THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
3.2 A THEORY OF IMPLEMENTATION
I developed the theoretical framework for this study by adapting the theory of implementation proposed by Rogan and Grayson (2003). I used the theoretical framework as a guide to identify the factors that I needed to explore to gain an understanding on how teachers implemented the Natural Science Curriculum in the Life Skills Programme. The theoretical framework (Figure 3.1) explains the structure of the study. It guided the design of the instruments as well as the analysis of the data.
The Rogan and Grayson model has been modified in many ways. In this study the model is used for determining how individual teachers implement the curriculum whereas the original model by Rogan and Grayson considers the curriculum implementation for a school.
This study uses the model for relating the way teachers interpreted the curriculum whereas the Rogan and Grayson model concentrated on the enacted and the implemented curriculum in the classroom. This study draws on data from the teachers as they are the focus of this study. The Rogan and Grayson model obtained the data from various sources, like school records. Since this study is focussed on the Foundation Phase, several descriptors of the constructs were adjusted to the foundation phase context. The context determined descriptors usually are defined by the researcher, whereas in this study the descriptors are defined at least in part on the basis of the data collected.
For each of the constructs in the theoretical framework, I identified factors that could possibly be responsible for teachers’ interpretation and implementation of the curriculum.
These factors were decided on as they pertain to the teachers in Foundation Phase within the South African context.
69
Figure 3.1: A diagrammatic representation of the Theoretical Framework for the study (Rogan 2007, p. 99)
I consulted with the RNCS documents to identify the sub-constructs. I designed the instruments for each of the methods of data collection around the factors that constitute the theoretical framework. I will discuss the design of the instruments using the theoretical framework as an analytical tool in detail in the chapter four.
While Rogan and Grayson (2003) used this framework to evaluate the extent to which schools are able to implement an innovative curriculum such as C2005, which differed drastically from any curriculum implemented previously, this framework will be used to determine the degree to which the individual teachers who participated in the study, were able to implement the Natural Science Curriculum in the Foundation Phase. I will now discuss each of the main constructs and their sub-constructs.
Physical
Resources Learner Support Professional
Development
Support from Outside Agencies
Teacher
Factors Learner Factors Hands-on
Science Integration of
Natural Science
Capacity to Support Innovation Profile of
Implementation
The Nature of Classroom Interaction
Scientific Investigations
School Ethos and Management
Physical Resources
70
3.2.1 Support from Outside Agencies
For the purposes of this study, I classified outside agencies as organisations outside the school, including departments of education that interact with a school in order to facilitate innovation.
Support from outside agencies, in the South African context, comes mainly from the National Department of Education and the provincial departments. Whilst the national department is responsible for developing policy, the provincial departments are responsible for their execution. Other sources of support from outside agencies could be teacher unions as they conduct workshops and training sessions for teachers.
Further to this support from outside agencies are “material and/or non-material support” (Rogan & Grayson, 2003, p. 1192). The material support is the infrastructure, equipment and resources. The non-material support is in the form of professional development and learner support. Professional development, according to Rogan and Grayson (2003) is
“the most visible and obvious way in which outside agencies attempt to bring about changes in schools” (p. 11192). Refer to Figure 3.1 for a schematic representation for the support from outside agencies. These kinds of support may be offered at a range of levels. At the lower level, information of the support is merely provided. As the different levels are attained, there is growing importance on implementation of change rather than just providing the information.
The levels range from single training sessions to on-going school based development. Some professional developments may provide information on changes and others may provide support structures to assist teachers during the change. The number and length of the support is key to the development of teachers. In the South African context, learner support would include the support learners receive from their parents as well as academic support with respect to their language of instruction.
The construct, support from outside agencies illustrates the types of behaviour or activities outside organisations embark on “to influence school’s practice, either by support or sanction” (Rogan, 2007, p. 100). In addition, it includes the manner in which they make evident their intentions. Such activities could have a profound influence on how the curriculum is implemented.
3.2.2 Capacity to Support Innovation
The construct capacity to support innovation is used to comprehend and extend the elements that are able to sustain or hamper the execution of innovative ideas and practices in a system as a school (Rogan & Grayson 2003). Not all schools have the ability to execute a given
71
innovation to the same degree. Probable indicators of the capacity to support innovation constructs may be divided into four groups, physical resources, teacher and learner factors and the school ethos and management. Refer to Figure 3.1 for a schematic representation of the capacity to support innovation.
