Relationships between the constructs of a theory of curriculum implementation

JOURNAL OF RESEARCH IN SCIENCE TEACHING VOL. 42, NO. 3, PP. 313–336 (2005)

Relationships between the Constructs of a Theoryof Curriculum Implementation

John Rogan, Colleen Aldous

Faculty of Agricultural and Natural Sciences, University of Pretoria, Pretoria 0002,

South Africa

Received 27 June 2003; Accepted 20 July 2004

Abstract: Planned educational change occurs regularly throughout the world. With the enormous

political change the 1994 elections brought to South Africa, a complete change in education policies was

called for. The new Curriculum 2005 (C2005; Department of Education, RSA, 1997) embraced new

teaching and learning approaches such as outcomes-based education and learner-centered teaching

practices. To explore the progress of the implementation of C2005, a theoretical framework specifically

designed to elucidate curriculum implementation in developing countries was applied to 10 case studies.

The framework consists of interrelating constructs with subconstructs which impact on curriculum

implementation. It enables one to look at the levels of implementation achieved both in terms of the

capacity of the school and the extent to which outside support and pressure is provided. The case studies

were carried out in a representative sample of schools in Mpumalanga, one of the nine South African

provinces. The aim of this article is to investigate the possible interrelationships of the constructs and the

subconstructs. Some predictable relationships emerged from the data while other expected relationships

failed to materialize. � 2005 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Res Sci Teach 42: 313–336, 2005

Introduction

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 are focused on the ‘‘what’’ of

desired educational change, neglecting the ‘‘how.’’ Porter (1980), speaking about the role of the

national government in educational change in the United States and Australia, claimed that

‘‘. . .the people concerned with creating policy and enacting the relevant legislation seldom look

down the track to the implementation stage’’ (p. 75). Bringing a new curriculum into practice

involves three distinct steps, viz. initiation, implementation, and routinization (Waugh & Godfrey,

1995). In most planned changes that occur, the focus is almost exclusively placed at the

Correspondence to: J. Rogan; E-mail: [email protected]; [email protected]

DOI 10.1002/tea.20054

Published online 31 January 2005 in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com).

� 2005 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

formulation of the policy (i.e., the initiation stage). The interface between the initiation phase and

the implementation phase is often hurried to get to the routinization phase as quickly as possible.

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

supported educational-change programs, noted that ‘‘Large-scale programs tend to emphasize

adoption and neglect implementation’’ (p. 133). Furthermore, he stated that ‘‘. . .in nearly all

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

(p. 133). It was with this neglect of implementation issues in mind that Rogan and Grayson (2003)

tentatively proposed theoretical propositions on curriculum implementation, which placed

particular emphasis on developing countries. The propositions posit relationships between three

constructs—Profile of Implementation, Capacity to Innovate, and Outside Support—each of

which in turn comprises of a number of subconstructs. The purpose of this article is to investigate

the possible interrelationships of both the constructs and the subconstructs. We begin by briefly

summarizing the theoretical framework and then describe the context in which the data were

collected before looking at the nature of the relationships themselves.

The Theoretical Framework

The framework will be briefly summarized in this section, followed by two of the propositions

put forward by Rogan and Grayson (2003) in the same article. The framework draws on school

development, educational change, and science education literature to develop the three constructs,

with their subconstructs as shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1. The framework on which the research is based.

314 ROGAN AND ALDOUS

The Profile of Implementation (Table 1) is a construct to help understand, analyze, and

express the extent to which the ideals of a curriculum are being put into practice. An essential

corollary to the Profile of Implementation is the recognition that the implementation of a new

curriculum is not an ‘‘all-or-nothing’’ proposition. As Fullan (1991) noted, a key feature of the

practicality of implementation is the ‘‘presence of the next steps.’’ Hence, one of the most

significant contributions that the Profile could offer is to conceptualize levels of implementation of

a new curriculum. It can potentially enable curriculum planners at the school level to determine

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

and define for themselves how best to adopt a new curriculum, phasing it in over a number of years.

Table 1

An example of Profile of Implementation for science education

LevelClassroomInteraction

SciencePractical Work

Sciencein Society Assessment

1 Teacher:Presents content in a

well-organized,correct andwell-sequencedmanner, based on awell-designedlesson plan.

Provides adequatenotes.

Uses textbookeffectively.

Engages learnerswith questions.

Learners:Stay attentive and

engaged.Respond to and

initiate questions.

Teacher usesclassroomdemonstrations tohelp developconcepts.

