Chapter 4

Towards a Theory of Curriculum Development with Reference to Science

This chapter is based on an article by the same authors, which appeared under the same title,

and was published in the International Journal of Science Education in October 2003. It is

included here with the permission of the editor of that journal - Editors.

Introduction

While the previous two chapters between them raised a variety of issues, this one is limited to

one issue only, one which we believe to be essential, but often overlooked, when it comes to

improving science and mathematics education in developing countries.

The development of new curricula is a common event in countries across the globe. In many

cases, these curricula are well-designed and the aims they are intended to achieve are

laudable. However, all too often the attention and energies of policy-makers and politicians

are focused on the ‘what’ of desired educational change, neglecting the ‘how’. Porter (1980,

p. 75), speaking about the role of the national government in educational change in the USA

and Australia, says, “... the people concerned with creating policy and enacting the relevant

legislation seldom look down the track to the implementation stage.”

In the case of developing countries, Verspoor (1989, p. 133), in his analysis of 21 World Bank

supported educational change programs points out that, “Large-scale programs tend to

emphasize adoption and neglect implementation.” Furthermore, he states that, “…in nearly all

instances low outcomes resulted from poor implementation of what was essentially a good

79
idea.” As a result, a great deal of time, money and effort may be wasted, as good ideas are

seldom translated into classroom reality.

South Africa is in danger of falling into this trap. One of the priorities of the new ANC led

government that took power in South Africa after the 1994 elections was to reform the

educational system. As stated in the White Paper on Education and Training (Government

Gazette 1995, p. 17),

For the first time in South Africa’s history, a government has the mandate to plan the

development of the education and training system for the benefit of the country as a

whole and all its people.

Part of the plan entailed combining fragmented and racially defined educational departments

into unified, non-racial departments - one in each of the nine newly delineated provinces. A

second ambitious undertaking was to develop a new curriculum, Curriculum 2005 (1997),

which has a very different philosophy from the one which underpinned the syllabus/

examination dominated practices of the past. Curriculum 2005 (C2005) is modelled on

outcomes-based educational principles, and incorporates many practices that have gained

favour worldwide, such as child-centered learning and continuous, performance-based

assessment. The document lists twelve critical outcomes, which are to be achieved in each of

eight learning areas. Natural Sciences, one of the eight, is described as follows:

The Natural Sciences, comprising the physical-, life-, and earth sciences, involve the

systematic study of the material universe - including natural and human-made

environments - as a set of related systems. A variety of methods, that have in common

the collection, analysis and critical evaluation of data, are used to develop scientific

knowledge. While some knowledge in the Natural Sciences has become accepted as

80
 unchanging, theories are acknowledged to be open to change because they are the result

of human activity which is influenced by social, cultural and historical settings.

The development of appropriate skills, knowledge and attitudes and an understanding of

the principles and processes of the Natural Sciences:

• enable learners to make sense of their natural world

• contribute to the development of responsible, sensitive and scientifically literate

citizens who can critically debate scientific issues and participate in an informed

way in democratic decision-making processes

• are essential for conserving, managing, developing and utilizing natural

resources to ensure the survival of local and global environments

• contribute to people creating and shaping work opportunities.

In view of its potential to improve the quality of life, learning in the Natural Sciences

must be made accessible to all South Africans.

The investigative character of knowledge acquisition in the Natural Sciences should be

mirrored in education. Learners should be active participants in the learning process in

order to build a meaningful understanding of concepts which they can apply in their

lives.

Whilst the policy documents themselves contain many visionary and educationally sound

ideas, the implementation of these ideas is proving to be much slower and more difficult than

anticipated. For example, it was envisaged that C2005 would be implemented in all schools

in a given grade level in a given year, irrespective of the difference in capacity of the schools

involved. A cascade model of INSET consisting of short one-shot courses was instituted in

81
most areas. Both the pace and the content of the INSET assumed a ‘one size fits all’

approach. However, recent research (Khulisa Management Services, 1999) suggests that the

whole process of the implementation of C2005 was underestimated and inadequately

resourced and supported. For curriculum change to occur, both the ‘why’ and the ‘how’ must

be addressed. In addressing the ‘why’, De Feiter et al (1995, p. 88), referring to Ware, “…

recommends that no major curriculum reform should be attempted if the need for reform is

not clearly recognised by the ‘stakeholders’ in the reform process.”

In South Africa, the need for educational reform was widely recognised after the first

democratically elected, post-apartheid government came into power in 1994. Curriculum

2005 was introduced by the new government as a way of overcoming the educational

inequities of the past and preparing citizens for full participation in a democracy. In keeping

with many developing countries, broad educational policy in South Africa is made by the

central government, and C2005 is no exception. In this chapter, we shall therefore assume

that the need for curriculum change (the why) has been addressed and shall focus the

discussion on issues pertaining to implementation (the how).

Much work on implementation issues needs to be done in South Africa if the promises of the

new curriculum are to make any impact in schools, and start to provide the next generation

with a better education. We suggest that a theory of implementation is needed, not only for

South Africa but also for other developing countries, that can act as a guide for school-based

practitioners, INSET providers (change-agents) and policy makers, and that takes the

conditions of a developing country into account. This chapter is an attempt to set in motion a

process toward the development of such a theory.

82
Whilst we shall draw on the extensive literature on educational change, some of which is

referenced in the article, our main aim is to highlight and attempt to address issues of

particular relevance to developing countries. The emergent theory will be contextualized,

both to the implementation of C2005 in South Africa and to one learning area, the natural

sciences. However, since the implementation of new curricula and new educational practices

is a world wide phenomenon, it is likely that the theoretical constructs that emerge here could

well have application in other countries and subject areas.

In the sections that follow, we shall summarize salient aspects of literature related to

developmental models for schools and to educational change. Using this literature as a point

of departure, we shall then propose three possible constructs of a theory of curriculum

implementation and show how these constructs may be inter-related.

Developmental Models for Schools and their Implications for Curriculum

Implementation

That schools differ from one another is an indisputable fact of life. In South Africa, these

differences are particularly evident for a variety of reasons, not the least of which are the

discriminatory funding policies of the previous government and the continued socio-economic

gulf between racial groups that persists to this day (see, for example, Murphy 1992). The

diversity of schools in South Africa is enormous. There are some that boast magnificent

buildings and educational programs that would rank amongst the best anywhere in the world.

In contrast, there are those that occupy broken down buildings, lacking doors and windows,

electricity and sanitation, and with few books and no resources.

Any theory of implementation will need to take the diversity of schools into account.

Attempts to categorise institutions as complex and diverse as schools are fraught with danger.

83
Any categorisation scheme will, at best, be a crude and broad generalisation representing a

pale imitation of reality. Nevertheless, such schemes might well have some value, especially

for policy makers and researchers, if their purpose is not to label schools, but to better

understand and serve their needs. At the same time, their shortcomings need to be

acknowledged and the restrictions that they impose transcended.

One of the early attempts to categorise schools and educational systems was provided by

Beeby (1966). He envisaged that primary schools might be classified as being in one of four

stages, and that progress consisted of moving from ‘lower’ to ‘higher’ stages. The four stages

are: Dame School, Formalism, Transition and Meaning. Beeby’s work is not without

controversy or problems. Guthrie (1980) devotes a whole article to a critique of the model.

