Implementing agents encounter policy in a complex web of organisational structures, professional affiliations, social networks, and traditions. Both macro and micro aspects of the situation are important for implementing agents‘ sense-making. (Spillane et al., 2002, p.404)
As this quotation indicates, the organisational structures within which curriculum policy is enacted can either hamper or promote change. In those school contexts where there is no collegial social environment, teachers may get frustrated and abandon their efforts to try new ideas. Spillane et al. (2002) suggest that implementing agents need to work within a community of practice, where they can support each other and make sense of new ideas. Thus at school level there is a need for a favourable social climate where teachers can work collaboratively. In the absence of such a collegial environment, curriculum reforms promoting integrated approaches may face serious challenges. The importance of warm and open social relations among teachers attempting to implement curriculum change is succinctly captured by Snyder, Bolin and Zumwalt (1992, p. 417): ―The more collegiality, trust, support, interaction and open communication between teachers, the greater the degree of implementation [of curriculum innovations]‖.
Unfortunately, as the literature shows, in many countries this collegial environment does not exist, given the isolated nature of teachers‘ work, heavy workloads and inflexible time-tables (Lee 2000; Cotton, 2006; Stevenson, 2007; McKernan, 2008; Martina, Hursh & Markowitz, 2009). In elaborating on some of these factors Martina et al. (2009), for example, note that in the US, as would be the case elsewhere, teachers typically work in an isolated environment. They argue that this isolation is reinforced by the organisational structure of schools, wherein teaching is conducted in a private classroom space, which can be likened to a black box. Making classrooms private spaces creates a culture of individualism among teachers, to the extent that they generally do not like to be observed by or to observe other teachers (ibid.). These factors, coupled with the traditional role of schools (to transmit basic knowledge and
skills), may pose a serious challenge to the implementation of progressive educational ideas such as reflective practice, critical thinking and participatory learning approaches (Carr & Kemmis, 1986; Walker, 1997; Stevenson, 2007; McKernan, 2008).
External support from national or district education authorities and other key stakeholders is also identified as an important organisational structure influencing the implementation of curriculum reform and change (Fullan, 1991; Snyder, Bolin & Zumwalt, 1992; Lee 2000). In his widely quoted book, Fullan (1991) asserts that the successful implementation of curriculum is influenced by support structures in the broader society. These structures include not only departments of education, but also faculties of education and other regional organisations – in this case, subject associations and environmental education networks. If teachers have a perception that they are not receiving support from these structures they may develop a sense of powerlessness in respect of trying out new curriculum ideas. Lee (2000) reports research evidence to the effect that inadequate assistance from the Department of Education and environmental organisations in China had a negative influence on teachers‘ receptivity of environmental education innovations. This confirms Cornbleth‘s (1990) argument that curriculum change requires supportive structures: that changing the curriculum may require changing these structures as well.
There is also a large body of literature suggesting that public examinations exert undue pressure on teachers, thereby making them reluctant to enact new policy, especially if the innovation is not paired with incentives in the form of external support and clear guidelines (Lee, 2000; Yeung, 2001; Tabulawa, 2003; Cotton, 2006). As I mentioned in Section 4.8, examination agencies are important curriculum decision-makers, and because teachers generally teach for examinations, the successful implementation of curriculum reforms depends in part upon how supportive and responsive the examining bodies are. Lee (2000) notes of the education system in China, that classroom teaching is characterised by teacher authority and student obedience, reflecting a perceived need to cover the examination syllabus within the given time. Similarly, in the UK, the failure to implement environmental education underpinned by a socially critical paradigm is attributed to the demands of external examinations (Cotton, 2006).
As noted in Chapter 2, similar observations have been made in Lesotho, where an overemphasis on public examinations is seen by many as one of the root causes of curriculum stasis (Muzvidzewa & Seotsanyane, 2002; Ansell, 2002; Mokuku et al., 2005; Nketekete & Motebang, 2008). In particular, Nketekete and Motebang (2008) claim that public examinations for business education do not reflect core values and skills, with the result that most teachers stick to outdated didactic methods incapable of promoting the potential for enterprise and entrepreneurship.
4.13 Conclusion
The review of literature presented in this chapter illustrates that the curriculum and attempts to reform it are influenced by various knowledge ideologies or paradigms. Each of these paradigms has ontological, epistemological and methodological assumptions about the curriculum and curriculum change, and embedded in these assumptions are definitions of curriculum and curriculum change. Within the framework of these knowledge paradigms, conceptions of curriculum vary on a continuum from a plan of what should be taught, to a broader view in terms of which it is seen as an experience that a learner goes through under the guidance of a school, conceived of as a democratic sphere. Curriculum change may be seen, at one extreme, as a technical exercise involving a change of goals and objectives in order to align them with national needs, while, at another, it is seen as serving the purpose of emancipating learners with a view to achieving social transformation.
The chapter has also described the process of curriculum policy-making, emphasising that it is political in nature, characterised by struggle, contestation, domination and exclusion. This process is illustrated in this chapter through a policy cycle model describing what happens from the first level of policy formulation to the level of classroom practice where policy is enacted. It emerged from the description of these processes that curriculum policy is often recreated in the context of practice, rather than being implemented as intended. The literature reviewed in this chapter shows that there are international influences on curriculum reforms, especially in developing countries.
I have also reviewed the role of textbooks and teacher professional development as strategies used to support curriculum change. It emerged that textbooks on their own may not be effective agents of change because teachers tend to prefer books that support their existing practices. Hence, fundamental curriculum reforms require effective teacher professional development. Finally, the literature review illustrates that curriculum policy implementation at classroom level is mediated through contextual factors which may be internal or external to the classroom. Some of these factors are implicit and difficult to change.
The review of literature presented in this chapter provides a theoretical context for analysing the social context of LEESP policy guidelines and what emerged from that process (see Chapters 6 and 7). It also provides theoretical perspectives for analysing geography curriculum materials and classroom practice to understand how environmental policies relate to other existing texts (chapters 8 and 9), and how teachers interpret their messages and implement them at the level of classroom practice (chapters 10 and 11). Finally, the chapter assisted in the process of choosing a research methodology, which is presented in the next chapter.
CHAPTER 5
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY AND METHODS 5.1 Introduction
In this chapter I describe the research methodology and the methods that I used to organise this study and generate data. I first describe my research orientation, and then the case study method. I also describe the research schools and research participants. I then discuss the methods that were used for data generation and analysis. Finally, I describe the measures that I took to ensure the validity and trustworthiness of the findings of the study.