Teacher usesspecimens foundin the localenvironment toillustrate lessons.

Teacher usesexamples andapplications fromeveryday life toillustrate scientificconcepts.

Learners askquestions aboutscience in thecontext ofeveryday life.

Written tests aregiven that coverthe topicadequately.

While mostquestions are ofthe recall type,some requirehigher orderthinking.

Tests are marked andreturned promptly.

2 Teacher: Teacher usesdemonstrations topromote a limitedform of inquiry.

Some learners assistin planning andperforming thedemonstrations.

Learners participatein closed(cookbook)practical work.

Learnerscommunicate datausing graphs andtables.

Teacher bases alesson (or lessons)on a specificproblem or issuefaced by the localcommunity.

Teacher assistslearners to explorethe explanationsof scientificphenomena bydifferent culturalgroups.

Written tests includeat least 50% of thequestions thatrequirecomprehension,application, andanalysis.

Some of thequestions arebased on practicalwork.

Textbooks are usedalong with otherresources.

Engages learners withquestions thatencourage in-depththinking.

Learners:Use additional (to text

book) sources ofinformation incompiling notes.

Engage in meaningfulgroup work.

On own initiative,offer a contributionto the lesson.

(Continued)

RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN CONSTRUCTS 315

Table 1

(Continued)

LevelClassroomInteraction



3 Teacher:Probes learners’prior knowledge.

Structures learningactivities along‘‘good practice’’lines (Knowledge isconstructed, isrelevant, and isbased on problemsolvingtechniques).

Introduces learners tothe evolving natureof scientificknowledge.

Learners:Engage in minds-on

learning activities.Make own notes onthe conceptslearned from doingthese activities.

Teacher designspractical work insuch a way toencourage learnerdiscovery ofinformation.

Learners perform‘‘guideddiscovery’’ typepractical workin small groups,engagingin hands-onactivities.

Learners can write ascientific report inwhich they canjustify theirconclusions interms of the datacollected.

Learners activelyinvestigate theapplication ofscience andtechnology intheir ownenvironment,mainly by meansof data-gatheringmethods such assurveys.Examples heremight include anaudit of energyuse or careeropportunities thatrequire a scientificbackground.

Written tests includequestions basedon seen or unseen‘‘guideddiscovery’’ typeactivities.

Assessment is basedon more thanwritten tests.Other forms ofassessment mightinclude reports onactivitiesundertaken,creation of chartsand improvisedapparatus, andreports on extrareadingassignments.

4 Learners:Take major

responsibility fortheir own learning;partake in theplanning andassessment of theirown learning.

Undertake long-termand community-based investigationprojects.

Teacher:Facilitates learners as

they design andundertakelong-terminvestigations andprojects.

Assists learners toweigh up the meritsof different theoriesthat attempt toexplain the samephenomena.

Learners design anddo their own‘‘open’’investigations.

They reflect on thequality of thedesign andcollected data,and makeimprovements.

Learners caninterpret data insupport ofcompetingtheories orexplanations.

Learners activelyundertake aproject in theirlocal communityin which theyapply science totackle a specificproblem or tomeet aspecific need. Anexample might beon growing a newtype of crop toincrease theincome of thecommunity.

Learners explore thelong-term effectsof communityprojects. Forexample, a projectmay have ashort-term benefit,but result inlong-termdetrimentaleffects.

Performance on openinvestigations andcommunity-basedprojects areincluded in thefinal assessment.

Learners createportfolios torepresent their‘‘best’’ work.


Thus, the implementation 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 &

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 (1991):

. . .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. (p. 8)

The particular context of this study is the implementation of the natural science learning area

of the new South African curriculum, known as Curriculum 2005 (C2005; Department of

Education, RSA, 1997) in some selected schools. An example of what the Profile might look like in

this context is shown in Table 1. The subconstructs of the Profile of Implementation are the (a)

nature of the classroom interaction (what the teacher does and what the learners do), (b) use and

nature of science practical work, (c) incorporation of science in society, and (d) assessment

practices. These subconstructs are related to the ideals for science education as stated in the C2005

and represent a large shift from the previous science curriculum. The Profile retains some of the

notions of earlier developmental models such as those proposed by Beeby (1966) and Verspoor

and Wu (1990). The practices described in what is called Level 4 are more sophisticated than those

at Level 1. In moving through the levels, on all four subconstructs, there is an increasing emphasis

towards learner-centered, standards-based approaches; however, unlike the earlier developmental

models, the profile does not imply ‘‘progressing’’ from one level to another. Rather, the higher

levels are inclusive of the lower ones. 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 teachers who routinely display Level 1 strategies to move directly to the incorporation

of aspects of Level 4. Furthermore, the four subconstructs 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.