One of the problems he expands on is the whole notion of distinct stages. They may provide

neat labels, but are not necessarily indicative of the complexity of an educational system.

Furthermore, Beeby’s model focuses only on the teacher, making no mention of other aspects

of the school context.

A more comprehensive model was proposed by Verspoor and Wu (1990) and subsequently

adapted by De Feiter et al. (1995). This model broadens the focus of development to include

factors related to the teacher, the curriculum and the school, although it makes no explicit

mention of the pupils. It also includes guidelines for improvement. As in the Beeby model,

four stages are proposed, Unskilled, Mechanical, Routine and Professional. The usefulness of

the model lies not so much in the identification of distinct stages (which in any case are really

a continuum), but in the components that describe these stages. School development and

curriculum innovation are again seen as a movement towards the higher stages.

84
Curriculum 2005, in its ideal form, not only envisages practices described in the highest

stages of both the Beeby and De Feiter models, but also goes beyond them, especially in

social transformation aspects. However, it is being implemented in a system comprising

schools that span all stages. Herein lies the root of the problem, but also the challenge. Whilst

it is not problematic to aspire to these higher stages, the means of getting there need to be

realistically planned. De Feiter et al. (1995, p. 53), point out that,

A systematic approach, based on clear insight in all relevant factors and conditions, with

special attention to implementation problems, including continuous monitoring of the

process and outcomes, and emphasizing evolutionary project planning is highly

desirable.

Verspoor (1989, p. 144) concludes that a phased approach taking into account the diversity of

schools, is needed to implement large-scale change.

In these [the most successful] cases, a firm national commitment to change goals was

combined with an acceptance of substantial diversity at the school level, an insistence

on school accountability, and an effective mix of dissemination strategies.

In South Africa, just as there is an enormous range in the quality of schools, so there is also an

enormous range in the knowledge and skills of the teachers. The problem is particularly acute

when it comes to mathematics and science teachers. In 1995, over 50% of practicing

mathematics teachers and 60% of science teachers had no formal training in these subjects

(Arnott et al., 1997). Failure to take such differences into account in preparing teachers for

C2005 has also contributed to implementation problems. Jansen (1999, p. 90), writing about

the implementation of C2005 in South African schools, argues that large-scale changes

‘without discriminatory measures are more likely to benefit advantaged schools.’ Since some

schools have far better resources, both human and physical, than others, they are better placed

85
to take advantage of the benefits of the new curriculum. Hence he advocates a strategy that

discriminates positively towards the most disadvantaged schools.

It seems sensible to recognise the diversity of schools and to plan for innovation accordingly.

Writing about schools in the UK, Hopkins and MacGilchrist (1998) opt for a differentiated

approach to implementation and professional development. In essence, they suggest a three-

tier approach. Their so-called Type One strategies are aimed at helping low-performing

schools achieve some measure of success, in that they are put on the road to becoming

functional. The goals that these schools set are within their reach, and achieving them instils a

feeling of confidence. The Type Two strategies are designed for moderately successful

schools, and concentrate on helping schools improve in areas where they are already

competent. Finally, the Type Three strategies are for schools that are already at some level of

excellence, and are aimed at helping them to introduce sophisticated teaching and learning

methods of the kind that would characterise C2005 at it best.

In Southern Africa in general, there appears to be a tendency to ignore existing diversity and

to mandate complex and comprehensive changes in systems that may or may not be ready to

cope with them. These mandates often spawn a considerable gap between what is intended

and what is actually feasible. De Feiter et al. (1995, pp. 52-53) note,

Considering the complexity of the intended changes, and taking into account current

classroom practices, we may wonder whether the innovation gap is not too big to

bridge. This question seems justified once more in view of the fact that in more

advanced countries too these kinds of ideals have hardly been implemented.

The question is of course rhetorical. Most educators with experience in various types of

classrooms across South Africa will admit that C2005 can not be implemented in one large

86
step in a short space of time as outlined by the policy documents. The only way that the gap

between policy and implementation can possibly be bridged will be by means of a series of

smaller steps. Based on their experience with INSET in South Africa, Johnson et al. (2000, p.

188) suggest:

Introducing regular small changes can allow teachers to vary their practice, find

successful variations and be prepared for further changes. Such a gradualist policy

allows for an accelerated evolution of classroom practice.

Whilst the nature of these steps is open to debate, it is clear that implementation must take the

context of a particular school - its teachers, pupils, leadership and environment- into account.

For example, De Feiter et al. (1995, p. 88) suggest that, “If teachers lack a proper background

and confidence in their subject, in-service education should start concentrating on this.”

Child-centered teaching approaches can be tackled later. Verspoor (1989, p. 97) found that

‘high outcome’ education projects included training that was appropriate to the teachers’

needs. He states,

It is critical to pay careful attention in the design of training programs to the level of

teachers’ knowledge of relevant subject areas and teaching experience. When training

courses fail to take teachers’ level of knowledge into account, implementation of the

reform will be hampered.

Although the developmental models of Beeby and Verspoor could provide a theoretical

framework for a differentiated implementation strategy, their limitations and shortcomings

need to be recognised. One of the major shortcomings is that these models tend to, implicitly

at any rate, endorse a deficit approach to curriculum change - to identify weaknesses and

remediate them. A second shortcoming is that they imply a linear view of curriculum change,

87
moving from one stage to the next highest, which tends to obscure the complex and

idiosyncratic nature of the process.

In developing a theory of implementation we reject both of these implications. Instead, we

align ourselves with programs such as the Accelerated Schools Project (Levin 1987, 1988).

The premise of this project is to build on student strengths rather than to remediate

weaknesses. In the theory, which we are developing, we propose that there is a need to

recognise current reality and then build on the strengths of various components of the

educational system- teachers, pupils and school environment. In a subsequent section of the

paper we present a Profile of Implementation, which allows strengths to be identified and

‘progress’ to be made by building on these strengths. Since different schools may begin with

different strengths, and wish to develop in different directions, the profile is neither remedial

nor linear in its nature.

Drivers of Educational Change

Just as schools differ from one another, so do notions of how to bring about changes in

schools. Current efforts to implement C2005 are based on the assumption that all schools are

essentially the same and will therefore benefit from the same kind of INSET and

implementation strategy. Nothing could be further from reality. As Hopkins et al. (1994, p.

17) note,

It is almost always the case that centrally imposed (or top-down) change implicitly

assumes that implementation is an event rather than a process; that a change proceeds

on autopilot once the policy has been enunciated or passed. This perspective ignores the

critical distinction between the object of change ... and the process of changing - that is

how schools and local agencies put the reforms into practice.

88
An event is a global affair that transcends a particular context. Decrees on educational policy

such as C2005 are examples of events. But the process of change is context specific and will

play out differently in each and every school.

In the case of C2005, teacher reaction has been mixed, and often breaks down along party

political lines. ANC supporters tend to be positive about it, while those with opposition

leanings are often very critical. However, on the issue of its implementation, there is almost

universal unease and confusion (Khulisa Management Services, 1999.) This reaction can be

attributed to at least two factors. The one is its large-scale, top down nature. Both the changes

themselves and the timetable for their implementation have been mandated by the national

Department of Education. The other is that it does not always suit teachers’ current needs,

based on their own developmental stage as well as the context in which they work. As Fullan

(1991, p. 4) notes,

Neglect of the phenomenology of change- that is, how people actually experience

change as distinct from how it was intended- is at the heart of the spectacular lack of

success of most social reform.

