Qualitative Research in Curriculum

The relationship between curriculum and teaching: Entropy perspective

Document Type : Research Paper

Author

leila habibi

education, Alzahra, Tehran

https://doi.org/10.22054/qric.2024.42895.266
Abstract
Teaching as an aesthetic art approach enables educators to appear like an artist in complex classroom situations with a set of practical actions based on individual judgments independent of predetermined order. In fact, the main goal of this research is to use three basic terms in science (system, entropy and polymorphism) in order to analyze two important issues in the field of education (teaching and curriculum). In the present research, at first, using the descriptive-analytical method, the relationship between teaching and the curriculum and the roles of the teacher in the effective quality of teaching are examined. Finally, the view of entropy is explained in the relationship between curriculum and teaching and the relationship between polymorphism and entropy. The research results indicate that the relationship between teaching and curriculum has negative entropy. On the other hand, the need for multiple roles of the teacher in the curriculum causes this relationship to be called polymorphism. The result of this research can be used in understanding the relationship between teaching and curriculum and teacher's roles in teaching quality.

Keywords

Entropy
curriculum
polymorphism
teaching
system
teacher
Chen, J., (2003), “An Entropy Theory of Psychology and its Implication to Behavioral Finance”, Avaliable at SSRN: http: //ssrn.com/abstract=465280.
Davis, G., and M. H. Olson (2000). Management Information Systems: Conceptual Foundation, Structure and Development, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Eisner, Elliot. (1979). The Educational Imagination: On the Design and Evaluation of School Programs. Pearson.
 Eisner, Elliot. (1992). Objectivity in Educational. Curriculum Inquiry.Vol. 22. No.1. Pp15-9.
Fullan, M. (1999). The meaning of educational change. New York: Teacher College Press.
Fullan, M. (1993). Change forces: Probing the depths of education reform. London: The Falmer Press.
Handler, B. (2010). Teacher as Curriculum Leader: A Consideration of the Appropriateness of That Role Assignment to Classroom-Based Practitioners. International Journal of Teacher Leadership, 3, 32-42.
Kauchak, D. P. & Eggen, P. D. (2003). Learning and Teaching: Research-Based Methods. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Lytle, S .,& Cochran, S.(1992).Teacher Research as a way of knowing. Oxford review of Education.Vol.62. No.4.
Ornstein, A. C., & Hunkins, F. P. (2018). Curriculum Foundations, Principles, and Issues (4th ed.). Allyn & Bacon.
Shulman, L., Sherine, M. (2004). Fostering communities of teachers as learners: disciplinary perspectives. Stanford University.
Schon, D. (2002). The Crisis of Professional Knowledge and the Pursuit of an Epistemology of Practice. pp. 375–385.
Walker, D. F. (2003). Fundamentals of curriculum: Passion and Professionalism (2nd edition). London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Walker, D. (1971). Models of curriculum Development. A naturalistic model for curriculum development, School Review, 80(1), 51-65.
Qualitative Research in Curriculum
Volume 5, Issue 14
Winter 2023
Pages 103-121

Home

Submit Manuscript

Reviewers

Contact Us