Article

Educational Management
Administration & Leadership
Examining the Perceptions of 1–20
ª The Author(s) 2016

Curriculum Leaders on Primary Reprints and permission:

sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1741143215587303
School Reform: A Case Study emal.sagepub.com

of Hong Kong

Alan C. K. Cheung and Timothy W. W. Yuen

Abstract
In an effort to enhance the quality of teachers and teaching, and to lead internal curriculum
development in primary schools, the Hong Kong Education Bureau created a new curriculum
leader post entitled primary school master/mistress (curriculum development) or PSMCD for
short. The main purpose of the study was to examine the perceptions of these curriculum leaders
on their competence in leading the primary school reform. Using a stratified random sampling
technique, 125 curriculum leaders were chosen to participate in the current study. Survey
questionnaire and semi-structured interviews were conducted. The findings of the study suggest
that PSMCDs in general supported the goals and the rationale of the reform. In addition, they also
agreed that moderate progress had been made in implementing the curriculum reform in their
school. Though progress had been made in many areas, our findings have highlighted several key
challenges that these PSMCDs faced in performing their roles. These challenges include heavy
workload, learner diversity in the classrooms, the use of diversified modes for assessment, and
having too many reforms at the same time. Implications and recommendations are discussed.

Keywords
curriculum leaders, Hong Kong, primary schools, school reform

Introduction
In order to keep up with the demands of the 21st century, Hong Kong’s curriculum reform, initiated
in 2001, aims to develop students’ interest in learning, communication skills, creativity and sense
of commitment in order to prepare them for lifelong learning. It also strives to enable every student
to achieve all-round development according to his or her own attributes. Overall, the curriculum
reform attempts to develop a new culture of learning and teaching, by shifting from transmission of
knowledge to learning how to learn, and thus make an impact on student learning (Hong Kong

Corresponding author:
Alan C. K. Cheung, Department of Educational Policy and Administration, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Room
422, Ho Tim Building, Shatin, Hong Kong.
Email: alancheung@cuhk.edu.hk

Downloaded from ema.sagepub.com at CORNELL UNIV on October 18, 2016

2 Educational Management Administration & Leadership

Education Commission, 2000). To put in place the implementation strategies, a schedule that
adopts a gradual approach (10-year plan) has been worked out. 2001/2 to 2005/6 was the short-
term phase of implementation, and 2006/7 to 2010/11 was the medium-term phase.
During the short-term phase, schools should have reviewed their current position and for-
mulated their curriculum development plan (including pedagogy, textbooks, learning resources
and assessment strategies). During the short-term implementation phase, it was intended that
schools worked at their own pace by adapting the central curriculum to suit the needs and
interests of the students, the context of the school, the readiness of the teachers and the
leadership of school heads (Hong Kong Education Bureau, 2001). The baseline of the curricu-
lum reform of Hong Kong was to promote learning to learn through four key tasks (moral and
civic education, reading to learn, project learning, and information technology for interactive
learning) and to enhance learning and teaching in the eight key learning areas1 (KLAs) includ-
ing infusing generic skills (critical thinking, creativity and communication) into learning and
teaching of all KLAs. By 2006, it was expected that schools would be ready to use their
professional autonomy to strike a balance between the recommendations of the Curriculum
Development Council’s (CDC) curriculum guides and school-based curriculum development in
matters such as choice of options, contents, flexible use of time and lifelong learning oppor-
tunities (Hong Kong Education Bureau, 2002).
To support primary schools in carrying out the curriculum reform successfully, the Hong Kong
Education Bureau (EDB) created a new ‘curriculum leader’ post in 2003. This newly created
post was first known as curriculum officer and was later retitled primary school master/mistress
(curriculum development) or PSMCD for short. According to EDB, the main purpose of creating
this post was to enhance the quality of teachers and teaching and to lead internal curriculum
development in primary schools. A 2003 document by the EDB (formerly known as EMB)
stipulates the role of PSMCD as follows (Hong Kong Education and Manpower Bureau, 2003):
PSMCD serves as a curriculum leader to help the school in reforming the curriculum in
accordance with the education aims to promote whole-person development and lifelong learning.
The main responsibilities of PSMCD are as follows:

1. to assist the school head to lead and coordinate whole-school curriculum planning and
facilitate implementation of the plans;
2. to support the school head in planning and coordinating assessment policy and assessment
practices;
3. to lead teachers/specialist staff in improving learning and teaching strategies; and
4. to promote professional exchange culture within the school.

It also noted that PSMCDs should take up a reasonable teaching load (which should be less than
50% of the average teaching load of a normal teacher in the school) so that the curriculum leader
can keep close contact with the real situation of daily classroom learning and teaching.
The success of any curriculum reform, as scholars argue, is greatly dependent on the curri-
culum leadership of school principals, curriculum leaders and teachers (Henderson, 2007;
Schwarz, 1998). The role of PSMCD is particularly important in the curriculum reform in Hong
Kong in that he or she serves as the linchpin between the school principal and teachers to lead the
reform in their school. Therefore, whether these PSMCDs understand the curriculum reform
positively and whether they are competent in leading/implementing the curriculum is critical and
is worth exploring.

Downloaded from ema.sagepub.com at CORNELL UNIV on October 18, 2016

Cheung and Yuen: Examining the Perceptions of Curriculum Leaders on Primary School Reform 3

Since the PSMCD is a relatively new post in primary schools, only a few studies (Hui and Li,
2008; Law and Galton, 2004; Lo, 2007) have investigated the role and the views of PSMCDs on
curriculum reform. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first large-scale study that employed
both quantitative and qualitative methods to explore the perceptions of PSMCDs on their compe-
tence and leadership in leading the curriculum reform. It is hoped that it can contribute to the
understanding of the role of teacher leaders who assume the role of curriculum leaders and
specialize in the area of curriculum leadership (Brundrett and Duncan, 2011; Cardno, 2006;
Hammersley-Fletcher and Strain, 2011; Katzenmeyer and Moller, 2001; Law et al., 2007; Law,
2011; Snell and Swanson, 2000; York-Barr and Duke, 2004). The main objective of the present
study was to examine the perceptions of PSMCDs on their competence in leading such curriculum
development and implementing respective strategies to achieve the goals set out in the curriculum
reform. The three main research questions that guided the present study are as follows.

1. Were PSMCDs supportive of the curriculum reform?

2. Since assuming their role as PSMCD, what progress had been made in
a. creating more space in curriculum planning and implementation and in school
management?
b. nurturing a collaborative culture and professional development?
c. changing teachers’ practices in teaching and learning strategies?
3. How did PSMCDs perceive their competence in leading the reform?