The extent to which educational change is top-down or bottom-up is one dimension along

which notions of educational change differ. Depending upon where on the continuum the

change is located, different kinds of change forces will be invoked and hence different kinds

of changes are likely to occur. Sergiovanni (1998) envisages a typology of forces of change

that can be used to exert leverage on schools. See Table 4.1. On the top-down (or external)

end of the continuum are bureaucratic change forces that rely on mandates, policy documents,

external assessment and other prescriptive methods. The kinds of changes brought about here,

according to Sergiovanni, are superficial and transient, in that they are made only to the extent

needed to comply with policy and hence avoid possible sanctions. Also leaning towards the

89
top-down end of the continuum are change forces that rely on leadership style and

personalities. Here too, the kinds of changes brought about may not be enduring. The

changes that are made might be motivated by a desire to be associated with a charismatic

leader, or to be seen to be part of a new fad. Such changes are unlikely to outlive the leader.

Towards the middle of the continuum are market place forces, which can provide a stimulus

for change provided at least two conditions are present. One is that choices of school are

possible and a realistic option for parents. The second is that poorly managed and resourced

schools are not rescued on political grounds. Finally, on the bottom-up end of the continuum

are change forces that originate from within the school community itself. Three types of

community forces identified by Sergiovani are professional, cultural and democratic.

Professional forces rely essentially on convictions arising from a sense of belonging and

having obligations to a professional community. Cultural and democratic forces rely on

shared values and goals about teaching and learning, as well as notions about the role of

education in a democratic society. A critical mass of like-minded teachers, for example, might

form a ‘learning community’, which begins to chart new ideas and practices for that school.

These community-based changes, according to Sergiovanni (1998, p. 591), are likely to be

‘deep’ and enduring.

Table 4.1 about here

When faced with a wide range of possible changes in a system containing a large diversity of

schools, the use of different change forces for different purposes and in different

circumstances makes sense. As Fullan (1991) and Darling-Hammond (1998) have suggested,

it is not just a question of selecting top-down or bottom-up approaches, one to the exclusion

of the other, but judiciously selecting those forces that are likely to be most effective in a

given situation. It could be argued, for instance, that certain rather simple structural changes

90
might need to precede the introduction of ‘deep’ changes. Sergiovanni also acknowledges the

need to employ a variety of change forces when he says that change forces based on the view

of schools as communities “seem morally superior and more effective for levering change in

schools than organizational and market views but reality is never as simple …” He recognises

that change forces based on views of schools as bureaucratic organizations are best for

bringing about quick changes in schools and their structures. However, he argues that change

forces that are premised on the view of schools as communities are most effective in bringing

about long-term, deep changes.

There are a number of schools in South Africa that are largely dysfunctional. Left to their own

devices, experience suggests that little improvement will take place. Some of the major

barriers to improvement might have to be overcome with external help before the internal

forces can begin to make themselves felt. External pressure might be the only way to kick-

start the process of improvement. It is also possible that only schools that have reached a

particular developmental level are in a position to make ‘deep’ changes. Professional forces

will not be effective unless a sense of professionalism exists or can be developed. The

‘learning community’ approach to improvement in all likelihood is predicated upon a critical

mass within that community (students, teachers and management) with the capacity and

commitment to take the initiative. However, as schools develop, the strategies for promoting

change must be adjusted accordingly. As Darling-Hammond (1998, p. 643) puts it,

... policy makers shift their efforts from designing controls intended to direct the system

to developing capacity that enables schools and teachers to be responsible for student

learning and responsive to diverse and changing student and community needs,

interests, and concerns.

91
Another tool for influencing educational change is systems design. Using systems design

(Banathy 1991, p. 86), it is possible to view, ‘the formalised manifestation of education (as) a

systems complex operating at several levels’. Banathy suggests four levels at which education

is organised: (i) the institutional (or governance) level, where the society interfaces and

interacts with the administration of schools, (ii) the administrative level, at which decisions

are implemented and resources managed, (iii) the instructional level, which is concerned with

educating students and (iv) the learning-experience level, which focuses on the learners. Any

one of the these four levels can be selected as the primary level around which to design and

build the whole educational enterprise, but the choice of primary level will lead to different

organizational models of education. In figure 4.1, Banathy’s four levels of educational

organization have been contextualised for the South African education system by adding a

fifth level, the broader community (called societal level by Banathy 1991, p. 97).

Figure 4.1 about here

Problems of implementation may arise where the primary level is not clear in the design of

the system. Problems may also arise when a transition must be made from a system that had

one primary level to one which has a different primary level. For example, in South Africa in

the past education was organised with governance as the primary level, which is typical of a

society in which educational authority is centralised. In this model (Banathy 1991, p. 88), at

the governance level the purpose is ‘to enculturate, indoctrinate children and youth’, at the

administrative level it is, ‘to establish regulations by which to implement input and account

for resources’, at the instructional level it is ‘to provide instruction as defined by the

administration’, and at the learning-experience level it is ‘to respond to instruction.’ By

contrast, in C2005 the learning-experience level is primary. In this model the purpose of the

governance level is ‘to facilitate the availability of resources in support of the learning-

92
experience level’, of the administrative level is ‘to formalize information about requirements

for resources that facilitate learning and negotiate the use of those resources’, of the

instructional level is, ‘to provide resources and arrangements that facilitate learning’, and of

the learning-experience level is ‘to master learning tasks, to become competent.’ Clearly such

a shift in primary level also requires a radical reorientation of all other aspects of the

education system, both in a structural sense, e.g. how schools are physically configured,

resourced and managed and what other locations are chosen as sites of learning, and in a

philosophical sense, e.g. how the role of the teacher is conceptualised and how learning is

measured.

In the following section we shall build on the ideas discussed so far related to development

models of school and educational change in order to begin to formulate a theory of curriculum

implementation. The theory will be based on three constructs.

Constructs of a Theory of Curriculum Implementation

It is hypothesized that a theory of implementation can be based on three major constructs:

Profile of Implementation, Capacity to Support Innovation and Support from Outside

Agencies. These constructs share three important characteristics: (i) they can be measured by

means of indicators, (ii) they are broad enough to encompass a number of related factors, and

(iii) they are narrow enough to include one main idea. The nature of these constructs is

outlined below.

For the purposes of developing the theory of implementation, we have selected the learning

environment as the unit of analysis. This is where the learners, teachers, curriculum and

educational resources meet. We shall be focussing on the interface of Learning and

Instruction, which in practice usually means the classroom. We shall therefore speak of what

93
takes place in the classroom when we refer to implementation. Despite our chosen focus, we

acknowledge the importance of the Administrative and Governance levels. Indeed, two of our

constructs originate at these levels. However, our focus will be on the impact of actions that

originate at all levels on the Instruction/Learning interface.

