse institutional contexts: An exploration of the implementation of the single national curriculum policy in Pakistan. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, UMD College of Education, University f Maryland, Maryland.
  10. Gehrke, N. J., Knapp, M. S., & Sirotnik, K. A. (1992). In search of the school curriculum. Review of Research in Education, 18, 51-110. https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X018001051 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/1167297
  11. Government of Pakistan (2020). Single national curriculum mathematics grade I-V 2020. Islamabad Pakistan: National Curriculum Council, Ministry of Federal Education and Professional Training, Islamabad Government of Pakistan. Available at https://www.mofept.gov.pk/SiteImage/Misc/files/SNC%20Mathematics%201-5.pdf
  12. Glatthorn, A. A. (1987). Curriculum renewal. Alexandria: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
  13. Graves, K. (2000). Designing language courses: A guide for teachers. Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle.
  14. Guskey, T. R. (2000). Evaluating professional development. Guskey, T. R. (2000). Evaluating professional development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
  15. Guskey, T. R., & Sparks, D. (2004). Linking professional development to improvements in student learning. Research linking teacher preparation and student performance, 12(11).
  16. Heaton, R. M. (2000). Teaching mathematics to the new standards: Relearning the dance. Practitioner inquiry series. New York: Teachers College Press.
  17. Hewitt, T. W. (2006). Understanding and shaping curriculum: What we teach and why. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4135/9781452204277
  18. Hlebowitsh, P. S. (2005). Curriculum implementation: A framework for understanding the process. Curriculum Inquiry, 35(2), 179-205. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-873X.2005.00316.x
  19. Hosal‐Akman, N., & Simga‐Mugan, C. (2010). An assessment of the effects of teaching methods on performance of students in accounting courses. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 47, 251-260. doi:10.1080/14703297. 2010.498176 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2010.498176
  20. Irons, A., & Elkington, S. (2021). Enhancing learning through formative assessment and feedback. London: Routledge. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781138610514
  21. Kelly, A. V. (2009). The curriculum: Theory and practice (6th ed.). Boston New York: Sage.
  22. Lumadi, M. W. (2014). Factors confronting transformational leadership: A curriculum management perspective. International Journal of Educational Sciences, 7(3), 663-672. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09751122.2014.11890229
  23. Marsh, C. J. & Willis, G. (2007). Curriculum: Alternative approaches, ongoing issues (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
  24. McMillan, J. H. (2021). Classroom assessment: Principles and practice that enhance student learning and motivation (8th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.
  25. Murphy, J. (1991). The politics of curriculum and instruction. Educational Policy, 5(1), 21-43.
  26. Naseer, M., & Akbar, R. A. (2020). Relationship between teachers’ professional commitment and formative assessment practices as a part of curriculum implementation at secondary level in Punjab. Journal of Business and Social Review in Emerging Economies, 6(3), 1015-1024. DOI: https://doi.org/10.26710/jbsee.v6i3.1350
  27. Nawaz, H. (2020). School curriculum implementation determinants: Intended and enacted curriculum at secondary level in Punjab, unpublished doctoral dissertation, institute of education and research, university of the Punjab, Lahore, Pakistan.
  28. Nawaz, H., & Akbar, R. A. (2019). Exploration of gaps between intended and enacted physics curriculum: teachers' professional development perspective. Bulletin of Education and Research, 41(2), 1-10.
  29. Nawaz, H., & Akbar, R. A. (2021). Exploration of student-centered teaching methods: Physics curriculum implementation perspectives. Journal of Research in Social Sciences, 9(2), 43-61. DOI: https://doi.org/10.52015/jrss.9i2.116
  30. Nawaz, H., & Akbar, R. A. (2022). Study of gaps between intended and enacted formative assessment techniques: National curriculum 2006 Perspective. Journal of Elementary Education, 31(2), 69-81.
  31. Ningi, M. M. (2023). Enhancing quality curriculum implementation through functional utilization of instructional materials by rural and urban teachers in Kaduna State. African Journal of Humanities and Contemporary Education Research, 11(1), 286-293.
  32. Oliva, P. F. (2008). Developing the curriculum (7th ed.). USA: Allyn & Bacon.
  33. Ornstein, A. C., & Hunkins, F. P. (2016). Curriculum foundations, principles, and issues (7th ed.). UK: Pearson.
  34. Porter, A. C., & Smithson, J. L. (2001). Defining, Developing, and Using Curriculum Indicators. Consortium for Policy Research in Education. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/e383612004-001
  35. Posner, G. J. (2004). Analyzing the Curriculum (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
  36. Remillard, J. T. (2005). Examining key concepts in research on teachers’ use of mathematics curricula. Review of educational research, 75(2), 211-246. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543075002211
  37. Richards, J. C. (2001). Curriculum development in language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511667220
  38. Rogan, J.M. & Grayson, D. (2003). Towards a theory of curriculum implementation with particular reference to science education in developing countries. International Journal of Science Education, 25(2), 1171-1204. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690210145819
  39. Ruiz‐Primo, M. A., & Furtak, E. M. (2007). Exploring teachers’ informal formative assessment practices and students’ understanding in the context of scientific inquiry. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(1), 57-84. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20163
  40. Santrock, J. W. (2017). Educational psychology (6th ed.). New York: McGraw Hill.
  41. Schmidt, W. H., McKnight, C. C., & Raizen, S. A. (1997). A splintered vision: An investigation of U.S. science and mathematics education. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
  42. Tanner, D., & Tanner, L. (2007). Curriculum Development: Theory into Practice (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
  43. Takahashi, A. (2014). Supporting the effective implementation of a new mathematics curriculum: A case study of school-based lesson study at a Japanese public elementary school. In Y. Li & G. Lappan (Eds.), mathematics curriculum in school education (pp. 417-441). Netherlands : Springer. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-7560-2_20
  44. Tayyab, M., Umer, S., & Sajid, A. (2022). Decoding religious contents of grade 5th textbooks of Single National Curriculum (SNC) in Pakistan. Pakistan journal of humanities and social sciences, 10(1), 291-297. DOI: https://doi.org/10.52131/pjhss.2022.1001.0196
  45. Yeung, S. S., Lam, J. T., Leung, A. W., & Lo, Y. C. (2012). Curriculum change and innovation. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press
  46. Zhang, Y., & Hu, G. (2010). Between intended and enacted curricula: Three teachers and a mandated curricular reform in mainland China. In K. Menken & O. García (Eds.), Negotiating language policies in schools (pp. 123-142). New York: Routledge.