THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
3.3 THE ZONE OF FEASIBLE INNOVATION (ZFI)
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).
74
Although the ZPD was initially developed to explain the learning potential of children, it also examines ZPD applications to the notion of teacher professional development (Shabani et al., 2010). Similarly, professional development approaches are suitable and valuable when they “proceed just ahead of current practice, but are within the zone of feasible innovation”
(Rogan & Aldous, 2005, p. 335). In this study, the focus is on the teachers’ capacity to innovate, which is not only their professional development but encompasses their interpretation and implementation of the curriculum. Davis (2002) maintained this idea by considering it from the perspective of teacher learning. She maintained that teacher learning is slow and steady and can be ‘overwhelming’ for teachers. To assist with this transition, teachers need to be given the time to reflect on the new. Certain key elements have to be taken into consideration before change can occur. These include a well-run school and teachers who are well informed of the intended changes (Davis, 2002, p.23).
The difference between the ZPD and ZFI is that ZPD is concerned with the
“appropriateness of learning strategies” for the learners (Rogan, 2006, p. 445). The ZFI is concerned with the appropriateness of the innovation taking into account the context as a whole, including but not limited to the teacher. According to Rogan (2006), a teacher might have “difficulty in implementing the expected innovation in one context but not in another” (p.
445).
The role of the social environment in the learning process is a thread that runs through Vygotsky’s writings (Vygotsky, 1998). The ZPD is strongly influenced by the context in which it operates. The role players in implementing innovation also form an important element of ZFI. Role players that are directly involved in the change require a chance to address the envisioned adaptations within their own situations. According to Rogan and Grayson (2003), “Professional change is brought about by encouraging role players to embrace codes of conduct and standards of teaching and learning” (p. 1194).
In most countries, including South Africa, curriculum is defined at macro-level.
According to Rogan (2006), “schools were given no say as to when and to what extent they would comply” with the department regulations regarding implementation (p. 449). Van den Akker (2003) makes a distinction between the various levels of the curriculum. The first level is the system/society/nation/state (or macro) level, the second is the school/institution (or meso) level, the third is the classroom (or micro) level and the fourth us the individual/personal (or nano) level. The ZFI is designed to operate at the micro-level, which is based on the supposition that those accountable for the execution at the classroom level should have the
75
ultimate say as to the rate and degree of the introduction of innovative practices and content (Rogan, 2006). It is agreed that change is needed but the question remains how much change is appropriate and should the implementation of these changes occur in steps (Boone & Kahle, 1997; Clune, 1998; Hargreaves & Fullen, 1998).
Since schools differ from one another in terms of infrastructure, funding, human resources and physical resources, any theory of curriculum implementation will need to consider this diversity. Failure to consider these differences in preparing teachers for a new curriculum would impact on implementation. Rogan and Grayson’s (2003) framework as adapted in Figure 3.1 suggest the three possible constructs of a theory of implementation and show how these constructs may be interconnected. These constructs share three important characteristics in that “they can be measured by means of indicators, they are broad enough to encompass a number of related factors and they are narrow enough to include one main idea”
(Rogan & Grayson, 2003, p. 1180).
Rogan and Grayson (2003) suggest that research should be conducted in a variety of contexts in order to see the extent to which commonalities in the processes of determining indicators for the constructs, which emerge, may be generalised. Similarly, research is required to see whether any generalisations may be made with regard to the indicators themselves and changes in the relative importance of them over time. Research conducted in different contexts will also shed light on the interplay of the constructs, again showing whether there are commonalities that arise across diverse contexts. These diverse contexts could range from the schools’ infrastructure to the teachers’ qualifications or to the type of learners. For example, some schools may not have the necessities such as electricity and water and another school might have beautiful buildings with modern technologies. However, it does not have to be at either extreme as there is a range between the two extremities. The school in which this study is conducted lies between these two extremities. It is state funded, it has electricity and water, the building are old but maintained and there is basic technology. The school environment is the same but the teachers are different. Some schools may have qualified teachers and another school might have under-qualified teachers.