Profile of Implementation

The construct Profile of Implementation, is, in essence, an attempt to understand and express

the extent to which the ideals of a set of curriculum proposals are being put into practice. It

assumes that there is at least a vaguely defined notion of what constitutes ‘good practice’ and

what this looks like in the classroom. It recognises that there will be as many ways of putting

a curriculum into action as there are teachers teaching it. However, it does assume that broad

commonalities of what constitutes excellence will emerge, where the nature and values of the

curriculum will shape notions of excellence. For example, based on the old syllabus in South

Africa, excellence of schools was judged primarily on one criterion only - the percentage pass

rate on the external matriculation examination. (Some might argue that performance of sports

teams or choirs come a close second.) Excellence, as seen from the perspective of C2005,

will need to be determined by criteria that are in line with its values and expected outcomes,

such as what learners are actually able to do at various points in their schooling.

Inherent in the notion of a Profile of Implementation is the recognition that the

implementation of a new curriculum, C2005 included, is not an all or nothing proposition. As

Fullan (1991) points out, a key feature of the practicality of implementation is the ‘presence

of the next steps.’ Hence one of the most significant insights that the construct could offer

might be to conceptualise levels of implementation of C2005. The Hall and Loucks (1977)

Levels of Use provide a useful starting point, in that they too emphasise that there are

different degrees of implementation of a new curriculum. The beginning levels, Orientation

94
and Preparation, essentially encompass the period of becoming aware of and preparing to

implement the new curriculum. Mechanical and Routine use levels, as their name implies, are

the levels during which the curriculum is used as envisaged by the developers with little

addition or adaptation to the local context. It is only at the final levels, Refinement,

Integration and Renewal, that the teacher begins to take ownership of the curriculum and may

enrich it or even reconceptualize it by making major modifications.

The Profile of Implementation is designed to offer a ‘map’ of the learning area, and to offer a

number of possible routes that could be taken to a number of destinations. It will enable

curriculum planners at the school level to determine where they are - to identify their current

strengths. They can then take into account the context and capacity of their school, and select

a route to follow in working towards a meaningful implementation of C2005, phased in over a

number of years. Thus the implementation of the new curriculum will become a long term,

ongoing process in which teachers and other members of a school are given a say in where

they begin and how fast they feel they are able to go. This approach is very much in line with

the concept of ‘development planning’ (Hargreaves and Hopkins, 1991), in which the various

members of the school community participate in drawing up a plan to implement change in a

way that is appropriate and feasible for that school’s context and culture. As stated by

Hargreaves and Hopkins (p. 8):

development planning increases the school’s control over the content and pace of

change. It provides a rationale either for saying ‘no’ to certain demands, since not

everything can be put into a single year’s development plan, or for saying ‘not yet’,

since some changes are sensibly placed in the second, third, or even later years of the

plan. In other words, a strategic approach to planning is adopted and the school ceases

to be a target of demands for instant change.

95
An initial attempt to articulate the dimensions and levels that constitute the Profile of

Implementation for the natural science learning area of Curriculum 2005 is given in Table 4.2.

It serves as an example of what the Profile might look like in a given context, with the

realization that it would take on different forms in other contexts. The dimensions of the

Profile of Implementation are the nature of the classroom interaction (what the teacher does

and what the pupils do), use and nature of science practical work, incorporation of science in

society elements, and assessment practices.

Table 4.2 about here

The dimensions ‘classroom interaction’ and ‘assessment’ are generic in the sense that with

minor changes they could apply to any learning area (subject.) The dimension ‘science

practical work’ is unique to science. Here the levels progress from teacher-centred

demonstrations (level 1) to open-ended learner-centred investigations (level 4.) The

dimension ‘science in society’ reflects one of the central tenets of C2005 - that of making

science relevant and action oriented in the pursuit of national goals such as socio-economic

development and the wise and equitable use of natural resources. On this dimension, the

levels progress from a simple awareness of the role of science in everyday life to actively

engaging in community upliftment projects.

Level one on all four dimensions describes a well-organised, teacher-centred lesson. Learners

are engaged to some degree, mostly in a question and answer mode. Assessment is of the

pencil and paper type test only, but the tests are well designed and are beginning to ask some

questions that require more than simple recall. Unlike the developmental models, level one

does not describe the ‘lowest type of practice’ in existence, but rather a good transmission

type lesson. It is quite possible that there are schools that do not display any of the practices

in any of the dimensions or levels of the Profile.

96
The Profile retains some of the notions of the developmental models of Beeby and De Feiter.

The practices described in level four, for example, are more complex than those at level one.

They are also more in line with the ideals of C2005. Also, in moving through the levels, on all

four dimensions, there is an increasing emphasis towards learner-centred approaches, and

away from teacher-centred ones. In terms of the Banathy model, the emphasis shifts from the

Instructional to the Learning level. However, unlike the developmental models, the profile

does not imply ‘progressing’ from one level to another. Rather the higher levels are inclusive

of the lower ones (figure 4.2). For example, a teacher might be particularly adept at level two

of science practical work - doing inquiry type demonstrations. Should that teacher begin to

engage in level 3 practices, these are added to his or her repertoire. It is not a matter of only

engaging in level 3 practices while discarding those of level 2. The practices outlined in level

1 are likely to be of some value to teachers who are able to engage in level 4 strategies on a

regular basis. Indeed, a curriculum designed only around level 4 practices on the four

dimensions would be extremely limited in its scope. Progression is seen as the judicious

integration of the higher level practices. Hence the levels are not prescriptive of what should

be done at any given point in time, but rather suggest the mastery and use of an ever-

increasing array of teaching and learning strategies. It should be noted that the levels are not

necessarily linear. Although unlikely, it is possible, for example, for teachers who routinely

display level 1 strategies to move directly to the incorporation of aspects of level 4.

Furthermore, the four dimensions are to a large extent independent of one another. For

example, the classroom interaction approaches may be at level 3 in a given situation, but the

assessment practices may be at level 1.

Figure 4.2 about here

97
Capacity to Support Innovation

The construct Capacity to Support Innovation is an attempt to understand and elaborate on the

factors that are able to support, or hinder, the implementation of new ideas and practices in a

system such as a school. It should be recognized that not all schools have the capacity to

implement a given innovation to the same extent. Possible indicators of the Capacity to

Support Innovation construct fall into four groups, physical resources, teacher factors, learner

factors and the school ecology and management.

Physical resources are certainly one major factor that influences capacity. Poor resources and

conditions can limit the performance of even the best of teachers and undermine learners’

efforts to focus on learning.

A second factor pertains to the teachers’ own background, training and level of confidence,

and their commitment to teaching. The lack of subject matter knowledge by teachers found in

other parts of the world is also a major problem in South Africa. In addition to these basic

factors are those that relate more directly to the extent to which teachers will embrace

innovation. As Johnson et al. (2000, p. 181) point out:

New practices will only survive if there is a fit with the working environment. Here we

wish to make the difference between a deficit (teacher blaming) view and a selection

(environmental pressure) view, of the link between teachers’ pedagogical content

knowledge and their classroom actions.

Change is essentially a learning process, which will entail the willingness to try out new ideas

and practices, to improvise, to be exposed to uncertainty, and to collaborate with and support

one another. One of the starting points in Bell and Gilbert’s model of teacher development

(1996, p. 16) is an awareness on the part of teachers that being isolated from their colleagues

98
is a problem. However, this work was done in a developed world context. In many developing

countries, teachers have neither the experience nor the expectation of collaborating with their

peers. On the contrary, they may shun peer collaboration for fear of exposing their areas of

weakness.

