Teaching is the practical manifestation of pedagogy and, therefore, the teacher should be a vital component in any attempt to reform and change should take into account. Teacher involvement should also be considered as a determining factor in institutional and curriculum development, as well as in the personal professional growth and empowerment of teachers themselves. Over the last two decades, the issues of teacher’s voice and direct involvement in the processes of curriculum change and development have increasingly been recognised in literature (Carl, 2005; Flores, 2005; Troudi, 2009, Castro, 2013). It is widely acknowledged that teachers have an essential role to play in the educational processes, in general, and in the processes that have to do with curriculum reform, specifically (Castro, 2013). Teacher participation can bring about constructive results, which may lead to active and dynamic curriculum development (Carl, 2009, p. 198). The use of the terms ‘teachers’ voice’, ‘teacher empowerment,’ and ‘teachers’ involvement’ in this study refer to giving the teachers a space of domination and control in the process of curriculum development and the ability to develop and practise a sense of agency (Canagarajah, 1999; Castro, 2013).
Brown holds that, ‘Involving teachers in systematic curriculum development may be the single best way to keep their professionalism vital and their interest in teaching alive’ (1995, p. 206). The ownership of curriculum by the teachers through their own
voice is important, since teachers play a key role in ensuring that curriculum changes can be handled by the students (Yildiz et al. 1980). Consequently, as stated by Kirk and Macdonald, ‘anchoring of teacher voice provides a key to understanding the perennial problem of the transformation of innovative ideas from conception to implementation’ (2001, p. 554). Teachers’ ownership of curriculum through strong voicing dictates the authority that such a curriculum has. This is in line with Jessop and Penny’s (1998) argument that ’for change to be implemented and sustained, teachers need to own the educational innovation and the process of change’ (p. 401). Genuine teacher participation in curriculum reform and development is only really possible with the inclusion of knowledgeable teachers, while the omission of teachers’ voice in the policy-making process could lead to minimising the value of any changes in curriculum development. According to Morgan & Rinvolucri (2004), the fact that teachers are developers of curriculum can be supported by the argument that curriculum development is a continuous process that never stops, and only educators are the ones best placed to understand when and where the changes are needed. All policies and changes that are associated with the curriculum must indeed be either initiated by the educators or, at the very least, influenced by them. Moreover, it should be acknowledged that teachers’ professional growth and curriculum development are inseparable.
Despite these developments, curriculum development in the context of Arab education has been largely based on the top-down model, which only engages teachers at the implementation stages of the curriculum, rather than at the initiation and development stages (Alwan, 2006). Morgan & Rinvolucri (2004) in their evaluation assert that such a top-down approach to curriculum development is minimally effective, as the educator component is conspicuously missing in its development. Straker (2008) similarly concurred that an approach integrating the teachers and other education policy-makers in the development of curriculum is likely to be more effective. To empower teachers to effectively participate in curriculum development, particularly in Arab contexts, their task-based research activities should be incorporated into the education systems of these countries in order to boost the quality and standards of the education received by learners.
This important role of the teachers in the process of curriculum development has been clearly acknowledged and highlighted in the literature (Elliot, 1994; Lieberman, 1997; Cuban, 1998; Carl, 2005; Priestley, 2005; Alwan, 2006; Orafi & Borg, 2009; Castro, 2013, etc.). Lieberman (1997), for example, emphasises the significant role that teachers' involvement in administrative decisions might play on the whole process of curriculum change. Similarly, Elliot (1994) views teachers as central agents in the developing of a curriculum, following their experiments with their students in class. Studies in the field of curriculum also suggest that, in order for a centrally-initiated curriculum change to be successful it should actively engage the ‘practitioners who are the foot-soldiers of every reform aimed at improving student outcomes’ (Cuban, 1998, p. 459). Moreover, studies on curriculum innovation reveal that the 'form which innovation takes in practice is to a large extent dependent on the attitudes and values of these practitioners, notably teachers' (Priestley, 2005, p. 29). Conversely, Carl (2005) presents the negative outcomes that the lack of teachers’ involvement in curriculum development may have. He contends that ‘By ignoring teachers’ voices, the outcomes of new thinking on curriculum development may in fact be thwarted, prolonging the dangerous situation that teachers, as potential curriculum agents, simply remain voices crying in the wildernesses’. Orafi and Borg (2009) also argue that educational innovation can be of limited value if teachers’ lived experiences and attitudes are not considered from the very start in the change process. Therefore, to effectively participate in the curriculum delivery, Abdallah (2011) suggests that EFL teachers take part in the design and establishment of curriculum in their respective educational backgrounds.
The role of teachers in curriculum development has continued to be the main focal point for further studies on curriculum change and more attention has been drawn to the fact that effective curriculum change should involve not only administrators and external experts, but also teachers in the curriculum planning and decision-making (Cheng, 1994). Rea-Dickens and Germaine (1998) similarly discuss the important role that teachers play when engaged in curriculum development, along with curriculum evaluation because of their experience in implementing a curriculum in their classrooms. In line with this, Fullan (2007) stresses the importance of the role the educators play in the change process. According to him, in order for a valid
change to occur, educators must have the motivation and the belief in the viability, value and potential of the proposed change. Educators must also believe in both the meaning of the proposed change and their meaningful role in it. Additionally, to cement that change, educators must also be able to demonstrate that they have experienced some success with it.
A debate has ensued as to whether the involvement of teachers should be considered at the implementation stage or whether their voices should be accommodated in all stages of the curriculum change (Peng, 2004). In support of this latter argument, most of the recent curriculum studies in literature appear to propose that teachers should factor in all the different stages and processes of curriculum development (Jessop & Penny, 1998; Carl, 2005; Alwan, 2006; Orafi & Borg, 2009; Kasapoglu, 2010; Castro, 2013, etc.). For Carl (2005), in order to ensure that teachers take ownership of the new developed curriculum in a significant way, teachers’ voices should be heard right from the initial stages of curriculum planning and development as they hold the principal role in its implementation, application and dissemination. Similarly, Castro (2013) stresses that teachers’ integration into the process of curriculum development could result in: the advancement of their professional development, the improvement of their personal commitment and satisfaction, and the increase of their self-esteem and professional status. Teachers should be given an opportunity to increase their sense of agency in the process of curriculum development in order to be influential active agents. In this regard, Carl (2005) states, ‘it is clear that quality teachers’ participation and involvement are essential, and change leaders must ensure that teachers are involved in all of the decisions, plans and activities related to the curricular change implementation if it is to be successful’ (2005, p.45).
In the Arab world, in general, and particularly in the context of this study teachers’ voice in the curriculum development tends to be minimal because of the model that most of these countries adopt (Al-Shehri, 2009). Until the proposed integrated pedagogical praxis combining both top-down and down-top models are adopted and applied, the teachers’ role in curriculum development will remain minimal.
3.8 Summary
In this chapter, an overview of the literature relevant to my area of investigation has been provided. More specifically, a detailed review of relevant studies within the paradigm of curriculum change and development has been presented. Here information about curriculum and its relation to the constructs of change, development, and teachers’ attitudes have been provided. Since the study attempts to explore EFL teachers' attitudes regarding curriculum change and development in the context of the Syrian Higher Institute of Languages, the main emphasis of the review has been on the ELT curriculum.