Before the discussion of physical resources proceeds, it is important to distinguish between the physical resources as they appear in the construct capacity to support innovation and the support from outside agencies in the theoretical framework. Physical resources as a sub-construct of the support from outside agencies relate to resources that pertain to the school infrastructure, which could directly or indirectly affect the teacher’s teaching of Natural Science. These physical resources include the buildings, furniture, electricity, toilets, textbooks, security and the science apparatus that is provided by the school. Physical resources as a sub-construct of the capacity to support innovation considers aspects of resources that relate to the teachers use of available resources in the classroom. These physical resources include charts, chalkboard and workbooks that the teacher uses.
Teacher factors include qualification, experience, confidence, commitment, subject content knowledge and pedagogical content knowledge. Learner factors include learners’
home background and their language of instruction. School ethos and management include the timetable, class lists and routines, presence of the principal, school governing body, school functions, school security and parents’ role. Teachers are placed at a particular level, which illustrates their capacity to innovate. An increase in the level designates a larger capacity to innovate. The levels correspond to a succession and the critical objective for a school would be to attain level four on all four factors.
The capacity to innovate is aimed at the degree to which the different issues may be considered to afford an improvement and further create an efficient learning experience for the learner. As Rogan and Grayson (2003) point out, “more laboratory equipment in schools should increase the capacity to innovate, but if it remains in unopened boxes then it will have no impact on the learning experience.” They go on to say, “Similarly, if teachers attend workshops on learner-centred teaching approaches but do not implement them in their classrooms then the learning experience will not be affected” (p. 1201). These patterns are frequently observed and take place in South Africa and other developing countries (Verspoor, 1989, p. 110). Attempts like these should hypothetically enhance the capacity to innovate, however if they are not linked to “developing the learners then implementation cannot be seen to have advanced” (Rogan & Grayson, 2003, p. 1201). Rogan and Grayson (2003) suggest
72
that these constructs point towards a ZFI within schools, which may increase to accommodate more constructs as teachers develop their own capacity to innovate a new curriculum.
3.2.3 The Profile of Implementation
The construct, profile of implementation, is used to comprehend and articulate the degree to which the principles of a set of curriculum proposals are being put into practice. An assumption is made on what constitutes “good practice” and what it appears as in the classroom. In the context of this study, the assumption is made that good practice involves learners doing Science and teachers teaching Science using inquiry-based methodologies. Furthermore, good practice would entail the ability to integrate Natural Science effectively in the curriculum. There are also different degrees of implementation of the new curriculum. (Rogan & Grayson, 2003, p.
1182)
The profile of implementation is intended to suggest a plan of the learning area and to propose a number of potential paths that could be taken to a number of destinations (Rogan
& Grayson 2003, p. 1181). For the purposes of this study, the probable dimensions of the profile of implementation are the nature of the classroom interaction, the use and nature of hands-on science, scientific investigations and the integration of Natural Science within the Life Skills Learning Programme. Refer to Figure 3.1 for a schematic representation of the profile of implementation. The theoretical framework as I have adapted it does not have assessment as a separate construct within the profile of implementation. The reason for this is that assessment is integrated within the teaching and learning in Foundation Phase. It is envisaged that assessment will form part of each of the sub-constructs of the profile of implementation and not seen as being separate. Assessment in the Foundation Phase is elaborated on in the literature review.
Rogan and Grayson (2003) maintain that the dimension “classroom interaction is generic and could, with minor changes be applied to any learning area” (p. 1182). The other dimensions are unique to Science. The reason for the choice of dimensions relates to how Natural Science may, ideally, be taught in the Foundation Phase. Natural Science should be hands-on, which implies there should be more ‘doing’ Science. Scientific investigation is selected as a dimension since it is the only Learning Outcome in the foundation phase Natural Science Curriculum according to the RNCS (Department of Education, 2003). The dimension, the integration of Natural Science within the Life Skills Learning Programme is chosen as this is prescribed by the curriculum documents. The integration of Natural Science will incorporate
73
Learning Outcome Three: Science, society and the environment. There would be four levels of interaction from teacher-demonstrations (level one) to open-ended learner-centred investigations (level four). The practices described in level four should be more refined than those at level one. According to Rogan and Grayson (2003), the levels are not dictatorial of what should be accomplished at any given instant, but rather advise the mastery and use of a growing variety of teaching and learning strategies. The shift in the levels also indicates “a rising prominence to learner-centred approaches” (p. 1182).