The construct Capacity to Support Innovation (Table 2) is an attempt to understand and

elaborate on the school-based factors that are able to support, or hinder, the implementation of new

ideas and practices. It should be recognized that not all schools have the capacity to implement a

given innovation to the same extent.

Like Cohen and Ball (1999), we see capacity as comprising more than simply teacher factors.

Indicators of the Capacity to Support Innovation construct in our framework fall into four groups:

physical resources, teacher factors, learner factors, and the school ethos and management.

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, Keane, Hoolo, Kgaka, and Owens (2000) found that

some South African 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

characterized by a visible ethos of learning and working together toward a shared vision.

The profile of Outside Support (Table 3) is intended to describe the kinds of actions

undertaken by organizations outside of a school that nevertheless attempt to influence its practice.

A profile of the types and levels of support and pressure/motivation that various organizations

Table 2

Profile of the Capacity to Support Innovation

LevelPhysical

ResourcesTeacherFactors

LearnerFactors

School Ethosand Management

1 Basic buildings–classrooms andone office, but inpoor condition.

Toilets availableSome textbooks–

not enough for all

Teacher isunderqualifiedfor position,but does have aprofessionalqualification

Learners havesomeproficiency inlanguage ofinstruction, butseveral gradesbelow gradelevel

Management: A timetable,class lists, and otherroutines are in evidence.

The presence of the principalis felt in the school at leasthalf the time, and staffmeetings are held at times

Ethos: School functions,i.e., teaching and learningoccur most of the time,albeit erratically

School is secure and access isdenied to unauthorizedpersonnel

2 Adequate basicbuildings in goodcondition

Suitable furniture–adequate and ingood condition

Electricity in at leastone room

Textbooks for allSome apparatus for

science

Teacher has theminimumqualificationfor position

Teacher attendsschool/classesregularly

Teacher ismotivated anddiligent.Enjoyshis/her work

Teacherparticipates inprofessionaldevelopmentactivities

Teacher has agoodrelationshipwith andtreatment oflearners

Learners arereasonablyproficient inlanguage ofinstruction

Learners attendschool on aregular basis

Learners are wellnourished

Learners are givenadequate timeaway fromhomeresponsibilitiesto do schoolwork

Management: Principal ispresent at school most ofthe time and is in regularcontact with his/her staff

Timetable properlyimplemented

Extramural activities areorganized in such a waythat they rarely interferewith scheduled classes

Teachers/learners who shirktheir duties or displaydeviant behaviour are heldaccountable

Ethos: Responsibility formaking the schoolfunction is shared bymanagement, teachers,and learners to a limitedextent.

A School Governing Body isin existence.

Schools functions all thetime, i.e., learning andteaching always take placeas scheduled

(Continued)


Table 2

(Continued )

LevelPhysical

ResourcesTeacherFactors

LearnerFactors

School Ethosand Management

3 Good buildings,with enoughclassrooms and ascience room

Electricity in allrooms

Running waterTextbooks for all

pupils andteachers

Sufficient scienceapparatus

Secure premisesWell-kept grounds

Teacher isqualified forposition andhas a soundunderstandingof subjectmatter

Teacher isan activeparticipant inprofessional-developmentactivities

Conscientiousattendance ofclass byteacher

Teacher makes anextra effort toimproveteaching

Learners areproficient inlanguage ofinstruction

Learners haveaccess to quiet,safe place tostudy

Learners comefrom asupportivehomeenvironment

Learners canafford textbooksand extralessons

Parents showinterest in theirchildren’sprogress

Management: Principaltakes strong leadershiprole, is very visible duringschools hours

Teachers and learners play anactive role in schoolmanagement

Ethos: Everyone in theschool is committed tomaking it work

Parents play active role inSchool Governing Bodiesand in supporting theschool in general

4 Excellent buildingsOne or more

well-equippedsciencelaboratory

Library or resourcecenter

Adequatecurriculummaterials otherthan textbooks

Good teaching andlearningresources(e.g., computers,models)

Attractive groundsGood copyingfacilities

Teacher isoverqualifiedfor positionand has anexcellentknowledge ofcontent matter

Teacher has anextraordinarycommitment toteaching

Teacher showswillingness tochange,improvise, andcollaborate,and has avision ofinnovation

