La Simulación como proceso experimental

One of the most significant factors that has been cited as affecting the implementation or non-implementation of an educational reform is how teachers perceive, and their attitudes towards, the anticipated and implemented curriculum reform. Carless (1997), Kyriakides (1997) and Mulat (2003) claim that teachers’ perceptions, attitudes and beliefs about the curriculum reform play a crucial role in the adoption, reinvention or rejection of a new curriculum. And Bantwini (2010) aptly notes that “teachers’ perceptions and beliefs influence and shape the meanings that the teachers eventually attach to the new reforms, which in turn play a vital role in their acceptance and classroom implementation” (p. 89).

Teachers’ perceptions and attitudes may develop from their own “learning experiences, training, teaching experience, interaction with colleagues and values and norms of the society in which they work” (Carless, 1998, p. 354). Teachers with good learning experience, effective training and teaching experience usually show positive attitudes and behaviour towards teaching and the innovation, which eventually results in a positive outcome. In a case study of the implementation of the Target-Oriented Curriculum (TOC) in primary schools in Hong Kong, Carless (ibid) found that a teacher with a positive attitude towards the innovation in the curriculum was able to foster the TOC in a way which was compatible with the constructivist view of learning adopted in the TOC framework despite some confusion during the implementation process.

Conversely, the existence of negative perceptions and attitudes on the part of teachers can mean English Language Teaching reforms are significantly beyond teachers’ capacities, leading to unsuccessful implementation and consequently ineffective

curriculum reform (Morris, 1985). Thus, Handal and Herrington (2003) are of the opinion that it is fundamental to “acknowledge, identify, analyse and address teachers’ attitudes, feelings, perceptions and understanding before the launching of any innovation in order for the innovation to be successfully implemented” (p. 65).

Studies of reform initiatives suggest that in most cases the teachers concerned are likely to show not uniform positivity or hostility, but rather a range of attitudes and opinions. Thus Kennedy (1996) found that the Spanish teachers he surveyed were not all antagonistic towards its national curriculum reform. Some were just scared to change to something new where they were used to the old system, some were favourably inclined to the change while others were open to the changes, but needed time to adopt them, and especially to learn new techniques.

Teachers’ perceptions of their role in the classroom, and difficulties with taking on a new role, may also be relevant to the success of a reform (Abdul Aziz, 1987). Thus Karavas-Doukas (1995) found that in Greek secondary schools EFL innovations where English was supposed to be taught using a communicative learner-centred approach, many teachers were in fact not able to adopt a different role in the classroom and make the students the centre of the learning and teaching process. The reason was that “most teachers viewed their role in the classroom primarily and ultimately as the language expert who was equipped with the ability, knowledge and skills to transmit information on the language to learners” (ibid, p. 60). In short, it was difficult for the teachers to change their roles from knowledge dispenser to facilitator.

Knowing how teachers’ perceive a curricular reform and the attitudes they hold towards it is important, because their perceptions and attitudes will govern the kind of behaviour that will be cultivated in real classroom activities (Carless, 1998). In other words, teachers’ perceptions and attitudes are highly likely to influence their decision whether (or not) to conduct their classroom practice in accordance with what is intended in the reform. Indeed, Gorsuch (2000) suggests that the attitudes and beliefs of the teachers are the single strongest guiding influence on instruction.

Ford (1992, as cited in Haney, Lumpe, Czerniak & Egan, 2002) identifies two types of beliefs for a person to function effectively; 1) capability beliefs as “an individual perception of whether he or she possesses the personal skills needed to function

effectively”, and 2) context beliefs as an “individual’s perceptions about how responsive the environment will be in supporting effective functioning” (p. 172). Ford argues that the combination of these two beliefs develops personal belief patterns that are likely to influence the motivation level of a person to reach the goal of the education reform. Haney et al (2002) share a similar view that the beliefs teachers hold are “valid predictors of their subsequent classroom actions” (p. 181). Their study in a large urban district located in northwest Ohio on the relationship between teachers’ beliefs and actual classroom behaviour to determine teaching effectiveness in science classrooms revealed that teachers with positive capability and context beliefs scored high in effective science teaching.