Literature Review
The Education Commission (2000) explained the inadequacies of Hong Kong’s education in the
following terms: ‘All in all, despite the huge resources put into education and the heavy workload
endured by teachers, learning effectiveness of students remains not very promising; learning is still
examination driven . . . School life is usually monotonous . . . ‘ To prepare Hong Kong students to
face a rapidly changing 21st century, the Hong Kong Government proposed a major curriculum
reform entitled Learning to Learn – The Way Forward in Curriculum Development (Hong Kong
Education Bureau, 2001). The need for curriculum reform to help students to cope with the 21st
century is indeed well documented in the literature, both locally in Hong Kong (Chen 2001;
Cheung, 1998; Ng, 2011) and internationally (Bates, 2002; Doll, 1993; Jin and Li, 2011; Morrison,
1996; Slattery, 2006; Waks, 2006).
In an effort to facilitate the implementation of the reform in the primary sector, a new senior
post known as PSMCD was created. In short, PSMCD is a promotional post with responsibility for
advancing curriculum reform in Hong Kong schools and plays a major role in leading colleagues to
accomplish school-based curriculum reform (Hui and Li, 2008; Lo, 2007). This new curriculum
leadership represents a breakthrough in schools in Hong Kong, which had been accustomed to
simply implementing centrally devised curriculum plans (Law and Galton, 2004; Lo, 2004).
There is an increased recognition of the importance of the role of teachers in leading educational
reforms in general (Blase, 2009; Hart, 1995; Paulu and Winters, 1998; Little, 2003; York-Barr and
Duke, 2004), and for teachers to be leaders in curriculum changes in particular (Benson, 2006;
Lieberman and Miller, 1999). By tracing the literature (Ash and Persall, 2000; Crowther et al.,
2002.; Leithwood and Duke, 1999; Silva et al., 2000), York-Barr and Duke (2004) defined teacher
leadership as the use of teachers’ expertise in teaching and learning to improve the culture and
instruction in school. It was argued that teacher leadership can be practised through a variety of

Downloaded from ema.sagepub.com at CORNELL UNIV on October 18, 2016

4 Educational Management Administration & Leadership

formal and informal positions, roles and channels of communications in schools. Work carried out
by the teacher leaders may include coordination management, professional development and
school improvement, as well as curriculum development at school and district level. It can be
understood from this that teacher leaders can assume the role of curriculum leaders. Hannay and
Seller (1991) construed curriculum leaders as people interested in monitoring, implementing and
improving curriculum changes. Curriculum leaders are often the hinge of success for any curri-
culum reform (Henderson, 2007; Schwarz, 1998). They have the responsibility to create an ‘ethos
of change’ if curriculum innovation is to be successful (Brundrett and Duncan, 2011). The roles of
a successful curriculum leader are complex and often include shared decision making, collabora-
tive approaches and changing relationships with different levels of school stakeholders (Macpher-
son et al., 1999).
There is a growing body of literature internationally about the role of teachers in facilitating
curriculum reforms particularly from within schools (Brundrett and Duncan, 2011; Cardno, 2006;
Hammersley-Fletcher and Strain, 2011; Law, 2011; Law et al., 2007). There is good reason in fact
to believe that teacher leaders can assume the role of curriculum leaders. For example, Snell and
Swanson (2000) suggested that teacher leaders usually demonstrate high levels of instructional
expertise, collaboration, reflection and sense of empowerment so as to be leaders. Teacher leaders
are always a resource to be tapped for innovation at the school level (Frost, 2012). Attributes such
as excellent teaching skills and a well-developed philosophy of education can enable these teacher
leaders to play a key role in curriculum innovation (Katzenmeyer and Moller, 2001). Teacher
leaders need to build trust and rapport with colleagues, be supportive and able to promote growth,
be effective in communication and negotiation, and able to assess teacher needs and concerns. As
agents of curricular and pedagogical reform, such teacher curriculum leaders also have to conduct
their work against political and social factors. Such complexities can be a source of anxiety and can
shape the work of these curriculum leaders (Leander and Osborne, 2008).
It was also found that there are important factors that promote the effectiveness of teacher
leaders. Some of the factors include a school culture that focuses on learning and reflective
practices; team work and sharing of responsibility; trust and respect of the teacher leaders; positive
working relationships between teachers; support of the principal; and a participatory decision
making structure. Conversely, factors like the socialization of teachers as mere followers, reluc-
tance of teachers to advance, lack of collaborative efforts between teacher leaders and peers,
insufficient communication between teacher leader and principal, and a traditional top-down
structure, hamper the work of teacher leaders (York-Barr, 2004). In his study, Tam (2010) exam-
ined how the facets of leadership exercised by curriculum leaders affected school-based curricu-
lum development. His findings suggested that to achieve what they wanted such teacher
curriculum leaders need to build up personal charisma, create a shared vision, foster effective
collaboration with colleagues and promote changes in teachers’ beliefs and enhancement of teach-
ers’ capabilities.

Methods
This study employed a mixed methods approach (Creswell, 2012; Tashakkori and Teddlie, 2002).
In the past two decades, mixed methods research has been gaining momentum in the field of social
and behavioural sciences (Tashakkori and Creswell, 2007a; Tashakkori and Creswell, 2007b). One
of the advantages of using a mixed methods approach for the current study is that the inferences
from our research findings could be strengthened by triangulating the quantitative and qualitative

Downloaded from ema.sagepub.com at CORNELL UNIV on October 18, 2016

Cheung and Yuen: Examining the Perceptions of Curriculum Leaders on Primary School Reform 5

data sources (Creswell, 2012; Teddlie and Tashakkori, 2009). We first collected and analysed
quantitative data and then conducted in-depth interviews to obtain useful qualitative data to explain
and triangulate the quantitative findings. Combining the survey data and interview findings helped
provide a more complete picture of how PSMCDs perceive their roles and their competence in
leading the curriculum reform than either type of data would have done by itself.

Sampling
The present study was part of a larger study that examined the overall impact of the recent
curriculum reform in Hong Kong (Wong and Cheung, 2009). A total of 130 primary schools
(20% of the population) and over 26,000 different stakeholders such as principals, teachers and
students participated in the larger study. In order to get a good representation of schools in Hong
Kong, a stratified random sampling technique based on financial modes, academic achievements,
school size and geographic locations was used (see Table 1). In each sampled school, school
principals (SP), principal senior masters in curriculum development (PSMCDs), key learning areas
(KLA) coordinators/panel heads (KH), teachers (KT) and students were asked to respond to their
respective survey questionnaires. Due to the focus of the present study, only data from the PSMCD
group was included in the current study. As indicated in Table 2, 125 valid questionnaires in total
were collected from 130 participating primary schools.2 The majority of PSMCDs held a bache-
lor’s degree and 26% held a master’s degree in addition. The average length of being in the
PSMCD post was 3.3 years. It is also important to highlight that the majority of PSMCDs
(82%) taught at or above their required teaching capacities.
As for the focus group interview (FGI), each PSMCD was asked at the end of the survey to
indicate their willingness to be interviewed. The research team then selected a random sample of
10 respondents to participate in follow-up focus group interview. On the one hand, one of the main
advantages of using FGIs over individual interviews is that ‘group dynamics frequently bring out
aspects of the topic that would not have been anticipated by the researcher and would not have
emerged from interviews with individuals’ (Babbie, 2007: 309). On the other hand, participants
may be reluctant to share some sensitive concerns in a FGI setting. However, such is not the case in
all our three FGI groups (three–four in each group). All participants were active in their FGI
sharing section.
The FGIs were conducted in the form of semi-structured interviews, mainly based on the pre-
designed open-ended questions. Where appropriate, the researchers adapted the questions, or asked
further questions to follow up on the participants’ responses. The FGIs were conducted by two
researchers in a reserved classroom at the researchers’ university. In addition, two research assis-
tants were also present to take interview notes and record the interview. The interview was
conducted in Cantonese (the mother tongue of the respondents) and lasted for 2 hours. During
the FGI, each participant was addressed using a letter from the English alphabet to ensure the
protection of personal information. Information obtained during the interview was recorded on
tape for later transcription (for detailed procedures of the study, please refer to Authors [2009]).

