Objective: The shadow curriculum functions like a phantom that casts a heavy influence over the formal curriculum of the educational system through the collective and implicit awareness of teachers and students, potentially diverting it from its intended path. Such deviation at the primary level can distance learners from the core objectives of the curriculum even in higher educational stages. Therefore, the present study aims to identify the components of the shadow(underground)curriculum at the primary level. The researcher seeks to identify components related to its dimensions, reasons, and consequences within the formal primary education system.
Materials and Methods: This study adopts a qualitative approach and was conducted using a phenomenological method. The participants included primary school teachers from Saveh, who were selected through purposive sampling using key informants. Their lived experiences were collected. Data were gathered through semi-structured interviews. After 11 interviews, theoretical saturation was achieved, and the data were analyzed using inductive qualitative content analysis. To ensure the validity and reliability of the study, the four criteria proposed by Lincoln and Guba (1985) credibility, dependability, confirmability, and transferability were employed.
Discussion and Conclusion: Based on the research findings and analysis of interview data, a total of 10 core categories and 29 main categories were identified. Regarding the components related to dimensions, three core categories were identified: teaching methods, assessment methods, and the management of teaching–learning processes. In relation to the reasons of the emergence of the shadow curriculum at this level, four core categories were identified: curriculum elements, economic factors, educational factors, and supervisory factors. Additionally, the components related to consequences comprised three core categories: challenges faced by learners, challenges faced by teachers, and challenges related to the general goals of education.
Findings concerning the dimensions of the shadow curriculum in primary education indicate that the dominant approach in implementing qualitative descriptive assessment guidelines tends to be quantitative in nature. Furthermore, feedback is not provided in alignment with the official objectives, and the assessment process is not taken seriously by students. Regarding teaching methods, the findings reveal a lack of attention to active teaching methods in classrooms, resistance to their implementation, and even the omission of certain parts of the curriculum content. Another dimension pertains to the management of teaching-learning processes, which reflects time and classroom management practices that deviate from officially prescribed curriculum standards.With respect to the causes of the shadow curriculum, the findings suggest that a combination of interrelated factors including the mismatch between allocated time and curriculum content volume, insufficient salaries and benefits for teachers alongside limited financial and educational resources, inadequate attention by policymakers to pre-service and in-service teacher training, and insufficient monitoring of curriculum implementation has led to practices that conflict with the formal curriculum.
Ultimately, the shadow curriculum can create challenges for learners, such as lack of engagement with the curriculum, weakness in higher educational levels, and disruption in academic and career guidance processes. It may also result in reduced motivation among teachers toward training programs and educational initiatives, as well as damage to their professional status from the perspectives of families and students. From a broader perspective, the shadow curriculum may push the general education system toward credentialism rather than the transmission and development of knowledge, and diminish learners’ research capacity and motivation. Given the findings indicating the impact and challenges posed by the shadow curriculum on the education system and its stakeholders including deviation from formal curriculum objectives, implementation of practices contrary to official guidelines, and negative effects on the motivation of teachers and learners it is essential to examine and address the underlying causes of this phenomenon. These include curriculum-related, educational, supervisory, and economic factors, in order to enhance the quality of the teaching–learning process at the primary education level.