Curriculum Implementation: Theoretical Approaches

It is not uncommon to find policies, programmes and projects developed by their makers being put into practice. For a successful delivery of every developed curriculum there is the need to implement it thoroughly in all the target areas for its coverage. Curriculum implementation as defined by Fullan (1991, p. 378) ―is the process of putting a change into practice‖. The process ranges from the use of formative evaluation devices such as try-out and field trial to the actual large scale and final open use of the programme (Lewy, 1977). Thus, implementation can be on piecemeal basis so that in a situation where the programme is failing, it can quickly be revised and reinforced or discarded to avoid the commitment of huge amount of resources into a wasteful venture.

There are several dissemination strategies used to smoothen the implementation process. They comprise translocation, communication, animation and re-education. Three main approaches to curriculum implementation are employed: fidelity, mutual adaptation and enactment. As noted by Snyder, Bolin and Zumwalt (1992), depending on the system of education an approach is adopted to implement educational programmes.

2.4.4.1 Fidelity of implementation

Although some scholars in curriculum opine that no consensus exists on what exactly constitutes fidelity of implementation (Fullan & Pomfret, 1977; Scheire & Rezmovic, 1983), Cobbold (1999) sees fidelity as how ―faithfully‖ teachers put the new or innovated curriculum into practical use in accordance with the programme mandates or dictates. Fidelity is the extent to which curriculum is delivered in accordance with its tested design. Implementing a programme with fidelity implies delivering the programme as it was implemented in the research that provided evidence of effectiveness. The work of Snyder et

32

al. (1992) that ―the desired outcome of curricular change is fidelity to the original plan‖ (p. 404) confirms the assertion. In fidelity approach, planning is usually separate and distinct from implementation. Because ―curriculum knowledge is primarily created outside the classroom by experts who design and develop the curriculum innovation‖ (Snyder et al., 1992, p. 404). Teachers are to implement it as planned with minimum degree of deviation. It is important to note that fidelity is not absolute but a matter of degree. Suffice it to say that fidelity of implementation is usually used to deliver programmes in centralised education systems.

If a programme is not delivered as designed, its outcome (i.e. impact on students) is likely to be changed, diminished, or eliminated outright (Snyder et al., 1992).This is the reason why fidelity aims at identifying the conditions under which the programme works best or approximates, at least, what was intended. It helps to understand how the degree of programme implementation can affect the achievement of goals and more importantly, how implementation can be improved when the programme needs to be scaled up. For instance, the advent of the curriculum may necessitate that facilitators and supervisors are trained to be in tune with the programme dictates in order to implement it successfully (Bauman, Stein, & Ireys, 1991; Moncher & Prinz, 1991). This kind of training is provided to all teachers and supervisors who will be engaged in the delivery of the change.

On the other hand, fidelity fails to recognize that there are some unplanned learning outcomes that are desirable. Such learning outcomes may lack any prior pre-specification but result in the learning process. As Taba (1962) puts it ―a limited concept of school learning limits the idea of what is expected of it‖ (p. 158). This often leads to parochial view of education. Bondi and Wiles (1979, p. 114) noted that ―… [Fidelity] is not yet sophisticated enough to serve as an absolute guide to practice‖ (emphasise mine). Fidelity is a matter of degree rather than an absolute phenomenon. Achieving the exact outcomes of the programme is therefore not possible. The fact that sympathizers of the approach tolerated some margin of deviation of the outcomes (Fullan, 1991) of a programme does not mean that it should not be criticized for its failure to attain one hundred percent (100%) fidelity.

Teachers, according to this perspective, are considered as the implementers of the change (Darling-Hammond, 1990). The curriculum cannot achieve its aims or be fairly evaluated unless the teacher implements it in a manner in which it was intended. Teachers‘ role in the

33

process is that of a consumer who makes use of the wisdom of programme developers. This approach to implementation operates on the assumption that lack of standardization within and between programme providers will inflates error variance and decreases power (Boruch & Gomez, 1977; Moncher & Prinz, 1991). Therefore, teachers are requested to implement the same programme in the same way all over the schools covered by that education system. Such uniformity of programme and its implementation ensures that students go through the same or about the same experiences. The result of standardization in implementation is the ease with which evaluation can be done to see how different sites of programme implementation compare. Lewy (1977) opines that ―where uniformity of conditions does not exist, interpretation of result is very difficult‖ (p.11) and it therefore becomes pointless to compare results from different sites of programme implementation.