Teacher showslocal andnationalleadership inprofessional-developmentactivities

Learners are fluentin the languageof instruction

Learners takeresponsibilityfor their ownlearning

Learners arewilling to trynew kinds oflearning

Ethos: There is a sharedvision

The school plans for,supports, and monitorschange

Collaboration of allstakeholders is encouragedand practiced

Management: There is avisionary, butparticipatory, leadershipat the school


might bring to bear on a school to facilitate change is shown in Table 3. The first three columns deal

with two forms of support to schools: material and nonmaterial. Material support is divided into

two categories: (a) the provision of physical resources such as buildings, books, or apparatus and

(b) direct support to learners, 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. Nonmaterial support 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 subconstruct has two themes. The first is the underlying purpose or focus

of the professional development. At Level 1, in-service training (INSET) concentrates mainly on

Table 3

Profile of Outside Support

Level

Types of Encouragement and Support DominantChange Force

Evoked byAgency

MonitoringMechanisms

andAccountability

Physicalresources

Design ofprofessionaldevelopment

Direct supportto learners

1 Provisionsupplementswhat exists,but not enoughto support theintendedchanges.Provision is inone categoryonly

Information onpolicy andexpectedchanges arepresented toschool-basedpersonnel.

Provision ofbasic needs,such aslunches andplaces tostudy

Bureaucratic,change isbroughtabout bytop-downdirectives tobring aboutchange

Inspections byauthoritiesareundertaken

Typical mode isshort, one-shotworkshop

2 Provisioncompletelycovers what isrequired toeffect theintendedchange in onecategory, orpartlysufficient intwo categories

Examplesof ‘‘new’’practices assuggestedby thepolicies arepresented toschool-basedpersonnel,who are givenan opportunityto engage inthese practicesin a simulatedsituation.

Basicacademicneeds arecatered forin the formof extralessons

Charismaticchange isbroughtabout bytop-downinspiration andencouragement

Inspections areundertakenincollaborationwithschool-basedpersonnel

Typical mode is aseries of shortworkshopslasting for1 year

(Continued)


Table 3

(Continued )

Level

Types of Encouragement and Support DominantChange Force

Evoked byAgency

MonitoringMechanisms

andAccountability

Physicalresources

Design ofprofessionaldevelopment


3 Provisioncompletelycovers what isrequired toeffect theintendedchange in twocategories,or partlysufficientin threecategories

Professionaldevelopment isdesigned byschool-basedpersonneldepending onwhich newpractices theywish toimplement, andimplementedusing bothinside andoutside support

Enrichedacademicneeds arecatered forin the formof field tripsand otherenrichment-typeactivities

Professionalchange isbroughtabout byencouragingrole playersto embracecodes ofconduct andstandards ofteaching andlearning

School-basedpersonnelmonitor ownprogress, butreport toauthorities

Typical modeconsists of bothexternal andschool-basedINSET for 2 to3 years

4 Provisioncompletelycovers what isrequired toeffect theintendedchange in threecategories, orcovers twocategories andis partlysufficient in allfour categories

Communities ofpractice take fullresponsibilityfor theirown continuedprofessionalgrowth, andfor schoolgovernance andcurriculumimplementation,calling onoutside supportas appropriate

Completeacademicand personalsupport isprovided,usually inthe form ofbursaries

Learningcommunitychange isbroughtabout bydevelopingcommunitiesthat developshared valuesand goalsregardingeducationalpracticeand acommitmentto put theseinto practice

All monitoringis undertakenby school-basedpersonnel

Typical modeconsists ofongoingschool-basedand directedprofessionalINSET


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

theme involves the extent and the duration of support. The levels here range from a one-shot

workshop to continuous, school-based development.

The fourth column of Table 3 expresses the kinds of forces that an organization chooses to use

as leverage in bringing about change. 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 fifth column describes the extent to which the

monitoring is external, as opposed to internal. At Level 1, 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 motivations, those that evoke ‘‘learning community forces,’’ that are most likely to

result in meaningful change; these are described at Level 4.

Taking the previous framework into account, Rogan and Grayson (2003) proceeded to

theorize, in the form of six propositions, regarding the possible relationships that might exist

between the constructs. Two of the six propositions are of particular importance to this article.

Proposition 2: 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. Attempts to push a system in the implementation direction

(the vertical axis in Figure 2) without attending to the capacity factor will likely lead to a situation

of diminishing returns—more effort with less to show for it. A second consequence of pushing a

system in the vertical direction beyond its capacity 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.