A third factor relates to the background of the learners and the kind of strengths and

constraints that they might bring to the learning situation. Learners might, for example, come

from a home environment where there is no place for them to do homework, and no one to

support and help them in their studies. Family and culture related commitments might mean

an absence from school for significant periods of time. Finally for many learners in South

African schools, the language of instruction may not be the first, or even second, language of

the learner. Hence proficiency in the language of instruction is likely to be a major

determinant of the learners’ success.

A fourth factor, or set of factors, pertains to the general ecology and management of the

school. These two factors are not the same, but are closely intertwined, especially in schools

in developing countries. Perhaps more so than in developed and established schools, schools

in developing countries are more dependent on the quality of leadership. Hence general

ecology and management are considered together here. However, by switching the order in

which they are presented (at level 4 in table 3) we imply that their relative importance

changes as capacity is increased. If the school is in disarray and dysfunctional it is obvious

that no innovation can or will be implemented. In such cases, the first step in implementing

innovation would be to restore order and discipline. However, over and beyond the obvious

requirements of a functioning school, research has shown that the leadership role of the

principal is crucial when it comes to implementation (Berman and McLaughlin, 1977; Fullan,

1991; Hall and Hord, 1987). A shared vision as to how the innovation will play out depends

99
largely on the leadership of the principal. As the innovation begins to become a reality, so the

role of the principal begins to take on new dimensions. Change has to be realistically planned

and subsequently monitored. Those charged with the implementation of change need to be

supported in a variety of ways, and need to be enabled to communicate and collaborate with

one another.

These four factors together paint a picture of the capacity of a school to innovate. In the

context of this chapter, the innovation we are particularly interested in is the implementation

of curriculum change. Whilst the teacher and learner factors have the most direct bearing on

our chosen unit of analysis (the classroom), physical resources such as what is in the

classroom (or whether there is a classroom at all) and aspects of the school ecology such as

whether classes take place, also influence what will take place at the classroom level. Table

4.3 is an attempt to create a profile of these four factors. In each case, an increase in level

indicates a greater capacity to innovate. Unlike the Profile of Implementation, the levels here

do represent a progression, and the ultimate goal for a school would be to achieve level four

on all four factors.

Table 4.3about here

The relative contribution of these four factors to the construct Capacity to Support Innovation

is likely to be dynamic, changing over time depending both on the level of the school and the

stage of implementation. For example, Malcolm et al. (2000) found that some high schools

with very similar physical facilities produced strikingly different matriculation examination

results. Their study suggests that teacher and school management factors may well be the

largest contributors to the Capacity to Support Innovation construct, at least at the early stages

of implementation. The ‘schools of excellence’ that they studied were characterised by a

visible ethos of learning and working together towards a shared vision. The key players were

100
the teachers and principal who created the conditions conducive to learning, and the students

and parents who then bought into and perpetuated them. In Sergiovanni’s terms, the change

forces at work were those that were compatible with the notion of the school as a community.

Support from Outside Agencies

For the purpose of this chapter, outside agencies are defined as organizations outside the

school, including departments of education, that interact with a school in order to facilitate

innovation. In the context of this chapter the innovation of interest is the implementation of a

new curriculum. Outside support for innovation is one area where developing countries differ

markedly from developed ones. In developing countries, educational innovation is often

sponsored and funded by countries in the developed world. Hence the management teams of

these innovation projects often consist of people from a variety of countries with diverse

backgrounds and philosophies.

Support from outside agencies, in the South African context, comes from both traditional and

unique sources. On the traditional side are the National Department of Education and nine

provincial departments. The national department is charged with making major policy

decisions, while the provincial departments are responsible for their implementation and also

for the day to day running of the schools under their jurisdiction. What is somewhat unique to

South Africa is the vibrant educational NGO sector that took root in the 1970s and 80s. These

organizations were able to stimulate innovation and undertake professional development

activities, particularly in black education, in ways that the apartheid government was either

unable or unwilling to do. These organizations also acted as conduits for those local and

international donors who wished to assist with the improvement of education but did not want

to be associated with the government. (See for example Rogan and Gray, 1999, for the story

of one such organization.) In post-apartheid South Africa, many governments and other

101
agencies in Europe, North America and the Far East, and within South Africa itself, continue

to generously support educational innovation in South Africa. Hence when we consider

Outside Support we need to consider a wide range of organizations, with vastly differing

agendas, all vying for and/or collaborating with one another to play a role in the

implementation of educational innovation. These organizations, for the purposes of this

construct, fall into four categories: government departments, donors (both local and

international), NGOs and unions.

The profile that will be developed in this section needs to be able to take into account the

range of the types of support that each of these types of organizations provides and the

pressures they are able to apply. The ability to support or to apply pressure is tied up with

issues of authority and credibility. A government department of education can, for example,

make changes by decree, or at least attempt to so, whereas an NGO can only use persuasion

and inspiration. Government authority can, however, be tempered by the policies and actions

of trade unions. However, donors and NGOs can choose to work under the mantle of a

department and hence evoke some of its authority. In post 1994 South Africa, this kind of

collaboration is common, whereas under the previous government NGOs tended to shun any

association with the government. The issue here is one of credibility. The ability to evoke

authority as a means of facilitating change depends on the credibility of the organization. No

matter which kind of force change is contemplated, the need for credibility is always

necessary. For example, an NGO needs credibility if it is to use persuasion to bring about

change.

The profile of Outside Support is intended to describe the kinds of actions undertaken by

these outside organizations, as well as the ways in which they manifest their intentions.

Hence the focus is on design rather than effect. Table 4.4 is an attempt to create a profile of

102
the types and levels of support and pressure that various organizations might bring to bear on

a school in order to facilitate change. The first three columns in Table 4.4 deal with two forms

of support to schools, material and non-material. Material support is divided into two

categories, the provision of physical resources (column 1) such as buildings, books or

apparatus on the one hand, and direct support to learners (column 3) on the other, which

might include such things as school lunch programs and safe, quiet places to study outside of

class time. Both of these kinds of support can be provided at various levels.

Non-material support (column 2) is most commonly provided in the form of professional

development, and is perhaps the most visible and obvious way in which outside agencies

attempt to bring about changes in schools. This dimension has two sub-themes. The first is the

underlying purpose or focus of the professional development. At level one, the INSET

concentrates mainly on providing information about expected changes emanating from the

policy and about what teachers are expected to do as a result in their classrooms. Moving

through the levels, there is an increasing emphasis on professional development, which is

focused on implementation of change rather than just providing information, and a greater

sense of teacher ownership of the process. The second sub-theme is to do with extent and

duration of the support. The levels here range from a one-shot workshop to continuous,

school-based development.

Table 4.4 about here

In the fourth column, Table 4.4 expresses the kinds of forces that an organization chooses to

use as leverage in bringing about change. They are derived from table 4.1. These forces can

be used equally well in both providing support and applying pressure. Pressure, as opposed to

support, is often applied by means of various forms of monitoring and accountability. The

levels in the right hand column, in essence, capture the extent to which the monitoring is

103
external, as opposed to internal. At level one, the pressure may come from the Department of

Education in the form of edicts to innovate. External pressure is largely political in nature, and

is likely to kick start the process and to achieve at least a token compliance. However, it is the

internal pressures, those that evoke ‘learning community forces’, that are most likely to result

in meaningful change, and are described at level 4. For example, policy made by the National

Department of Education in South Africa is certainly one way in which to apply pressure to

teachers to make changes in the classroom. Some of the policy documents that directly affect

teachers are C2005 itself, as well as others that stipulate when INSET may occur (not during

school hours) and the requirement to attend eighty hours of professional development per

year. Union policies are also in place that have a direct bearing on teachers’ professional

capacity, such as the number of hours that should be spent in the work place each day and the

conditions under which teachers may be dismissed for unprofessional behavior.