Instruments
The main instruments used were self-administered survey questionnaires and focus-group inter-
view guides. Separate survey questionnaires were constructed for different stakeholders such as
principals, teachers and students, covering all important areas as outlined in the official curriculum

Downloaded from ema.sagepub.com at CORNELL UNIV on October 18, 2016

6 Educational Management Administration & Leadership

Table 1. School profile.

N ¼ 130

Finance type
Aided 90.0%
Government 5.5%
Private 4.5%
Direct subsidized scheme 0.0
School location
New Territories West 27.9%
New Territories East 14.4%
Kowloon 37.8%
Hong Kong Island 19.8%
Student performance in TSA
Below average 39.3%
Average 39.3%
Above average 17.9%
NA 3.6%
Session
Half-day 18.7%
Whole-day 81.3%
Average number of student 766.6
Average number of full-time teachers 41.3
Average years of establishment 35.3

Table 2. Profile of respondents.

Qualifications (N ¼ 125)

Bachelor’s degree 91%

Master’s degree 26%
Doctoral degree 0%
Average years of being PSM (CD) in school 3.3 years

Table 3. Additional information for PSMCDs.

Whether their teaching load were more than, equivalent to, or less than 50% of the average
teachers’ teaching load
More than 42%
Equivalent 42%
Less than 16%
Whether their school had established a curriculum development committee headed by them
Yes 94%
No 6%
Whether they needed to teach
Yes 96%
No 4%
Number of sessions they needed to teach Mean 16.2 (3.6)

Downloaded from ema.sagepub.com at CORNELL UNIV on October 18, 2016

Cheung and Yuen: Examining the Perceptions of Curriculum Leaders on Primary School Reform 7

reform document. Most questions were on a six-point Likert scale (1 being strongly disagree and 6
being strongly agree). A higher mean score for an item indicated a higher degree of agreement in
the area addressed by this item. There were some common questions designed for different
stakeholder groups and some questions were customized to address issues related to their particular
role. The instruments facilitated a comparison between the views held by different participants. In
terms of focus-group interviews, pre-designed interview guides were constructed for each stake-
holder group, covering the same aspects covered by the survey questionnaire.
Each questionnaire, except the one for students, consisted of the following major areas: (1) sup-
port for the curriculum reform; (2) implementation of the curriculum reform in the school; (3)
factors affecting the implementation of the curriculum reform; (4) impact of the implementation of
the curriculum reform on personal professional development and student achievement; (5) overall
outcomes of the curriculum reform; (6) future school development and professional support; (7)
background information; and (8) others. The instruments each consisted of 130–150 items.
Confirmatory factor analyses with robust estimators were performed to validate all the
scales. As indicated in Tables 4–12, all the factors had standardized Cronbach’s alpha coeffi-
cient greater than 0.80 and all are deemed to be reliable for this sample in terms of overall
internal consistency. Most factor loadings show that items in each scale generally measure the
underlying construct well.

Data Analysis
Responses from close-ended questions in the survey were coded and entered into Statistical
Package for the Social Sciences 20 (SPSS) and MPlus (version 7) software for analysis. The
quantitative data were analysed to yield frequencies and percentages of respondents. Summary
statistics, such as the mean and standard deviation, provided the best measure of central tendency
and variability. Cronbach’s alphas, factor loadings and item correlations were also reported. All the
interview data were transcribed. Both the researchers and the research assistants checked the sound
tracks and the transcription copies so that mistakes in transcription and interpretation could be
minimized. Respondents were also allowed to check the transcripts to ensure that the points they
made were not misrepresented. The two researchers studied the interview transcripts together to
identify the themes and concepts which were relevant to the study. This reduced the chance of
personal bias in understanding the discourses. The researchers also made joint decisions about such
matters as data saturation and so on. Themes and patterns extracted from the interview data were
studied together with the survey findings. In the case of ambiguities, the researchers went back to the
sound tracks of the interviews and any differences in interpretation would be duly discussed.

Findings
In this section, the findings from the questionnaire survey are reported and analysed with the help
of the qualitative data obtained from our focus group interview with PSMCDs.

Support for the Curriculum Reform

The Curriculum Development Council (CDC) developed a curriculum framework as the basic
structure for setting learning targets. PSMCDs were asked to indicate their level of agreement with
the learning goals, curriculum framework and the rationale of the curriculum reform.

Downloaded from ema.sagepub.com at CORNELL UNIV on October 18, 2016

8 Educational Management Administration & Leadership

Table 4. Agreement with the seven learning goals.

Mean SD Cronbach a Factor loadings R2

Overall 5.18 0.61 0.92

Recognize their roles and their responsibilities as 5.10 0.72 0.759 0.577
members in the family, society, and the nation
Understand their national identity 5.05 0.74 0.648 0.420
Develop critical thinking and master independent learning 5.31 0.77 0.816 0.666
skills
Engage in discussion actively and confidently in English and 5.18 0.78 0.819 0.670
Chinese (including Putonghua)
Develop a habit of reading independently 5.45 0.64 0.783 0.614
Possess a breadth and foundation of knowledge in the 5.02 0.78 0.843 0.711
eight KLAs
A healthy lifestyle and interest in and appreciation of 5.15 0.77 0.803 0.645
aesthetic and physical activities

Table 5. Agreement with curriculum framework and the rationale of the curriculum reform.

Mean SD Cronbach a Factor loadings R2

Overall 4.97 0.57 0.88

The existing subjects are grouped into eight KLAs 4.89 0.79 0.722 0.522
Provide a broad and balanced curriculum for all students 4.83 0.82 0.817 0.668
School can organize their own curricula using a 5.06 0.67 0.786 0.617
combination of subjects, units, and projects
Chinese history and Culture should be strengthened 4.81 0.79 0.351 0.123
throughout all stage of schooling
Nine generic skills are fundamental to helping students 4.96 0.80 0.760 0.577
learn better
Priority should be placed on critical thinking skills, 4.82 0.87 0.739 0.546
creativity, and communication skills
Enhancement of Students’ positive values and attitudes 5.45 0.64 0.629 0.396
should be given high priority

Table 6. Agreement with the rationale of the curriculum reform.

Mean SD

Rationale of curriculum reform 4.94 0.70

Seven question items were used to measure the level of agreement of PSMCDs with the
learning goals. The scale reliability (Cronbach alpha) was 0.92 for the sample. Confirmatory
factor analysis with robust estimators was employed to validate this one factor measurement
model. The result showed that a good model fit this one factor model (X2 (MLR)¼ 16.468,
df ¼ 13, TLI ¼ 0.986, CFI ¼ 0.993, RMSEA ¼ 0.046). Inspection of the factor loadings of
each item indicated that the items provided a good measurement of the underlying construct.