The learning environment was selected as the element of investigation since this is where the “learners, teachers, curriculum and educational resources meet” (Rogan & Grayson, 2003, p. 1179). The theory focuses on learning and not really instruction, which is implementation in the classroom. The teacher is responsible for the teaching and to a large
76
extent also responsible for the learning that takes place in the classroom. Figure 3.2 shows the various levels in which the education system in South Africa is organised.
Figure 3.2: The various levels according to which education is organised in South Africa (Rogan & Grayson, 2003).
The ZFI is a hypothetical construct, which suggests that innovation should not exceed current practice by too large a gap between existing practice and the demands of the innovation.
Using the ZFI as an additional construct in this study should provide more insight into teacher’s implementation of the Natural Science Curriculum on whether they have the capacity to support innovation. The focus of the study is on the teachers’ abilities to interpret and implement a new innovative curriculum.
The theoretical framework for this study is entrenched in the relationship between the prescribed (intended) and the implemented curriculum. My application of the framework differs from that of Rogan and Grayson (2003) in that I will apply the framework to teachers and not to the whole school environment. My findings will assist me to understand and interpret teachers’ implementation of the Natural Science Curriculum and from this I will
Learning Students Instruction
Teacher Resources Curriculum Administration
School Management Governance
District
School Governing Bodies Community Local Council Provincial Education
77
attempt to determine the ZFI for each teacher with regard to practical work and integration of Natural Science in the Foundation Phase.
3.3.1 Determining the ZFI
Successions of intended actions are recommended as one probable method of determining and implementing a ZFI. Each of the constructs involves a number of steps. Although they are given as a series of linear steps in reality, their implementation will not be so. Step one involves the construction of a ‘continuum’ (Rogan, 2006, p. 451). A number of aspects need to be well thought-out throughout implementation. The existing practice and capability of the individual teachers needs to be considered. Teachers’ qualifications, experiences, beliefs, confidence, Science knowledge need to be taken into account. The continuum needs to be entrenched in actuality. The emphasis is on the development of the continuum, for example on the “types of hands-on, minds-on practical work that exist and where they fall on the continuum” (Rogan, 2006, p. 450). It is implied that within the notion of a ZFI there is a continuum of practice on which the zone is located. Figure 3.3 shows an example of the location of ZFI on the continuum (Rogan, 2006, p. 450)
Figure 3.3: An example of the location of ZFI on a continuum
Theoretically, it implies that the ZFI will expand as the capacity is increased. If the capacity to support innovation in a school is inadequate then the amount of innovation will be limited and this will imply that the ZFI will be narrow. In addition, Rogan (2006) cautions, “no single ZFI can be appropriate for all teachers even in the same school” (p. 451).
Step two involves generating a logical series within the continuum. This step involves interpreting the continuum by way of tangible classroom strategies and then to
“sequence these strategies using the content of the subject matter as a guide to facilitate implementation within local context” (Rogan, 2006, p. 451). The succession will be
ZFI
Current routine practices “Ideal” practice
e.g. learner-designed, open- ended projects open- ended projects
78
determined by achievability: what is convenient now, and what should be delayed until a later stage.
In step three, the amount of innovation (ZFI) that can be achieved must be decided.
According to Rogan (2006), “consultations at school level need to occur”, to find out where along the range present practice can be situated and what specific innovations will be attempted by whom in the immediate future (p. 453). With regard to this construct, I will have to decide on the amount of innovation, based on the findings obtained from the data, rather than by consultation.
Step four involves the implementation within the ZFI. School based curriculum managers such as head of department, senior teachers and grade heads maintain a major position as performance strategies are implemented. According to Rogan (2006) although many teachers supported C2005, this support did not automatically transform into effective implementation (p. 454). He maintains that for effective implementation to occur, teachers needed to be professionally motivated (Rogan, 2006, p. 454). I shall therefore have to determine teachers’ motivation levels.
Rogan and Grayson have suggested that a relationship exists between the constructs.
However, they realise that research is needed to establish these relationships in a variety of contexts. Research is also necessary to identify appropriate indicators for each of the constructs. They predict that it is unlikely that the indicators will be the same in all contexts or for all time. This study will attempt to determine the relationships between the different constructs and develop the indicators in the Foundation Phase.