THE IMPLEMENTATION PROBLEM: CHANGING TEACHERS’ CLASSROOM PRACTICES

Get Complete Project Material File(s) Now! »

INTRODUCING THE ARGUMENT

What happens when teachers are required to change their practices in line with a curriculum which has proven to be complex and alienating, and which already has a revised version looming on the policy horizon? More specifically: How do teachers who are in the midst of reform make the strategic curriculum decisions that shape their classroom practices? In 1998, the new South African government launched its most ambitious project for reform, Curriculum 2005 (C2005), with an underlying methodology called outcomes-based education (OBE). Commencing implementation in all Grade 1 classrooms in 1998, the intention was to phase it progressively into all grades by the year 2005. Barely two years later, as a result of the hue and cry from various stakeholders, the same government (albeit under a new Minister of Education) called for a ‘streamlining’ of C2005 in a brief to what became known as the Curriculum Review Committee. This Committee identified a number of weaknesses in the conception and execution of C2005. Among other limitations, the initial implementation of Curriculum 2005 was severely hampered by its complex structure and design, tight time frames, the lack of quality teacher training and appropriate learning support materials, and the incapacity of provincial authorities to support teachers effectively (Chisholm, 2000).

SETTING THE STAGE: THE ORIGINS OF THE NATIONAL CURRICULUM STATEMENT

Under apartheid, the curriculum handed down to teachers for implementation has been described as prescriptive, content-heavy, teacher centred, detailed and authoritarian, with little space for teacher initiative (Ntshingila-Khosa, 2001; Jansen, 1999b; Nekhwevha, 1999; Christie, 1993). Apartheid South Africa boasted nineteen racially based education departments in which curriculum development was “ a white and male-dominated process”, and largely “non-participative for the majority of departments” (NEPI, 1992: 14). This meant that the core syllabuses were developed by “experts” in the white Department of Education and Culture, with the black departments participating as mere observers and recipients of these prescriptive and content-laden syllabuses. Although black education departments were allowed to add, but not delete, from the core syllabuses, it was commonly adopted “with minor, if any, alterations” (Christie, 1993).

THE RATIONALE FOR DOING THIS RESEARCH

My principal motivation for doing this research was the widely observed dearth of research on curriculum policy implementation in developing countries (Dyer, 1999; Wedekind, Lubisi, Harley, & Gultig, 1996). The research that does exist is descriptive and prescriptive, or focuses largely on the problem of resources as explanations for the ‘gap’ between policy intentions and practical outcomes. That is, the literature generally centres on the lack of materials, or the lack of understanding, or the lack of qualified teachers (Lockheed & Verspoor, 1991; Fuller & Snyder, 1991). There is very little research on what teachers actually do in their classrooms, and even less on how teachers make sense of the curriculum practices when influenced by multiple curricula. Cohen and Ball (1990: 348), for example, argue that a much-neglected aspect of educational research is how teachers perceive instructional policies, how they interpret them and how different policies influence teaching. Furthermore, Fuller and Snyder (1991: 274) note that little empirical work has been done on the various ways in which African teachers organise their work, while Western scholarship abounds with classroom-based research on teacher practices (AERA, 2004).

READ RURAL EDUCATION IN THE FORMER HOMELANDS: 1960-1994

THE LIMITATIONS OF THIS STUDY

I wish to draw attention to four potential constraints or limitations of this study. Firstly, the fact that I investigated this topic by means of a case study methodology allowed me to compose teachers’ personal voices of their experiences at this precarious interface of radical curriculum change. However, the very nature of case studies is such that the findings are not high in external validity or generalisability; cases do, however, offer depth and insight on a poorly understood subject.

CHAPTER 1: ORIENTATION AND BACKGROUND
1.1 INTRODUCING THE ARGUMENT
1.2 SETTING THE STAGE: THE ORIGINS OF THE NATIONAL CURRICULUM STATEMENT
1.3 THE RATIONALE FOR DOING THIS RESEARCH
1.4 THE LIMITATIONS OF THIS STUDY
1.5 THE ORGANISATION OF THIS THESIS
1.6 CHAPTER SUMMARY
CHAPTER 2: THE INTELLECTUAL ANCESTRY OF TEACHER DECISIONMAKING RESEARCH IN THE CONTEXT OF CURRICULUM CHANGE
2.1 A PORTRAIT OF EDUCATIONAL CHANGE
2.2 THE IMPLEMENTATION PROBLEM: CHANGING TEACHERS’ CLASSROOM PRACTICES
2.3 UNDERSTANDING WHY CLASSROOM PRACTICES ARE SO HARD TO CHANGE
2.4 Linking classroom practice with teacher decision-making
2.5 CHAPTER SUMMARY
3.1 INTRODUCTION
3.2 THE INITIAL CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK: FIVE ‘WORKING HYPOTHESES
3.3 THE REVISED CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK: THE THREAT OF INTENSIFICATION OF TEACHERS’ WORK
3.4 CHAPTER SUMMARY
CHAPTER 4: RESEARCH DESIGN & METHODS
4.1 INTRODUCTION
4.2 SAMPLING
4.3 DATA COLLECTION
4.4 ATTENTION TO VALIDITY
4.5 DATA ANALYSIS
4.6 Ethical Considerations
4.7 Summary
CHAPTER 5: THE CASE OF MARTIN STEVENS – COMMITTED TO THE NEW, DOMINATED BY THE OLD
5.1 INTRODUCTION
5.2 SECTION A: A BIOGRAPHICAL AND INSTITUTIONAL SKETCH
5.3 SECTION B: RESEARCH FINDINGS
5.4 CHAPTER SUMMARY
CHAPTER 6: THE CASE OF THABO BILLIANA
6.1 INTRODUCTION
6.2 SECTION A: A BIOGRAPHICAL AND INSTITUTIONAL SKETCH
6.3 SECTION B: THE RESEARCH FINDINGS
CHAPTER 7: THEORISING TEACHER DECISION-MAKING DURING COMPLEX CURRICULUM CHANGE