Downloaded from ema.sagepub.com at CORNELL UNIV on October 18, 2016

Cheung and Yuen: Examining the Perceptions of Curriculum Leaders on Primary School Reform 9

Table 7. Key tasking concerning the creation of more space and school management.

Mean SD Cronbach’s a Factor loadings R2

Overall 4.42 0.71 0.81

Trim and restructure the curriculum 4.57 0.84 0.656 0.431
Reduce unnecessary administrative workload 3.76 1.27 0.425 0.181
Reduce excessive tests, examinations, and dictations 4.60 0.95 0.518 0.268
Plan the time-table flexibly 4.73 0.86 0.735 0.540
Make good use of various grants 4.89 0.76 0.590 0.348
More space for students to learn, teachers on 4.05 1.09 0.660 0.435
professional work

Table 8. Nurturing collaborative culture.

Mean SD Cronbach’s a Factor loadings R2

Overall 4.83 0.57 0.88

Sharing of good practices and learning and teaching 5.10 0.69 0.780 0.609
materials
Share with educational sectors and experts 4.74 0.80 0.590 0.349
Enhance team culture in school 4.68 0.83 0.693 0.481
Encourage peer observations 5.10 0.80 0.672 0.452
Strengthen collaborative lesson planning 5.23 0.74 0.550 0.303
Establish the school as a learning community 4.65 0.82 0.637 0.405
Teachers more opportunities to participate in decision 4.67 0.80 0.438 0.192
making
Enhance communication with parents 4.59 0.81 0.570 0.324

Table 9. Catering for learner diversity and assessment for learning.

Mean SD Cronbach a Factor loadings R2

Overall 4.60 0.65 0.85

Use assessment and feedback 4.62 0.71 0.913 0.834
Use diversified modes of assessment to evaluate the 4.63 0.66 0.602 0.363
learning process
Cater for learner diversity 4.57 0.85 0.828 0.685

Table 10. T&L strategies.

Mean SD Cronbach a Factor loadings R2

Overall 4.86 0.51 0.81

Strengthen the implementation of the four key tasks 4.96 0.72 0.689 0.475
Embed moral and civic education 4.89 0.71 0.692 0.479
Enhance students’ critical thinking skill, and so on 4.86 0.73 0.607 0.369
Students’ positive values and attitudes 5.06 0.68 0.468 0.219
Embed the five essential learning experiences 4.66 0.65 0.664 0.441
Embed cross-curricular modules of learning and activities 4.72 0.75 0.596 0.355

Downloaded from ema.sagepub.com at CORNELL UNIV on October 18, 2016

10 Educational Management Administration & Leadership

Table 11. Developing students’ language proficiency.

Mean SD Cronbach a Factor loadings R2

Overall 4.83 0.62 0.82

Enhance Chinese language learning and teaching 4.85 0.70 0.534 0.285
Enhance English language learning and teaching 4.91 0.73 0.795 0.631
Develop effective learning and teaching strategies 4.74 0.74 0.797 0.636

Table 12. Improvement on curriculum leadership.

Mean SD Cronbach a Factor loadings R2

Overall 4.62 0.57 0.90

Coordinate cross KLAs/subjects learning 4.69 0.70 0.642 0.413
Lead teachers in promoting the four key tasks 4.75 0.69 0.774 0.599
Lead teachers in cultivating students’ generic skills 4.56 0.72 0.847 0.718
Lead teachers in conducting regular curriculum review 4.65 0.70 0.777 0.604
Promote collaboration among teachers in different KLAs/ 4.60 0.75 0.706 0.499
subjects, and nurture team culture
Provide support to teachers of different KLAs/subjects 4.53 0.70 0.682 0.466
Enhance teachers’ professional development in different 4.56 0.75 0.837 0.700
KLAs/subjects

Table 13. Competence in implementing CR strategies.

Mean SD Cronbach a Factor loadings R2

Overall 4.54 0.58 0.85

Embed moral and civic education 4.52 0.77 0.584 0.341
Use effective strategies to cater for learner diversity 4.40 0.82 0.707 0.499
Use assessment and feedback to enhance learning and 4.48 0.73 0.739 0.545
teaching
Use diversified modes of assessment to assess the learning 4.44 0.74 0.749 0.560
process
Communicate with and seek support from the school 4.73 0.85 0.602 0.362
management
Seek and make good use of resources 4.60 0.79 0.634 0.402
Enhance cooperation with organizations 4.57 0.88 0.626 0.392

Generally speaking, the majority of PSMCDs agreed with the seven learning goals of the
curriculum reform such as developing a habit of reading independently, developing critical think-
ing and mastering independent learning skills, and engaging in discussions actively and confi-
dently in English and Chinese. This is supported by the discourses of the PSMCDs in the
interviews. The following quotes illustrate this.

I agree that the curriculum reform represents a move in the right direction particularly that it requires
the students to learn how to learn and to be a life-long learner . . .
I agree that learning should aim at developing students’ skills so that they can learn how to learn . . .
The four key tasks of learning and the generic skills are what I will support . . .

Downloaded from ema.sagepub.com at CORNELL UNIV on October 18, 2016

Cheung and Yuen: Examining the Perceptions of Curriculum Leaders on Primary School Reform 11

It should be noted that in the conversation, PSMCDs agreed that times have changed and there
needs to be a change in the paradigm of education, noticeably a shift from teacher-centred to
student-centred education. Learning how to learn to face lifelong learning required for 21st century
was a commonly shared theme.
In terms of the curriculum framework, there were also seven items in total. The reliability of this
scale was 0.86 for the sample. Confirmatory factor analysis was conducted with this one factor
model; TLI of 0.950 and CFI of 0.969 indicated a satisfactory model fit. RMSEA of 0.078
indicated an adequate model fit (p-value of RMSEA <¼ 0.05 was 0.173).
Again a great majority of participants strongly agreed with the framework (mean ¼ 4.97),
particularly in the areas of enhancement of students’ positive values and attitudes, schools can
organize their own curricula using a combination of subjects, units and projects, and nine
generic skills are fundamental to helping students learn better. Though the agreement
remained high, it was slightly lower than that of the goals of the curriculum reform. The
doubt expressed by an individual PSMCD in the interview as shown by the quote below may
help explain this.

I think the authority provided us with a broad (curriculum) framework but not clear direction for
realizing it . . . It becomes difficult for us . . .

On the whole, an overwhelming majority (over 80%) of PSMCDs agreed with the overall
rationale of curriculum reform (mean ¼ 4.94). The findings should come as no surprise at all
because this particular post was created by the government to help schools in leading curri-
culum reform.