It should be noted that the profile in Table 4.4 should only be applied to organizations

individually, since different organizations apply different types of pressure and apply different

types of support. It would not make sense to try and average these across the organizations

that are interacting with schools.

In the next section, we shall put forward a set of propositions indicating possible inter-

relationships between the three constructs.

Developing a Theory of Implementation - The Interplay of Constructs

The emergent theory will be put forward by means of a series of propositions, for the most

part based on the hypothesised inter-relationships between the three constructs.

Proposition One

104
 There is a zone of feasible innovation. Innovation is most likely to take place when it

proceeds just ahead of existing practice. Implementation of an innovation should occur

in manageable steps.

The notion being developed here is something that might be called a Zone of Feasible

Innovation (ZFI), by analogy with Vygotsky’s zone of proximal development. Vygotsky

defined the zone of proximal development as the

distance between the actual developmental level as determined by independent problem

solving and the level of potential development as determined through problem solving

under adult guidance or in collaboration with more capable peers’ (Vygotsky 1978, p.

86).

Vygotsky (quoted in Wertsch and Stone, 1985, p. 165) suggests that

instruction is good only when it proceeds ahead of development, when it awakens and

rouses to life those functions that are in the process of maturing or in the zone of

proximal development.

By analogy, curriculum implementation strategies are ‘good’ when they proceed just ahead of

current practice, i.e. are within the zone of feasible innovation. Thus, for example, a teacher

whose practices are limited to those described by level 1 on the Profile of Implementation will

be unlikely to be able to immediately employ practices described by level 4. Figure 4.3

illustrates the ZFI for a teacher who is operating at different levels on the profile of

implementation. To be effective, a curriculum implementation strategy needs to take into

account both the current level of the classroom interaction and the current capacity to support

innovation. Wood et al. (1976) refer to the need for ‘scaffolding’ if learners are to be assisted

to move beyond their current developmental level. Continuing the imagery, once the learner

has acquired the new knowledge and skills, the scaffold is removed. Similarly, while

105
innovation within the ZFI is taking place, it is likely that some sort of scaffolding will be

required. In time, as the capacity to support innovation increases, the ‘scaffold’ can be

removed.

Figure 4.3 about here

Proposition Two

Capacity to Support Innovation needs to be developed concurrently with efforts to

enrich the Profile of Implementation.

It is hypothesized that a relationship is likely to exist between the two constructs Profile of

Implementation and Capacity to Support Innovation. Efforts to bring about change should not

focus exclusively on either of the two. (See Figure 4.4) Attempts to push a system in the

implementation direction (the vertical axis in Figure 4.4) without attending to the capacity

factor will likely lead to a situation of diminishing returns - more effort with less to show for

it. Grayson (2000) stresses the need to plan to spend time and resources in the development of

capacity in situations where it is lacking. A second consequence of pushing a system in the

vertical direction beyond its capacity (effectively moving outside of the ZFI) is that when the

support mechanisms are removed or diminished, the system is likely to regress to a lower

level where the level of implementation is more congruent with the capacity to support it. In

the hypothesized relationship between the two constructs, it is suggested that the ZFI will

widen as the capacity is increased. For example, teachers in situations where a high capacity

exists, but whose practices are mostly at level one, are more likely to be able to incorporate

level three and four practices in a short period of time.

Figure 4.4 about here

106
Exclusive focus on aspects of capacity building alone have proved unproductive in the past.

To build capacity without linking it to implementation is fruitless. One such example is the

provision of science apparatus and laboratories to schools without the development of the

human capacity and without the linking of these resources to an increase in the level of

implementation. It is not uncommon in South Africa to find school laboratories that are in a

state of disuse and boxes of science apparatus that have yet to be unpacked.

Proposition Three

The provision of Outside Support should be informed by the other two constructs.

The capacity of the school needs to be taken into account in determining the nature

and extent of the implementation. Support with the desired implementation then needs

to go hand in hand with the development of capacity.

For example considering material support, there is no point in providing computers to schools

that do not have electricity. Similarly, there is no point in running workshops for teachers on

laboratory work if their schools have neither laboratories nor equipment. When support is of a

non-material nature, the same caution applies. For example, in a situation where the teachers’

content knowledge is very weak and resources of the school are non-existent, workshops on,

say, performance assessment in the laboratory are likely to be irrelevant and of no use to the

teacher. Professional development should be geared to the level of implementation selected by

the teachers and it should be within the ZFI. INSET for teachers struggling to reach level 1 on

table 2 might well focus on the strengthening of content knowledge and on implementing one

or two new practices based on the strengths that they already have. INSET for teachers who

already practice many of the techniques described by levels 1 and 2 could focus on strategies

designed to broaden the curriculum and to make learning more meaningful, such as

techniques that will help them to ask higher order questions, to give learners enough wait time

107
to answer these questions, and to embed the science content that they teach in the everyday

lives of their learners. For the teacher who has mastered most of the techniques at all four

levels, INSET might focus on the teacher as a curriculum innovator and action researcher.

The implication here is that the focus of INSET changes over time.

More generally, the focus of Outside Support is likely to need to change over time. In the

initial stages the focus might well be primarily on the development of capacity. However, it is

likely that as capacity increases, continued outside support will produce diminishing returns,

perhaps reaching a plateau. Therefore it may be that as some of the capacity issues are

resolved the focus of outside support ought to shift more directly towards the implementation

of curriculum innovation. Figure 4.5 illustrates three possible relationships between Capacity

and Outside Support. One possibility (A) is that outside support will result in a steady and

rapid increase in capacity, and that a stage is reached where capacity continues to increase

with no further outside support. (This possibility is the funders’ dream.) A second possibility

(B) is that outside support initially results in a large increase in capacity, but that once the

capacity reaches a certain level further support will not cause an appreciable increase. On the

other end of the scale, it is possible that increasing support may only lead to modest changes

in capacity (C). A whole range of possible relationships between Capacity and Outside

Support may exist between these three cases.

Figure 4.5 about here

Proposition Four

All role players, but especially those who are most directly involved, need the

opportunity to reconceptualize the intended changes in their own terms and for their

own context.

108
As with proposition one, an analogy between learning theory and curriculum implementation

can be made. The theory of constructivism has been widely embraced by science educators.

According to this theory of learning, knowledge cannot simply be poured into the mind of the

learner in the same way that water is poured into an empty vessel. Rather, for meaningful

learning to take place, the learner must reconstruct that knowledge for himself or herself. In

much the same way, those who are required to implement changes that have been decided

upon by others need to construct their own meaning of what those particular changes mean to

them at a particular point in time, and within their current context. Meaning cannot be given

by the initiators of innovations to the implementers at the onset of the process. The latter need

to develop meaning for themselves over time. McLaughlin and Marsh (1978, p. 80) refer to

this process as the acquisition of conceptual clarity. “The conceptual clarity critical to project

success and continuation must be achieved during the process of project implementation - it

cannot be ‘given’ to staff at the outset.”

