Measuring teacher beliefs about curriculum orientations using the Modified-Curriculum Orientations Inventory

Although curriculum orientations are widely discussed in educational literature, the extent to which teachers and other educational specialists in the United States hold these curriculum orientations is not well documented or well known. The relationships between a teacher's beliefs and the five dominant curriculum orientations (Academic Rationalism, Behavioral, Humanistic, Social Reconstruction, and Cognitive Process) are unclear. Therefore, it is difficult to discuss the nature of how these curriculum orientations influence teacher choices and their execution and implementation of educational policy. This study replicated research done by Cheung & Wong (2002) in Hong Kong. Direct inferences from the Cheung & Wong (2002) study are not practical given the significant differences in the maturation of the educational systems in Hong Kong and the United States. A sample of 308 teachers in the United States completed the modified-curriculum orientations inventory. Findings indicate that the reliability and validity of the data were weak to moderate, and gender, level, subject specialty, and experience influence the extent to which teachers value the particular curriculum orientations. The research also indicates that the construct of Complementary Pluralism (a strong positive relationship between the orientations) does not exist with the same level of intensity for teachers in the United States as it did for the teachers in Hong Kong. Rather, the theoretical opposition of the curriculum orientations is also a practical opposition for teachers in the United States.