2.4.4.2 Adaptation

According to Barnes (2005, p. 2) ―teachers acknowledge the existence of programmes, policy, directives, school regulations, and recommendations but in practice they often feign what needs to be done to comply with requirements‖. A centrally developed curriculum may lend itself to manipulation by implementers. Its implementation may be flexible to the extent that teachers can alter its elements to suit their peculiar school or classroom situation. Teachers have the liberty to adapt the change to obtain the highest possible result. This approach of curriculum implementation is referred to as adaptation. Adaptation is operational in the flexible school system.

Due to the lack of uniformity in conditions across schools, Paris (1989) explains that to teachers, the skills, talents and knowledge necessary to enact a curriculum were context specific. Curriculum adaptation is not exclusive to only geographical area but it can be done to meet individual students with intellectual disabilities needs (Lee, Amos, Gragoudas, Lee, Shogren, Theoharis, and Wehmeyer, 2006). Teachers achieve maximum curriculum returns by manipulating the conventional curriculum to meet their local needs. The curriculum students actually receive is influenced by what teachers believe, by what peers believe and do, and by other more elusive cultural issues (Sergiovanni, 1996; Wallace, 1998 in Barnes, 2005). In order to meet the diversity in culture, there is need for ―adaptations‖ of the regular curriculum. The effects of this exercise may involve organisational modifications in the goals and contents, in the methodologies, in the didactical organisation, in the temporality, and in

34

the evaluation philosophy and strategies. The aim is to make it possible to meet everyone‘s educational needs in the creation of knowledge.

Additionally, comparing the results of one implementation site with another will not yield any practically useful evidence for decision making because the conditions in the different sites are usually not the same. Hence they cannot serve as the basis for meaningful comparison. The practical impossibility of making school conditions uniform dictates that a centrally developed curriculum does not have to be implemented as planned because contextual factors chiefly affect the extent or degree to which actual implementation will approximate the planned curricula.

2.4.4.3 Enactment

In decentralised school systems it has been the norm to leave the development and implementation of school curricula in the hands of various school districts or schools in the locale. This has been the practice in the USA. This assertion is authenticated by May (1991) who argues that uniform answers to educational problems are viewed as impossible to apply because practical problems are seen to be context bound, situationally determined and complex.

School curricula are tailor-made to suit conditions in each locale as opposed to the centrally developed one operational in both the centralised and flexible school systems. Notwithstanding, the local school curricula are derived from the national philosophy of education. This opportunity enables teachers to develop effective pedagogies that ensure sustainability, citizenship, enterprise, and globalisation of learning experiences to meet the needs of the different areas.

The position of teachers in this approach is described by Paris (1989) as explorers who constantly strive for perfection through continuous practice. The involvement of teachers in this exercise ranges from the production of new syllabuses and curriculum guides at all stages, as syllabus-writers, as members of advisory committees to the syllabus-writers, and as participants in school-based trials of syllabuses and curriculum materials (David & Macdonald, 2001). The advantage of their participation is shrouded in the mystery of promulgating their interest and advancing their views on how the curriculum should be. According to Martin (1993a, 1993b in Handal & Herrington, 2003), curriculum

35

implementation approaches that do not consider teachers‘ beliefs have a temporary life. Incorporating teacher beliefs is a sure way of inspiring teachers‘ enthusiasm and winning their trust for the curriculum adoption. Notwithstanding, granting unwarranted liberty to teachers without any control measure may lead to an abuse of freedom. However, regular effective monitoring of teachers could be used to keep teachers‘ behaviour in check.

2.5 ACCOUNTING CURRICULUM IMPLEMENTATION: THE INSTRUCTIONAL