Progress in the Implementation of the Curriculum Reform in the School

Progress in Creating More Space and School Management. There was great concern regarding the issue
of teachers’ workload when implementing the curriculum reform. In order to manage the imple-
mentation of the curriculum reform effectively, PSMCDs need to take measures to reduce unne-
cessary administrative work and to create more space for students to learn and for teachers to focus
on their professional work. In this section, we try to investigate whether or not progress had been
made in terms of creating more space in curriculum planning and implementation and in school
management. The scale for measuring the level of agreement among PSMCDs consisted of six
items. The Cronbach’s alpha of this scale was 0.81 for the sample. The results of the confirmatory
factor analysis of these items showed satisfactory model fit for the one-factor model (X2 (MLR)¼
10.905, df ¼ 8, p ¼ 0.207, TLI ¼ 0.931, CFI ¼ 0.963, RMSEA ¼ 0.054). Most factor loadings
showed that items generally measured the underlying latent construct well.
As indicated in Table 7, PSMCDs were satisfied with the progress made in several key tasks
concerning the creating of more space and school management such as ‘making good use of
various grants’ (mean ¼ 4.89), ‘planning the timetable flexibly’ (mean ¼ 4.73) and ‘reducing
excessive tests, examinations, and dictation’ (mean ¼ 4.60). However, a relatively lower per-
centage of PSMCDs agreed that their schools had achieved progress regarding the statements
‘re-engineer work processes in schools and reduce unnecessary administrative workload of
teaching staff’ (mean ¼ 3.76) and ‘create more space for students to learn and for teachers
to focus on professional work’ (mean ¼ 4.05) when compared with the other measures. Seeking
external grants to spearhead projects of curriculum reform have also been mentioned by some

Downloaded from ema.sagepub.com at CORNELL UNIV on October 18, 2016

12 Educational Management Administration & Leadership

PSMCDs. Two sorts of funds were mentioned: funding support from the school sponsoring
body and the funds made available through the QEF (Quality Education Funds).

Progress in Nurturing a Collaborative Culture and Enhancing Professional Development. As mentioned

earlier, one of the main responsibilities of PSMCDs is to nurture a collaborative culture and
enhance professional development in reforming the curriculum in their school. Thus, it is impor-
tant to examine the progress made in these critical areas. The scale for measuring the agreement of
the progress in this area consisted of eight items. The reliability (Cronbach’s alpha) of this scale
was 0.88. The fit indices of the confirmatory factor analysis of these items suggested a satisfactory
fit of this one factor model (X2 (MLR)¼ 27.664, df ¼ 19, p ¼ 0.090, TLI ¼ 0.900, CFI ¼ 0.932,
RMSEA ¼ 0.060).
As can be seen in Table 8, great progress was being made in the areas of nurturing a
collaborative culture and enhancing professional development in the sampled schools. This
finding is reflected by the fact that over 90% of all PSMCDs agreed that great progress had
been made in ‘strengthening collaborative lesson planning’ (mean ¼ 5.23), ‘encouraging peer
observation’ (mean ¼ 5.10), and ‘sharing of good practices and learning and teaching mate-
rials’ (mean ¼ 5.10) since the 2001/2 school year, while ‘enhancing communication with
parents to seek their support for the curriculum reform’ had the lowest mean (mean ¼ 4.59)
among all items. There was high agreement between the interview and survey data. The
majority of PSMCDs interviewed agreed that the reform had brought about an ethos of change
in their school. The quote below from a PSMCD interviewed explained how collaboration was
worked out in his school. It can be seen that much collaboration has been achieved within
the school.

As a PSMCD, I can pull the otherwise independently functioning heads of subject department together
for better coordination. We organize Staff Development Days and practise collective lesson prepara-
tion and we have made steady progress these years. More importantly, these efforts have been well
recognized by colleagues.

Changes in Teachers’ Practice in Teaching and Learning Strategies. In the teaching and learning process,
teachers’ practice, needless to say, directly affects how students learn and develop in schools, and
the roles teachers play also determine how they interact with students. This section examines
whether or not progress in the school curriculum development has been accompanied by changes
in the teachers’ practice. Three scales were derived from questions regarding the change in
teachers’ practice in teaching and learning strategies, including catering for learner diversity and
assessment for learning (three items, a ¼ 0.85), learning and teaching strategies (six items, a ¼
0.81), and developing students’ language proficiency (three items, a ¼ 0.82). The results of the
confirmatory factor analysis of these items showed adequate fit for the three factors model (X2
(MLR) ¼ 70.195, df ¼ 50, p ¼ 0.031, TLI ¼ 0.910, CFI ¼ 0.932, RMSEA ¼ 0.057). All these are
the key strategies for promoting student learning.
In terms of learning and teaching strategies, a majority of PSMCDs indicated that modest
progress had been made in both learning and teaching strategies (mean ¼ 4.86) and developing
students’ language proficiency (mean ¼ 4.83) to enhance students’ learning effectiveness.
A PSMCD mentioned the following with regards to changes in style of teaching and learning:

Downloaded from ema.sagepub.com at CORNELL UNIV on October 18, 2016

Cheung and Yuen: Examining the Perceptions of Curriculum Leaders on Primary School Reform 13

We are now arranging different modes of learning activities to our students and they are now different
from the traditional mode of ‘sitting still and listening’. We have successfully encouraged them to think
more and present own ideas and thinking in the new mode of teaching and learning.

However, it should also be noted that ‘catering for learner diversity and assessment for learning’
had the lowest mean score, indicating that teachers were still struggling with learner diversity in
their classrooms.
Looking across the three domains, the three areas that had the highest means were: collaborative
lesson planning (mean ¼ 5.23), sharing of good practices and materials (mean ¼ 5.10) and peer
observation (mean ¼ 5.10). PSMCDs expounded these in the focus group interview, as illustrated
in the excerpts below:

Teachers grow professionally through such arrangements as lesson observation, collective lesson
preparation and open classroom. Learning becomes more diversified and students learn flexibly and
happily.
My observation is that many teachers have already accepted such arrangements as collective lesson
preparation, peer observation and professional development. They do it as they believe curriculum
reforms are for the good of the students.
Under curriculum reform, colleagues have more opportunities to collaborate. Teamwork is the only
way to develop the new curriculum.

In contrast, the survey findings also suggested that there was a relatively lower score given to re-
engineering work processes in schools in order to reduce workload (mean ¼ 3.76). In fact,
PSMCDs in the interview commonly highlighted the stress teachers faced in terms of workload
and long working hours.

Teachers faced huge workload. We don’t even have time to eat our lunch properly given the need to
prepare well for a class which is more diversified, they need to see students after class, and the
requirement to implement post-class activities.

Another PSMCD argued:

Curriculum reform increased the workload of the teachers substantially and to ensure that they can do
their professional work more effectively, the best way is to increase the number of teachers and cut
down the number of lessons they teach.

PSMCD themselves also face a heavy workload. As indicated in Table 3, the majority of
participants (82%) said they taught at or above their teaching capacity. As the following two
PSMCDs aptly pointed out:

The official document mentions that PSMCDs should take up a maximum of 50 percent teaching load
but I have always been teaching more than this in these years . . . and I also need to be a subject head.
I really think there are so many things to do and working a few years in this school (as PSMCD) really
amounts to 10 years’ work in my previous school . . . There are lots of paper work and meetings. Apart
from your own meetings, you have to help in other meetings related to subjects and lesson learning.