Fullan (1991, p. 105) could be addressing the authors of C2005 when he writes:

Do not assume that your version of what the change should be is the one that should or

could be implemented. On the contrary, assume that one of the main purposes of the

process of implementation is to exchange your reality of what should be through

interaction with the implementers and others concerned.

One of the ironies of the South African situation is that despite an allegiance to constructivist

principles, many of those charged with the promotion of C2005 insist on the implementation

of one ‘orthodox’ version. (See Pithouse, 2001, for a teacher’s perspective of one such effort.)

Posner et al. (1982) have suggested that certain conditions need to be met if learners are to

make conceptual changes. The conditions are: there must be dissatisfaction with the old

conception and the new conception must be intelligible, plausible and fruitful. It is likely that

109
an analogous set of conditions need to be met for teachers to make changes in their classroom

practices and for learners to change their understanding of the learning process and their role

in it. For example, there will be little incentive to implement a new curriculum if there is no

sense of dissatisfaction with the old one. A sense of dissatisfaction must somehow be

provoked, whether by peer pressure, by government edict or by developing a shared vision of

something better than what currently exists. The innovation also needs to be seen to be

intelligible, plausible and fruitful by those whose responsibility it is to implement it.

In order to assist curriculum implementers to perceive the intelligibility, plausibility and

fruitfulness of a curriculum innovation, it is usually insufficient to merely describe the

innovation in abstract terms. This is particularly true when the ideas underpinning the

innovation are radically different from existing practice. Bell and Gilbert (1996, p. 114)

indicate that for teachers to change their practices they need to be able to visualize what

alternatives might look like in the classroom. Curriculum implementers also need the

opportunity to see the theory in action, and to experiment with that part of it that they see as

feasible and desirable. Guskey (1986, p.7) claims that any change in teachers’ beliefs and

attitudes, and hence practice, will most likely come about after they have explored and judged

the innovation in their classroom. As he puts it,

... significant change in the beliefs and attitudes of teachers is contingent on their

gaining evidence of change in the learning outcomes of their students.

Practices that are found to work, that is, those that a teacher finds useful in helping

students attain desired learning outcomes, are retained; those that do not work are

abandoned.

110
Taking the South African experience as an example, teachers should experience innovations

such as C2005 in action firsthand, rather than be lectured to on its aims, structure and jargon.

With this experience behind them, they should be invited, indeed urged, to elaborate on the

extent to which their experience suggests that the aims should be modified and changed.

C2005 should not be seen as set in stone, but rather the beginning of a journey. It should be

seen as something with which teachers can interact and which they can modify, and in so

doing make their own. Moreover, pupils need to change their views of what constitutes good

teaching and what their role is in the teaching-learning process. Bell and Gilbert (1996, p.

117) point out that, “… helping the students to deal with the change was seen as an important

factor in promoting change.”

If, as we suggest, implementation is most likely to occur within a ZFI, then this zone must be

identified by those who are most closely involved with implementing the changes. The Profile

of Implementation can assist in this process by serving as a map on which they can identify

where they currently are and what innovations they would like to make in the coming months.

The decision of where to begin, what to implement and how quickly to move would be theirs.

Proposition Five

Changing teaching and learning practices should be viewed as a change of culture

rather than merely a technical matter.

The kinds of changes called for as teachers and learners expand and enrich their position on

the Profile of Implementation as described in Table 4.2 are not merely to do with technique or

technicalities. The envisaged changes challenge the whole belief system as to what it means to

teach (or facilitate) and what it means to learn. Fullan (1998) indicates that there is a need to

‘reculture’ schools, where

111
 reculturing…transforms the habits, skills and practices of educators and others towards

greater professional community which focuses on what students are learning and what

actions should be taken to improve the situation.

If the process of curriculum change is indeed viewed as a cultural change, then there are all

kinds of implications for the construct Outside Support. Those who are responsible for the

support from outside the system will need to accept the premise that cultural values are a

commodity shared by the community with which they are interacting. Shifts in these values

will not occur overnight, nor will they occur in isolation. While individuals might well

embrace new values, for an innovation to become embedded in a system requires the

acceptance, understanding and commitment of a critical mass of members of that community.

The implication here is that those from the outside who are attempting to promote innovation

in a school need to assist in the development of a ‘community of practice’ which possesses

both the influence and the authority to question existing practices and to adopt and promote

new and shared cultural values. This community needs to be nurtured and supported over the

time that it takes for the shift in cultural values to occur. For this to happen, according to

Sergiovanni (1998),

Cultural change forces rely on community norms, values and ideas that, when

internalised, speak to everyone in a moral voice. Teachers, students and other members

of this community…are motivated by felt obligations that emerge from the shared

values and norms that define the school as a covenantal community.

This situation was certainly found to prevail in the case of disadvantaged schools in South

Africa that succeeded despite their poor circumstances. It was found that in these schools the

shared vision, dedication and commitment of both staff and students were striking (Malcolm

et al, 2000).

112
Proposition Six

Implementation will be most likely to succeed when there is alignment between the

three constructs and the primary level of the system.

If, for example, the learning experience is chosen as the primary level, as it is for C2005, then

Outside Support should be organized in a way that ultimately leads to a higher quality

learning experience for the pupils. Any efforts to improve school management or teachers’

competence, for instance, need to be made with the goal of improving the learning experience

always in mind. At times, such interventions are made on the assumption that higher quality

learning will result, but this assumption is not always valid (for example, Taylor and

Vinjevold 1999, pp. 142-156), or even tested.

Similarly, Capacity to Innovate should be focused on the extent to which various factors can

be brought together to provide an enriched and more effective learning experience for pupils.

For example, more laboratory equipment in schools should increase the Capacity to Innovate,

but if it remains in unopened boxes then it will have no impact on the learning experience.

Similarly, if teachers attend workshops on learner-centered teaching approaches but do not

implement them in their classrooms then the learning experience will not be affected. Both of

these examples are common occurrences in South Africa and other developing countries

(Verspoor 1989, pp. 110-12). Though interventions of this type should contribute to the

Capacity to Innovate in theory, if they are not tied directly to improving the learning

experience of pupils then implementation cannot be seen to have advanced.

In the Profile of Implementation, teachers’ actions, assessment and use of resources should all

be viewed in terms of how well they enrich the learning experience. A teacher may use all

113
sorts of wonderful innovative approaches, but if pupils do not learn more effectively then the

classroom experience as described by the Profile of Implementation will not be enriched in

terms of the primary focus of the intended educational change.

Conclusion

The developing world is replete with examples of well-intentioned, well-designed curriculum

reform programs that have failed to take root. One of the most important reasons for this

failure seems to be a lack of clearly thought-out implementation strategies that take into

account the local context, including diversity that may exist within that context, and

psychological factors that influence learning and change. In this chapter we have proposed

that a theory of curriculum implementation may go some way towards combating such

wasteful and demoralizing experiences. Such a theory has the potential to guide both those

who develop educational policies and reforms and those who are tasked with implementing

them.