Figure 2. Possible relationship between the Profile of Implementation and the Capacity to Support

Innovation. As the Capacity to Support Innovation increases, it is likely that a larger range of Profiles of

Implementation will be possible.


Proposition 3: 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

This proposition, in short, suggests that there is an interaction between all three constructs and

that a cause and effect relationship might exist between them. Uniform interventions are often

created by outside support agencies and imposed on individual schools without regard for their

uniqueness or context. It is proposed here that outside intervention will be more effective if the

schools’ context with respect to capacity to implement and actual implementation progress are

taken into account.

The Context

C2005

In 1994, the seemingly impossible was achieved in South Africa. Political power passed from

the White minority to the majority peacefully. For the first time, elections were held in which

everyone participated, and Nelson Mandela became the new president. The African National

Congress (ANC)-led government wasted no time in reforming all aspects of the educational

system, including the curriculum. The National Department of Education published a White

paper, which was designed to guide its policies for the coming years. It heralds its intentions with

the bold assertion, ‘‘It is time to declare that a new era has dawned. In publishing this document,

the Ministry of Education opens not just a new chapter but an entirely new volume in the country’s

educational development.’’ C2005 (Department of Education, RSA, 1997) nailed its colors to the

mast in its opening section:

The vision for South Africa encompasses a prosperous, truly united, democratic and

internationally competitive country with literate, creative and critical citizens, leading

productive, self-fulfilled lives in a country free of violence, discrimination and prejudice.

This new curriculum openly and unequivocally embraces outcomes-based education (OBE). The

rationale is that for too long South African students have memorized content, which they then

regurgitate in tests and examinations. With the introduction of OBE, the focus shifts to what they

can do with their knowledge, and in particular whether they can use what they know to meet the

specified outcomes. The C2005 document makes the following claims:

� The move towards an outcomes-based approach is due to the growing concern around the

effectiveness of traditional methods of teaching and training which were content-based.

An outcomes-based approach to teaching and learning, however, differs quite drastically

and presents a paradigm shift. According to Spady (1994) outcomes are high-quality,

culminating demonstrations of significant learning in context.

� An outcomes-based education and training system requires a shift from focusing on

teacher input (instructional offerings or syllabuses expressed in term of content) to

focusing on the outcomes of the learning process.

� Outcomes-based learning focuses the achievement in terms of clearly defined outcomes,

rather than teacher input in terms of syllabus content.

� In outcomes-based learning, a learner’s progress is measured against agreed criteria. This

implies that formal assessment will employ criterion-referencing and will be conducted in

a transparent manner.


Twelve so-called Critical Outcomes, spanning all subject areas, were formulated as a

foundation for C2005. In addition, each learning area developed ‘‘Specific Outcomes.’’ Those for

Natural Science were:

1. Use process skills to investigate phenomena related to the Natural Sciences.

2. Demonstrate an understanding of concepts and principles in the Natural Sciences.

3. Apply scientific knowledge and skills to problems in innovative ways.

4. Demonstrate an understanding of how scientific knowledge and skills contribute to the

management, development and utilisation of natural and other resources.

5. Use scientific knowledge and skills to support responsible decision-making.

6. Demonstrate knowledge and understanding of relationship between science and culture.

7. Demonstrate an understanding of the changing and contested nature of the Natural

Sciences.

8. Demonstrate knowledge and understanding of ethical issues, bias and inequities related

to the Natural Sciences.

9. Demonstrate an understanding of the interaction between the Natural Sciences,

technology and socio-economic development.

Well intentioned as it was, the first version of C2005 resulted in severe implementation

problems (e.g., Chisholm, 2000; Khulisa Management Services, 1999; Malcolm, 1999, 2001;

Rogan, 2000). It was subsequently streamlined to make it more user friendly. The aforementioned

nine outcomes were condensed into three; however, during the time period of the research reported

here, the old version of C2005 was still in force.

The Setting

Mpumalanga is one of the nine provinces that make up South Africa. It is mostly a rural

province without any large cities, and is situated on the eastern edge of South Africa (Its name

means ‘‘place where the sun rises.’’) While its economy is mostly based on agriculture and

tourism, it does have large coal deposits which fuel the generation of electricity for much of the

country as a whole. The schools in Mpumalanga, along with all others in the country, were

mandated by the national government to implement C2005 by a predetermined date, which has

seen several postponements due to difficulties in implementation.

