Teachers' interpretation of curriculum as a window into ‘curriculum potential’

AbstractBen‐Peretz's (1975) concept of intended curriculum describes a version of curriculum that ‘official’ curriculum developers create to provide a detailed guide to what teachers are required to teach in schools. While some curricula are intended to guide learning, others give a more definitive regulation of what must be taught. Either way, they are a product of curriculum developers writing government policy that defines what is considered essential for students to know. The teacher then undertakes the technical task of interpreting these policy texts to discern how they will introduce the content to their students. Once the teacher receives the curriculum text, they begin a translation process. While the curriculum developer has a vision of how teachers will interpret the curriculum, the teacher's translation of the curriculum text is filtered through the teachers' understanding of the subject matter. This notion of ‘curriculum potential’ represents the culmination of the teacher's subject matter knowledge acquired throughout their education and career which serves as the reference point for curriculum interpretation. This article describes the process of curriculum interpretation used by primary teachers during the implementation of Australian curriculum reform. The study examined the interpretation process from the intended curriculum to the planned curriculum to the enacted curriculum used by the teachers and the influences impacting upon these processes. The analysis of the teachers' interpretations was demonstrated through a process for curriculum mapping developed for this study. This work will present the teachers' pathways to curriculum enactment as a hermeneutic interpretation of curriculum, revealing the teachers' curriculum potential. While frequently descriptions of curriculum potential focuss on subject matter knowledge, analysis of primary teacher curriculum interpretation necessitates a broader definition. The paper concludes that the primary teachers' interpretation process is drawn from a wider curriculum potential that intersects their knowledge of subject matter and knowledge of their students.