A mismatch between what teachers believe about classroom practice and teaching theory and the philosophy behind an educational reform can affect its degree of success, the morale of the teachers and their willingness to implement it further. Studies on the process of implementing curriculum innovations or reforms have revealed a situation of excessive complexity when teachers hold negative attitudes or conflicting beliefs towards the reforms and/or misunderstand the principles underpinning the changes. Incompatibility between teachers’ perceptions and their existing attitudes and the change philosophy is likely to cause derailment of the reform effort, changes not to be implemented as expected, and ultimately resistance to the change. Conversely, if teachers’ beliefs are compatible with the innovation, it has been found that acceptance is more likely to occur (Roefrig & Kruse, 2005).

Kırkgöz (2009) in an overview of the recent changes introduced into the ELT curriculum at primary level in Turkey has found that teachers whose views were consistent with the current views of CLT and TEYLs (Teaching English to Young Learners) had a greater likelihood of implementing the new Communicative Oriented Curriculum (COC) in their classrooms. However, if teachers hold opposing beliefs or perceive barriers to enacting the curriculum, then “low-take up, dilution and corruption” of the reform is likely to follow (Carless, 1998; Handal & Herrington, 2003, p. 61). Karavas-Doukas (1995) found that incompatibility between Greek secondary school teachers’ beliefs about the learning process and the principles of educational innovation resulted in a reduced implementation of communicative teaching in the classroom. Similar findings have been reported in studies from both Egypt (Holliday, 1996) and China (Hui, 1997; Penner, 1995). In short, as Hanye et al (2002) note, “people tend to

act according to their beliefs and beliefs that teachers hold on educational reform are the core of educational change” (p. 171).

Teachers’ beliefs about the relevance of a reform to the students and the teaching environment are also crucial to the reform process. Teachers tend to be reluctant, unwilling and resistant to change when they believe what is required of them in the curriculum reform is irrelevant to the students and unrealistic to the classrooms. Palmer (1993) emphasises that innovations are highly likely to be adapted by teachers if they think it is appropriate and relevant to their teaching contexts. Indeed, most reform efforts have been to no avail, as they are viewed and perceived as impractical, unfeasible and incompatible with existing classroom realities, conditions and constraints (Kennedy, 1996; Wang, 2008).

Morris (1985) reveals that in the early 1980s teachers in Hong Kong secondary schools were unwilling to put into practice a curriculum emphasising a heuristic7 style of learning and active pupil involvement, as required by the official curriculum documents, due to their beliefs that lecturing was the most efficient method to prepare students for the examination. The teachers in his study kept their traditional approach of giving lectures and supplying notes, because the new approach was perceived as being inefficient to cover the examination syllabus and likely to produce undesirable consequences, such as teachers being blamed for students’ failure in the examinations, pupils refusing to cooperate and negative evaluations of teachers’ performance.

Teachers’ beliefs about the practicality of an innovation can strongly influence their willingness to implement it. A major element of practicality is the extent to which the innovation is compatible with existing classroom practices. Reforms that require radical changes to teacher behaviour are likely to be labelled as impractical by teachers, irrespective of their objectives. As White et al. (1991 cited in Carless, 1997), put it: “to be practical, an innovation needs to be able to fit into the existing school systems. An innovation which places heavy demands on the school in terms of time, personnel and money will be less likely to be adopted than one which has more realistic demands” (ibid, p. 352).

7

The teachers’ perception of the flexibility of the new curriculum is another type of belief that may influence the effectiveness of a curriculum reform. A curriculum is flexible when teachers are allowed to implement it at a pace that suits them and to adapt it to the local context. Thus, Cowley and Williamson (1998) propose that in order for a curriculum to be successful,

A flexibility model is preferable to an over prescriptive model. The flexibility model involves providing national curricula guidelines with localized interpretation and implementation at a pace determined, at least to some extent, by the schools and their teachers. The flexibility model promotes collegiality among staff and results in school curricula relevant to the local context, but bounded by a national curriculum framework.