As a starting point for developing a theory of implementation we have drawn on a selection of

the educational change literature as well as on current theories of learning and systems design

and tried to integrate them in order to suggest how these ideas may be applied to curriculum

implementation in a developing world context. At the center of the proposed theory we have

posited three constructs that need to be taken into account at every stage of the

implementation process, namely Profile of Implementation, Capacity to Support Innovation

and Outside Support. These constructs are interdependent. Each one needs to inform the

others, and must remain focused on the primary goal of the intended educational change.

We have suggested that relationships exist between the three constructs, and have tentatively

hypothesized what they might look like in Figures 4.4 and 4.5. However, research is needed

114
to establish these relationships in a variety of contexts. Research is also needed to identify

appropriate indicators for each of the constructs. It is unlikely that the indicators will be the

same in all contexts or for all time. For example, where overall capacity in a school is low, the

most important indicators of Capacity to Support Innovation may relate to teacher attitudes

and good administration, while in a school with high capacity, such as good physical facilities

and well-qualified teachers, pupil motivation may be a more significant indicator. Similarly,

the relationships among the three constructs are likely to vary over time and context, with, for

example, Outside Support becoming less important as Capacity to Support Innovation

increases. Research conducted in a variety of contexts is needed in order to see the extent to

which commonalities in the processes of determining indicators for the constructs emerge

which may be generalized. Likewise, research is needed to see whether any generalizations

can be made about the indicators themselves, and changes in the relative importance of

indicators over time. Research carried out in different contexts will also shed light on the

interplay of the three constructs, again showing whether there are commonalities that arise

across diverse contexts.

References

Arnott, A., Kubeka, Z., Rice, M. & Hall, G. (1997). Mathematics and Science Teachers:

Demand, Utilisation, Supply and Training in South Africa. EduSource, 97/01.

Banathy, B.H. (1991). Systems Design of Education. A Journey to Create the Future.

Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.

Beeby, C.E. (1966). The Quality of Education in Developing Countries. Cambridge, MA:

Harvard University Press.

Bell, B. & Gilbert, J. (1996). Teacher development: A model from science education.

London: Falmer.

115
Berman, P. & McLaughlin, M. (1977). Federal programs supporting educational change:

Vol. VIII Factors affecting implementation and continuation. Santa Monica, CA:

Rand Corporation.

Curriculum 2005 (1997). http://www.polity.org.za/govdocs/misc/curr2005.html

Darling-Hammond, L. (1998). Policy and change: Getting beyond bureaucracy. In

Hargreaves, A., Lieberman, A., Fullan, M. & Hopkins, D. (Eds.) International

Handbook of Educational Change. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

De Feiter, L.P., Vonk, H. & van den Akker, J. (1995). Towards more effective Teacher

Development in Southern Africa. Amsterdam: VU University Press.

Fullan, M. G. (1998). The meaning of educational change: A quarter of a century of learning.

In Hargreaves, A., Lieberman, A., Fullan, M. & Hopkins, D. (Eds.) 214-228

International Handbook of Educational Change. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic

Publishers.

Fullan, M.G. (1991). The New Meaning of Educational Change. New York, NY: Teachers

College Press.

Grayson, D.J. (2000). A Tale of Two Projects. Journal of International Cooperation in

Education, 3 (2), 49-62.

Government Gazette (15 March 1995). White Paper on Education and Training. 357 (16312).

Cape Town, Republic of South Africa.

Guskey, T.R. (1986). Staff development and the process of teacher change. Educational

Researcher, 15(5), 5-12.

Guthrie, G. (1980). Stages of Educational Development? Beeby Revisited. International

Review of Education, 26, 411-438.

Hall, G.E. & Hord, S. (1987). Change in schools: Facilitating the process. Albany, NY: State

University of New York Press.

116
Hall, G.E. & Loucks, S.F. (1977). A developmental model for determining whether the

treatment is actually implemented. American Educational Research Journal, 14, 263-

276.

Hargreaves, D.H. & Hopkins, D. (1991). The Empowered School. The management and

practice of development planning. London: Cassell Educational Limited.

Hopkins, D. & MacGilchrist, B. (1998). Development planning for pupil achievement. School

Leadership & Management, 18, 409-424.

Hopkins, D., Ainscow, M. & West, M. (1994). School Improvement in an Era of Change.

London: Cassell Educational Limited.

Jansen, J.D. (1999). Lessons learned (and not learned) from the OBE experience. Keynote

address, Western Cape Education Department Conference, Stellenbosch.

Johnson, S., Monk, M. & Hodges, M. (2000). Teacher development and change in South

Africa: A critique of the appropriateness of transfer of north/west practice. Compare,

30, 179-192.

Khulisa Management Services (1999). Evaluation of Curriculum 2005 (C2005) and Outcomes

Based Education (OBE) in Gauteng Province. Report commissioned by the Gauteng

Institute for Curriculum Development.

Levin, H.M. (1987). Accelerated schools for the disadvantaged. Educational Leadership,

44(6), 19-21.

Levin, H.M. (1998). Accelerated Schools: A decade of evolution. In Hargreaves, A.,

Lieberman, A., Fullan, M. & Hopkins, D. (Eds.) International Handbook of

Educational Change. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

McLaughlin, M.L. & Marsh, D.D. (1978). Staff Development and School Change. Teachers

College Record, 80, 69-94.

117
Malcolm, C., Keane, M., Hoolo, L., Kgaka, M. & Owens, J. (2000). Why some

‘disadvantaged’ schools succeed in Mathematics and science: A study of ‘feeder’

schools. RADMASTE Centre, University of the Witwatersrand.

Murphy, J. (1992). Apartheid’s Legacy to Black Children. Phi Delta Kappan, 73, 367-374.

Pithouse, K. (2001). Adapt or Die? A teacher’s evaluation of a Curriculum 2005 ‘Re-training

Workshop. Perspectives in Education, 19(1), 154-158.

Porter, P. (July-August, 1980). Policy perspectives on the study of educational innovations.

Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 2 (4).

Posner, G.D., Strike, K.A., Hewson, P.W. & Gertzog, W.A. (1982). Accommodation of a

scientific conception: towards a theory of conceptual change. Science Education, 66,

211-227.

Rogan, J.M. & Gray, B.V. (1999). Science Education as South Africa’s Trojan Horse.

Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36, 373-385.

Sergiovanni, T.M. (1998). Organization, Market and Community as Strategies for change:

What works best for deep changes in schools. In Hargreaves, A., Lieberman, A.,

Fullan, M. & Hopkins, D. (Eds.) International Handbook of Educational Change.

Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Taylor, N. & Vinjevold, P. (1999). Getting Learning Right. Report of the President’s

Education Initiative Research Project. Johannesburg, South Africa: The Joint

Education Trust.

Verspoor, A. (1989). Pathways to Change. Improving the Quality of Education in

Developing Countries. Washington D.C.: The World Bank.

Verspoor, A. & Wu, K.B. (1990). Textbooks and Educational Development. Educational and

Employment Division, population and Human Resources Department, PHREE

background paper series No. PHREE/90/31. Washington DC: The World Bank.

118
Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological

Processes. London: Harvard University Press.

Wertsch, J.V. & Stone, C.A. (1985). The concept of internalization in Vygotsky’s account of

the genesis of higher mental functions. In Wertsch, J.V. (Ed.), Culture,

Communication and Cognition: Vygotskian Perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.

Wood, D., Bruner, J.S. & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal

of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 17, 89-100.

119