Downloaded from ema.sagepub.com at CORNELL UNIV on October 18, 2016

14 Educational Management Administration & Leadership

PSMCDs in the interview explained that stress also came from the need to cater for different
reforms at the same time, and the need to receive training and pursue higher degree study. Handling
students with special educational needs is rendered more stressful under the curriculum reform as
the deficiencies of the students become more obvious with the new mode of teaching and learning.
As one PSMCD explained:

The present curriculum is competence based and the deficiencies of those students with special
educational needs thus become more visible. This is in contrast with the past when the curriculum
was much less complicated.

The mean for creating more space for students to learn and for teachers to focus on professional
work was also comparatively less favourable (mean ¼ 4.05). In the interviews, PSMCDs explained
how public assessments and additional paperwork like reporting interfered with their work.
Survey findings indicate that PSMCDs believed that they could design their own unique stra-
tegies to accomplish the curriculum reform. In the interviews, PSMCDs confirmed this but also
explained some of the constraining factors. The quote below expresses concerns over excessive
administrative monitoring.

If the authority is measuring the quality of a school just by referring to adherence to the curriculum
reform, the end result can be that we need to satisfy their demands and carry out the reform very
broadly, but without the necessary depth.

Whereas, the quote below from another PSMCD referred to how a school may need to consider
the existing subject curriculum content in formulating the strategy.

Both teachers and parents have reflected that learning in key stage one (Primary 1–3) is full of joy and
has grouping, activities, and games, etc. However, once we go to key stage two (Primary 4–6), we may
need to revert to more traditional methods as there are more words and content to learn. We can’t
reduce such content or students will not be able to move to key stage three (Secondary 1–3)
successfully.

Improvement in Competence in Leading the Curriculum Reform

PSMCDs were asked if they had made improvement in the following areas: (1) their improvement
in curriculum leadership (seven items, a ¼ 0.90); and (2) their competence in implementing
curriculum reform strategies (seven items, a ¼ 0.85). The fitting indices of the confirmatory factor
analysis of this two-factor model showed a good model fit (X2 (MLR) ¼ 94.070, df ¼ 75,
TLI ¼ 0.970, CFI ¼ 0.975, RMSEA ¼ 0.045). The factor loadings indicated good measurement
properties for most of the items.
A notable improvement was found among PSMCDs in their curriculum leadership. The
PSMCD plays a key role in implementing the curriculum reform in the primary school sector.
This specific post was created in 2003 to support curriculum reform in primary schools. As
mentioned earlier, they act as a go-between person between the management and frontline teach-
ers. Among all aspects, most PSMCDs reflected improvement in leading teachers in promoting the
four key tasks (mean ¼ 4.75) and leading teachers in embedding across KLAs/subject learning
(mean ¼ 4.69). Providing support to teachers of different KLAs/subjects had the lowest mean

Downloaded from ema.sagepub.com at CORNELL UNIV on October 18, 2016

Cheung and Yuen: Examining the Perceptions of Curriculum Leaders on Primary School Reform 15

(mean ¼ 4.53). However, the differences were not statistically significant among all aspects
(F ¼ 1.59, df ¼ 6, p < 0.15).
Regarding competence in implementing curriculum reform strategies, PSMCDs reported a
modest improvement in almost all aspects: ‘Communicate with and seek support from the school
management’ had the highest means (mean ¼ 4.73), followed by ‘seek and make good use of
resources to enhance the implementation of the curriculum reform’ (mean ¼ 4.60). In the focus
group interviews, PSMCDs highlighted the importance of communicating and winning the support
of the principal and the management council of the school so that there can be shared goals for the
school. They also emphasized that, in terms of resources, tertiary institutes can be asked to provide
professional guidance and training for successful implementation of the reform at their school.

Discussion
The purpose of the present study was to examine the perceptions of PSMCDs on (1) their support
for the curriculum reform; (2) the progress of the curriculum reform; and (3) their competence in
leading the curriculum reform in their school. The PSMCDs’ own professional growth as curri-
culum leaders was also probed.
The findings of the study suggest that PSMCDs in general supported the goals and the
rationale of the reform. Their support came with the belief that times have changed and the
paradigm of teaching and learning will need to move in tandem. Such beliefs are indeed well
supported in the literature (Bates, 2002; Chen 2001; Cheung, 1998; Doll, 1993; Jin and Li, 2011;
Ng, 2011; Morrison, 1996; Slattery, 2006; Waks, 2006).
PSMCDs did agree that moderate progress had been made in implementing the curriculum
reform in their schools, in matters ranging from nurturing a collaborative culture to developing a
school-based curriculum and so on. Students were reported to be learning in a more lively way and
this is of course important in addressing the problem of monotonous school life as reported in
Education Commission (2000). There was also a reported improvement in the PSMCDs’ efficacy
in such matters as leading the teachers, co-ordination, and promoting the key tasks. PSMCDs in
this study, while being convinced of the need and direction of the reform which of course was
crucial to make them devoted, reported different degrees of success in their role as promoters of
curriculum reform in schools.
In relation to the personal dimension, PSMCDs believed that they have successfully acquired
the qualities needed for being curriculum reform promoters. This can be seen from the mean
scores (all items rated above 4.5) for all questions related to ‘developing effective learning and
teaching strategies’ and ‘improvement in curriculum leadership’. From our interviews with
PSMCDs, we found that most of them were actually experienced teachers, well received by
their colleagues, who were handpicked by their principal for the job. Previous studies have
suggested that this foundation, both of general pedagogical repertoire and of knowledge about
the school context, of course is important (Katzenmeyer and Moller, 2001; Leander and Osborne,
2008; Pellicer and Anderson, 1995).
The value of having serving school teachers as curriculum leaders can be found in the literature
(Frost, 2012; Katzenmeyer and Moller, 2001; Snell and Swanson, 2000). However, it should not be
overlooked that many PSMCDs also indicated that they have gained expertise by specializing in
the role, studying the reform documents, attending seminars and collaborating with academics
from the tertiary sector. The importance of tertiary institutes as support to curriculum leaders in
schools in fact was emphasized by Macpherson and Brooker (2000).

