CHAPTER FOUR
4.5 Curriculum Implementation
Implementation according to Fullan (2001) consists of the process of putting into practice an idea, program, or set of activities and structures new to the people attempting or expected to change. The change may be externally imposed or voluntarily sought explicitly defined in detail in advance or developed and adapted incrementally through use; designed to be used uniformly or deliberately planned so that users can make modifications according to their perceptions of the needs of the situation (Fullan, 1991). If the change is externally imposed, it is usually referred to as a top-down approach. This change may also potentially involve materials, teaching and beliefs in order to achieve certain desired student outcomes. According to Macdonald (2007) this was done to „teacher-proof the curriculum‟. With this approach, the teacher had a very passive role to play and had no input to the development and construction of the innovation. The goal of this approach was to assure high levels of congruency between the planning and the implementation of the curriculum (Fullan, 1993). For this approach to be successful the curriculum had to be adopted with very little deviation. This approach fails to deal with teacher concerns. Fullan (1993) also asserts that policymakers lacked understanding about implementation as a phase within in the change process and how to influence teaching practice. With the top-down approach, teachers had a tendency to adapt the curriculum rather than to adopt it (Brady & Kennedy, 2007). A contrasting approach to curriculum change was the „bottom-up‟ or „school based‟. In this approach curriculum was developed within individual schools. According to Lovat & Smith (2003), this approach was widely used in Australian schools in the late 1970s and 1980s. This approach was used because teachers experienced difficulties in managing the teacher-proof curriculum packages. This approach was limited in its effectiveness
95
because there was low fidelity to the innovation. The approach failed to take into account that teachers tend to act out of their own self-interest and the subjective meanings that they attribute to situations (Lovat & Smith, 2003). Teachers benefit from developing their own assumptions about the curriculum before adopting it.
The processes beyond adoption are more intricate, because they involve more people, and real change (as distinct from verbal or “on-paper” decisions) is at stake. Many attempts at policy and programme change have concentrated on product development, legislation, and other on-paper changes in a way that ignored the fact that what people did and did not do was the crucial variable. Fullan (1991) states that, this neglect is understandable, for people are much more unpredictable and difficult to deal with than things. They are also essential for success.
The positive side is that, the persistence of people-related problems in educational change has forged greater knowledge about what makes for success. Educational change is a learning experience for the adults involved (teachers, administrators and parents) as well as for children. If an innovation is fully implemented, several definable aspects of the classroom or school life will be altered. Implementation, according to Fullan (1991), is a variable. Educational policy affects multiple dimensions of social welfare, because of its promise to serve as a significant lever of change in an institution intended to serve all learners (Honig, 2004, p. 2). However changes get initiated, they proceed or not to some form of implementation and continuation, resulting in intended and /or unintended outcomes. Honig (2004) states that although “implementability” and “success” are still essential policy outcomes, they are not inherent properties of particular policies. Rather implementability and success are the product of interactions between policies, people and places. For innovating classroom practice, attention must not only be given to the production phase of a curriculum, but also to events after the production.The logic of implementation is depicted in FIGURE 5 (Fullan, 1991, P.48).
FIGURE 5
The Logic of Implementation
→ → → → initiation
Initiation Implementation Continuation Outcome
96
There are three main observations to be made about Figure 5. Firstly, Fullan (1991) states that implementation is the hypothesized means of accomplishing improved student achievement. The processes that eventually lead up to and end with the decision to take up a specific innovation proposal has been referred to as the initiation phase. In the implementation phase participants attempt to use the innovation proposal in order to change their practice. Thus while the initiation phase is concerned with the nominal use of the curriculum, the implementation phase focuses on the actual use. Fullan (1994) states that the study of the implementation process is concerned with the nature and extent of actual change. This also includes the factors and processes that influence how and what changes are achieved. In the continuation phase the innovation is built into the routine organization, and extra support is withdrawn. Implementation is concerned with initial use of the innovation under project conditions while continuation deals with mature use under standard conditions.
According to (Marsh, 1997, p. 157) there are two extreme views about curriculum implementation. One view is that teachers have absolute powers of what will or will not be implemented in their classrooms („power behind the classroom door‟). In reality, it is not possible for any individual teacher to have such wide powers. If implementation does not occur or only partially occurs, that is, when materials change but teaching approach does not, it is unlikely that the desired outcome will be achieved (Gray,1982).
The other extreme view is that an external authority exercises complete prescription over what teachers do in their respective classrooms, and that it directs teachers in selecting and using particular topics or units in specified ways. A realistic view of curriculum implementation lies therefore between these two extremes. Some subjects in schools are considered to be important core areas and are given detailed treatment in syllabus documents. For these subjects, teachers may be expected to cover particular content and to follow a certain instructional sequence. Alternatively, there may be other subjects where teachers can exercise their creative flair and implement very special, individual versions of the curriculum. This is referred to as „adaptation‟
or „process orientation‟.
97
The alternative perspective to implementation is termed variously as „adaptation‟,
„process‟ and „mutual adaptation‟. Adherents of this approach maintain that differing organizational contexts and teacher needs will require on-site modifications (Berman
& Mclaughlin, 1977). They suggest that all innovations become modified during the process of implementation and that this is vital, if it is to achieve the outcomes desired by the users. The term „mutual adaptation‟ is described as a process whereby adjustments are made to the innovation itself and to the institutional setting. This term has been reified in the literature as the desirable consensual modification between developers and users and possibly the most effective way of ensuring successful implementation. For example, Macdonald and Walker (1976) maintain that implementation really involves „negotiation‟ and that there are trade-offs in meaning between curriculum developers and teachers. The curriculum package which appears as a well-defined blueprint is perceived by classroom practitioners as a malleable entity to be adapted.
Adherents of the fidelity perspective emphasize the importance of the innovation itself and assume that products which can be demonstrated to be exemplary and effective will be readily accepted by teachers in schools. Marsh (1997) states that in a fidelity perspective, a structured approach to implementation is recommended whereby teachers are given explicit instructions about how to teach a unit or course.
The instructions to teachers are specified a priori, and this means, little provision is made for the various school contexts in which the unit might be used. The basic assumptions are:
central planning and definition is necessary to eliminate the inefficiency that occurs when local users are left with leeway to define an innovation;
the less ambiguity and authority left to implementers, the greater the fidelity;
evaluation is conducted to assess how closely implementation resembles the plan for programme execution.(Marsh, 1997, p. 159)
This orientation to implementation implies that the classroom teacher must be thoroughly trained to use the new programme or unit. It also appears that the
98
teacher‟s role is largely that of passive receiver, who will be willing to be trained to use the new curriculum package and once having received this training, will teach it at a high level of technical proficiency. Undoubtedly some curriculum packages are suited to this, especially where the content is complex and difficult to master and thereby requires careful sequencing; in subjects where teachers may lack the necessary knowledge or skills; and in subjects or units where appropriate diagnostic and achievement tests can be incorporated
A contrasting conceptualization of the implementation problem is provided by the adaptive-evolutionary approach. This approach accepts that the innovation as it has been devised will be modified during the course of its implementation. Berman &
Mclaughlin 1977) states that “the primary feature of effective implementation could be called “mutual adaptation”. In this context the project is adapted to its institutional context. The organizational patterns are adapted to meet the demands of the project.
With this approach an attempt is made to identify the interaction of the innovation and setting in order to determine how they influence or alter each other (Gray, 1982).