(pp. 91–92)

It has been repeatedly found that teachers believe allowing a new curriculum change to fit their local school context is essential because the ability to modify, adjust and make amendments whenever they feel necessary ensures maximum curriculum interest for students and the production of a more effective curriculum. Indeed, Ramparsad (2001) emphasises that the opportunity for teachers to be flexible with respect to their roles in the classroom and the ability for them to contextualise the curriculum content to make it relevant to their teaching contexts results in successful implementation of a curriculum innovation. Besides, allowing teachers to commit to the innovation at their own pace enables them to take on board the ideas and concepts inherent in the curriculum when they feel ready. As a consequence, as Cowley and Williamson (1998) note, “teachers will have time to become familiar with the ideas inherent in the documents and thus [are] less likely to reject the change” (p. 89). In other words, a flexible model of new curriculum avoids the problem of having teachers subvert or resist the change process (Fullan, 1991, 1993).

Nevertheless, an under-prescriptive curriculum that allows considerable freedom for teachers to make professional decisions as to what to do and how to do it, and even when to teach, may well cause misinterpretation of the curriculum. This is because different teachers may interpret the curriculum differently (Ben-Peretz, 1990). As there are few or no suggestions or guidelines as to the choice of content and curriculum materials, teachers are likely to make pedagogical decisions based on their own understanding and professional expertise.

Conversely, Fullan (1991) argues that over-prescription of a curriculum can stifle the successful implementation of a national curriculum as it does not allow, in particular, “amendment in changing circumstances for the development and implementation of the innovation, allowance for staff to commit to the innovation at their own pace and, to some extent, openness of staff to try new ideas and teaching strategies” (ibid, 1991, p. 89). The over-prescription model does not allow for differences in school contexts or teacher development and readiness for change.

However, in foreign language teaching Kennedy and Kennedy (1996) argue that teachers’ attitudes towards issues in education such as curriculum reform may not be totally influential in determining their actual classroom behaviour. They found that there was a mismatch between teachers’ expressed attitudes and what they actually did in the classroom. Some teachers were found to have positive attitudes towards changes in the curriculum, but in actual fact did not implement it in the classrooms as required. This was because there were other equally important factors that can influence successful implementation of change. Such factors included “subjective norms” (ibid, p. 355) which refers to what the individual believes others think about the behaviour concerned and “perceived behavioural control” (ibid, p. 356), which consists of internal or external factors associated with the context, such as teachers’ low language proficiency level, their lack of pedagogical knowledge, the clarity or otherwise of the information on the required change and large class sizes. A teacher may perceive a change in education to be beneficial, but if the head teacher is not in favour of the change, or the class size is so large that it is impossible to implement the change, this may result in non-implementation of the change.

The study mentioned earlier on how teachers of the Contemporary Children’s Literature (CCL) programme in Malaysian upper primary schools perceived and implemented the programme provides evidence that, despite teachers’ reported awareness of the aims and objectives of the programme and their support and belief in its benefits, their classroom instruction was found to be teacher-centred rather than student-centred as advocated. The child-centred approaches and activities required by the CCL were for the most part unheeded, as teachers simply continuing with their usual teacher-centred patterns (Abdul Rahman, 2007). There have been restricted opportunities for pupils to initiate talk and a failure on the part of teachers to build upon pupil contributions. Teachers failed to differentiate between more or less proficient students. The more proficient

children complained about being bored by inappropriate activities (Sidhu, Fook & Kaur, 2010). This all suggests that teachers’ positive perceptions are not always indicators of their fidelity to the proposed programme, a conclusion which appears to be in conflict with other studies reported previously e.g. Carless (1997), Gorsuch (2000), Handal and Herrington (2003), Kyriakides (1997), (Morris, 1985), Mulat (2003) and Roefrig and Kruse (2005).