Downloaded from ema.sagepub.com at CORNELL UNIV on October 18, 2016

16 Educational Management Administration & Leadership

In the actual work dimension, however, a disparity of views can be discerned. PSMCDs
reported greater success in work at a more micro level. Thus ‘strengthening the sharing of good
practices and learning and teaching materials with peers’ has a mean of 5.10; encouraging peer
observation (5.10); and strengthening collaborative lesson planning (5.23). However, once the work
tends to be more macro and involve possible structural changes that have resource implications and
may not be within the powers and purview of the PSMCDs, we can see a drop in self-reported
success rates. A notable example is ‘re-engineering work processes in schools and reduce unneces-
sary administrative workload of teaching staff’ which has a mean of just 3.76. The same applies to
‘create more space for students to learn and for teachers to focus on professional work’ with a mean
of 4.05. Comparatively lower mean scores (below 4.5) were spotted for ‘use effective strategies to
cater for learner diversity’ and ‘use diversified modes of assessment to assess the learning process
and its effectiveness’. From our interviews with PSMCDs, it was pointed out that this becomes more
thorny work as it involves either confronting the authority of a subject panel head or the established
tradition of assessment of the school. Leander and Osborne (2008) pointed out that teachers as agents
of curricular and pedagogical reform have to conduct their work against political and social factors.
This is not easy to accomplish and that’s why York-Barr and Duke (2004) explained that teacher
leaders need to build trust and rapport with colleagues and be effective in communication and
negotiation.
Though progress had been made in many areas, our findings have highlighted several key
challenges that these PSMCDs faced in performing their roles. First, over 80% of PSMCDs taught
at or above their capacities. The heavy teaching and administrative workload of PSMCDs might
hamper their ability of fulfilling their main duties, including carrying out reform activities, estab-
lishing collaborative culture and focusing on teaching and learning activities. Second, PSMCDs, in
the process of effecting real and substantial changes, may need to act across the authorities of
subject panels which by tradition have been the locus where curriculum decisions have rested. The
sympathy and cooperation of the relevant panel chairs cannot be taken for granted even though the
PSMCD may be a well-established teacher. Additional difficulties will surface if the PSMCD is a
new recruit, as acceptance by peer teachers cannot be presumed. Another major difficulty is that
real curriculum changes sometimes can become possible only with courageous changes in school
traditions, notably in timetable arrangement and examination and assessment patterns. PSMCDs in
the interviews also complained about the constraints the education system and its public examina-
tions imposed upon schools in this regard.
To resolve these difficulties and challenges, many PSMCDs interviewed pinpointed the support
of the school principal as critical. This is understandable given the need to act across authority
lines, to secure space and to effect changes that may break with traditions and hence meet with
opposition (Acker-Hocevar and Touchton, 1999; Little, 1995; Whitaker, 1995). Interestingly,
some PSMCDs pointed out in the interviews that a good way to make progress from their expe-
rience is to effect the changes not by prescribing them, but by making them happen together with
other colleagues. They mentioned planning changes together with subject panel heads and mem-
bers, by taking part in teaching and experiencing the curriculum changes with other teachers
(Liberman and Miller, 1999; Wilson, 1993). Social networking with other teachers was pointed
out as being important (Acker-Hocevar, 1999; Conley and Muncey, 1999). Funds obtainable from
various sources and expertise gained from academics in the tertiary sector were reported to be
helpful but at the same time the PSMCDs interviewed also said they were under stress because of
constraints on the time available. As mentioned earlier, our findings showed that more than 40% of
the PSMCDs were assigned teaching duties heavier than officially prescribed (that is, 50% of

Downloaded from ema.sagepub.com at CORNELL UNIV on October 18, 2016

Cheung and Yuen: Examining the Perceptions of Curriculum Leaders on Primary School Reform 17

normal teaching load). Supportive measures such as reducing their teaching and non-teaching
duties, and allocating more manpower resources to help with the implementation of curriculum
reform and related paperwork are needed. In addition, some PSMCDs explained that they encoun-
tered structural problems beyond their control that made the implementation of curriculum reform
in school difficult. An example was the contradiction of allowing schools the flexibility of own
curriculum design while expecting students from different schools to make similar progress in the
key stages of learning. Another example was the use of the same yardstick to measure student
progress in schools which are now marked by increased student diversity. How these can be
addressed may also be important if PSMCDs are to achieve greater success in implementing
curriculum reforms in schools.

Conclusion
The results from this study suggest that unlike other traditional administrative or managerial
leaders such as assistant principals and principals, PSMCDs play a distinctive role in leading
curriculum reform in their schools in that they operate in a ‘shared decision and team work mode’
rather than a ‘top down hierarchy mode’ (Li, 2004). In addition, they are teachers themselves and
work closely with their colleagues by providing guidance and support in changing school culture
and teaching practices. In order to perform their roles successfully and effectively, PSMCDs need
to gain the trust of their peer teachers and strong support from their principals. They also need to be
provided with time and resources to carry out their work and with opportunities for professional
development (York-Barr and Duke, 2004).
The findings of the current study deepen our understanding about the distinctive role of
PSMCDs in the recent curriculum reform and how they perceived their competence in leading
it. However, there are several issues that were not addressed in this study but would be worthwhile
topics for future research. First, data collected for the current study were mainly from PSMCDs
themselves. Future studies may want to explore views from other stakeholders, such as principals
and teachers, to triangulate the findings. Future study is needed to identify specific skills and
behaviours that may help improve the competence of PSMCDs in leading the reform and how these
skills and behaviours may be correlated to effectiveness. The last topic which should be examined
by future research is the relationship between PSMCDs’ perceptions and some background vari-
ables such as years of experience in the post, school size, student performance, and academic and
professional qualifications.

Notes
1. The eight key learning areas are as follows: Chinese Language Education, English Language Education,
Mathematics Education, Science Education, Technology Education, Personal, Social and Humanities
Education, Arts Education and Physical Education.
2. There was only one PSMCD in each school.

References
Acker-Hocevar M and Touchton D (1999) A model of power as social relationships: teacher leaders describe
the phenomena of effective agency in practice. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American
Educational Research Association, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.

Downloaded from ema.sagepub.com at CORNELL UNIV on October 18, 2016

18 Educational Management Administration & Leadership

Acker-Hocevar M and Touchton D (1999) A Model of Power as Social Relationships: Teacher Leaders
Describe the Phenomena of Effective Agency in Practice.
Ash RC and Persall JM (2000) The principal as chief learning officer: Developing teacher leaders. NASSP
Bulletin, 84(616), 15–22.
Authors (2009)
Babbie E. (2007) The practice of social research. Belmont, CA: Thomas Wadsworth.
Bates RR (2002) Administering the global trap: the role of educational leaders. Educational Management &
Administration 30: 139–156.
Benson KM (2006) Conversations of Curriculum Reform: Students’ and Teachers’ Voices Interpreted
through Autobiographical and Phenomenological Texts. New York: Peter Lang.
Blase J (2009) Bringing Out the Best in Teachers: What Effective Principals Do. Thousand Oaks, California:
Corwin Press.
Brundrett M and Duncan D (2011) Leading curriculum innovation in primary schools. Management in
Education 25(3): 119–124.
Cardno C (2006) Leading change from within: action research to strengthen curriculum leadership in a
primary school. School Leadership & Management 26(5): 453–471.
Chen E (2001) The road to educational reform: new economy and new technology. Spring Drizzle 79(1): 1–2
[in Chinese].
Cheung MK (1998) Post-modern Perspective on Curriculum. New York: Teachers College Press.
Conley S and Muncey DE (1999) Teachers talk about teaming and leadership in their work. Theory Into
Practice 38: 46–55.
Creswell JW (2012) Educational Research: Planning, Conducting, and Evaluating Quantitative and Quali-
tative Research. London: Pearson.
Crowther F, Kaagen SS, Ferguson M and Hann L (2002) Developing Teacher Leaders: How Teacher
Leadership Enhances School Success. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Doll WE (1993) A Post-modern Education. Taipei: Yang Chih Book Co.
Education Commission (2000) Reform Proposals for the Education System in Hong Kong. Hong Kong:
Government Printing Department.
Frost D (2012) From professional development to system change: teacher leadership and innovation. Pro-
fessional Development in Education 38(2): 205–227.
Hammersley-Fletcher L and Strain M (2011) Power, agency and middle leadership in English primary
schools. British Educational Research Journal 37(5): 871–884.
Hannay LM and Seller W (1991) The curriculum leadership role in facilitating curriculum deliberation.
Journal of Curriculum and Supervision 6(4): 340–357.
Hart AW (1995) Reconceiving school leadership: emergent views. Elementary School Journal 96: 9–28.
Henderson JG (2007) Transformative Curriculum Leadership. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Merrill/
Prentice Hall.
Hong Kong Education Bureau (2001) Learning to Learn: The Way Forward in Curriculum Development.
Hong Kong: Government Printer.
Hong Kong Education Commission (2000) Learning for Life, Learning through Life: Reform Proposals for
the Education System in Hong Kong. Hong Kong: Government Printer.
Hong Kong Education Bureau (2002) Key Learning Areas/General Studies for Primary School Curriculum
Guide. Hong Kong: Government Printer.
Hong Kong Education and Manpower Bureau (2003) Education and Manpower Bureau Circular No. 9/2003:
Provision of an Additional Teacher Post for Leading Curriculum Development in Primary Schools for
Five Years for the 2003/04 School Year. Hong Kong: Education and Manpower Bureau.

Downloaded from ema.sagepub.com at CORNELL UNIV on October 18, 2016

Cheung and Yuen: Examining the Perceptions of Curriculum Leaders on Primary School Reform 19

Hui SKF and Li WS (2008) Attitudes towards action research: the case of curriculum leaders in
Hong Kong. In Li WS, Yu WM and Hui SKF (eds) Curriculum Leadership and School Devel-
opment: A Collection of Action Research Project. Hong Kong: Academic and Professional Book
Centre, pp. 41–64.
Jin YL and Li L (2011) A postmodern perspective on current curriculum reform in China. Chinese Education
& Society 44(4): 25–43.
Katzenmeyer M and Moller G (2001) Awakening the Sleeping Giant: Helping Teachers Develop as Leaders,
2nd edn. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Law E and Galton M (2004) Impact of a school-based curriculum project on teachers and students: a Hong
Kong case study. Curriculum Perspectives 24(3): pp. 43–58.
Law EF (2011) Exploring the role of leadership in facilitating teacher learning in Hong Kong. School
Leadership & Management 31(4): 393–410.
Law EF, Galton EM and Wan SY (2007) Developing curriculum leadership in schools: Hong Kong per-
spectives. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education 35(2): 143–159.
Leander KM and Osborne MD (2008) Complex positioning: teachers as agents of curricular and pedagogical
reform. Journal of Curriculum Studies 40(1): 23–46.
Leithwood K and Duke DL (1999) A century’s quest to understand school leadership. In Louis KS and
Murphy J (eds) Handbook of Research on Educational Administration, 2nd edn. San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass, pp. 45–72.
Li WS (2004, November) Expectations of curriculum leaders in primary schools: Issues and implica-
tions. Australian Association for Research in Education (AARE) Conference, 2004. Available at:
http://publications.aare.edu.au/04pap/li04177.pdf (accessed April 15 2015).
Lieberman A and Miller L (1999) Teachers: Transforming Their World and Their Work. New York:
Teachers College Press.
Little JW (1995) Contested ground: the basis of teacher leadership in two restructuring high schools. Ele-
mentary School Journal 96: 47–63.
Little JW (2003) Constructions of teacher leadership in three periods of policy and reform activism. School
Leadership & Management 23(4): 401–419.
Lo YC (2004) Utilizing curriculum adaptation strategy to cater for students’ individual differences: an
analysis of teachers’ views. New Horizons in Education 49: 122–129 [in Chinese].
Lo YC (2007) The micro-politics of curriculum leadership. Curriculum Perspectives 27(1): 26–39
Macpherson I, Aspland T, Brooker R and Elliott B (1999) Places and Spaces for Teachers in Curriculum
Leadership. Deakin West, ACT: Australian Curriculum Studies Association.
Macpherson I and Brooker R (2000) Positioning stakeholders in curriculum leadership: how can teacher
educators work with teachers to discover and create their place? Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Educa-
tion 28(1): 69–85.
Morrison K (1998) Management Theories for Educational Change. London: Paul Chapman.
Ng SW (2011) Curriculum development in a time of globalization: value-added intelligence. New Horizons in
Education 59(2): 83–89.
Paulu N and Winters K (1998) Teachers Leading the Way: Voices from the National Teacher Forum.
Washington, DC: US Department of Education.
Pellicer LO and Anderson LW (1995) A Handbook for Teacher Leaders. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Schwarz G (1998) Teacher Lore and Professional Development for School Reform. Westport, CT: Bergin and
Garvey.
Silva DY, Gimbert B and Nolan J (2000) Sliding the doors: Locking and unlocking possibilities for teacher
leadership. Teachers College Record 102: 779–804.

Downloaded from ema.sagepub.com at CORNELL UNIV on October 18, 2016

20 Educational Management Administration & Leadership

Slattery P (2006) Curriculum Development in the Postmodern Era. New York: Routledge.
Snell J and Swanson J (2000) The essential knowledge and skills of teacher leaders: A search for a
conceptual framework. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Education Research
Association, New Orleans, LA.
Tam CFA (2010) Understanding the leadership qualities of a head of department coping with
curriculum changes in a Hong Kong secondary school. School Leadership & Management 30(4):
367–386.
Tashakkori A and Creswell JW (2007a) Exploring the nature of research questions in mixed methods
research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research 1(3): 207–211.
Tashakkori A and Creswell JW (2007b) The new era of mixed methods. Journal of Mixed Methods Research
1(1): 3–7.
Teddlie C and Tashakkori A (2009) Foundations of Mixed Methods Research: Integrating Quantitative and
Qualitative Approaches in the Social and Behavioral Sciences. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE.
Tashakkori A and Teddlie C (eds) (2002) Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social and Behavorial Research.
Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Waks LJ (2006) How Globalization Can Cause Fundamental Curriculum Change: An American Perspective.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Whitaker T (1995) Informal teacher leadership: the key to successful change in the middle level. NASSP
Bulletin 79(567): 76–81.
Wilson M (1993) The search for teacher leaders. Educational Leadership 50(6): 24–27.
Wong PM and Cheung A (2009) Managing the process of an educational change: A study of schoolheads’
support for Hong Kong’s curriculum reform. International Journal of Educational Management 23(1):
87–106.
York-Barr J and Duke K (2004) What do we know about teacher leadership? Findings from two decades of
scholarship. Review of Educational Research 74(3): 255–316.

Author biographies
Alan Chi Keung Cheung is currently Professor in the Department of Educational Administration
and Policy and director of The Centre for University and School Partnership at The Chinese
University of Hong Kong. His research areas include international education, school reform, and
research reviews.

Timothy Wai Wa Yuen graduated from the University of Hong Kong having studied economics
and political science, and he earned his doctoral degree from Durham University (UK) He serves as
an Assistant Professor in the Education Policy and Leadership Department, The Hong Kong
Institute of Education. His research interest is on citizenship/political education and education
policies.

Downloaded from ema.sagepub.com at CORNELL UNIV on October 18, 2016