Since 1999, the Japanese International Cooperation Agency (JICA) has been working in

collaboration with the Mpumalanga Department of Education and the Universities of Pretoria,

Hiroshima, and Naruto to assist mathematics and science teachers to implement C2005 in a project

known as the Mpumalanga Secondary Science Initiative (MSSI). The overall goal is to improve

the teaching and learning of mathematics and science in all secondary schools in the province in

line with the expected outcomes of C2005. It seeks to achieve this goal by developing a province-

wide in-service system, with particular emphasis on school or cluster-based professional

development. In parallel with this initiative, a large research project was initiated at the beginning

of 2000 to obtain data on the implementation of C2005 in Grades 8 and 9.

Method

There are approximately 500 secondary schools in the Mpumalanga province. To date, data

for the overall research project have been collected in three ways:

1. Questionnaires were completed in 2001, 2002, and 2003 by a representative sample of

secondary-school science/math teachers and learners.


2. Researchers and curriculum implementers have visited schools to observe (and to

videotape) specific lessons and conduct interviews with teachers.

3. In-depth case studies of implementation of the new curriculum were undertaken in 2002

in 12 schools, focusing on the teaching of mathematics and science in Grades 8 and 9.

Data used in this study were drawn almost exclusively from the case studies, and hence only

the method used with these will be elaborated upon.

Selection of Case-Study Sites

The Mpumalanga Department of Education provided the research team with a suggested list

of 20 schools in which to undertake the case studies. The list contained both rural and urban

schools as well as those that were well resourced and those that were not. This list was used to

select eight schools. The remaining four schools were not on the department’s list, but were

selected by the researchers in such a way to make the final selection as representative as possible of

the entire province. In this study, data from two schools were discarded as not being of sufficient

quality. All of the major types of schools found in the province were represented on the final

selection, which also comprised schools in 7 of the province’s 10 school districts.

Conduction of the Case Studies

Each case study was undertaken by a different person. The authors each conducted one study

while many of the others were undertaken by departmental ‘‘curriculum implementers,’’ who are

subject advisors attached to one of the districts. These persons took leave from their work to

undertake the study and did not do the research in their own district. Two of the curriculum

implementers already have doctorates while others are currently enrolled in master’s or doctoral

programs. Two master’s and one doctoral student, who are not curriculum implementers,

undertook a case study each. Because a different researcher conducted each case study, all

involved met for a full day prior to the beginning of the case studies to forge a common approach.

Semistructured interview questions around the three constructs presented in Figure 1 were

designed for students, teachers, and the school principal. Common protocols were developed for

the observation and videotaping of classrooms. A list of the kinds of documentation (mission

statements, business plans, resources, etc.) to be collected was developed.

Each researcher spent 1 full week in a school, and in some instances continued into a second

week. All case studies were completed in May or June 2002. At the end of each case study, the

researcher wrote up a summary report, again according to an agreed-upon format. These were

returned to the schools for the input of the principal and the teachers involved. Finally all reports,

interviews, observation sheets, videotapes, and documents were collated and lodged with the

authors for further analysis.

Results

Each of the three main constructs has either four or five subconstructs as shown in Figure 1, for

a total of 13. As part of the analysis for this article, the two authors rated each school according to

the levels shown on Tables 1–3, based on the data collected during a particular case study. The

ratings were then compared for selected schools. In most cases, there was complete agreement.

Where differences occurred, consensus was reached after returning to the original data. An

example of a case-study summary, including the assigned levels, is given in Table 4. The means


Table 4

Summary of Constructs. School B

Profile of Implementation—Classroom InteractionLevel 1 Classroom practice has certainly changed. One obvious difference is that on entering any

classroom, one sees that tables and chairs are arranged in groups and not rows facing theteacher. Significant changes in teaching practices also have occurred. For example, in bothmaths classes, learners were encouraged to work through the given problems in groups, andin so doing help one another.

Nevertheless, these new teaching styles are being used, for the most part, to achieve the samegoals as before. There is very little evidence that the specific outcomes of eithermathematics or science are being addressed.

Profile of Implementation—Science Practical WorkLevel 2 In the science classes in Grades 8 and 9, the teachers tried to use classroom demonstrations

to help the learners develop concepts. Attempts are being made to make science morehands-on, making use of everyday equipment such as measuring tapes, combs, balloons.and electric plugs.

In both classes, Grades 8 and 9 learners performed guided discovery type practical activities,and group work was done. Students where given photocopied sheets from a book, whichshowed them how to perform the activities and had questions to answer.

Profile of Implementation—Science/mathematics in SocietyLevel 0.5 The Specific outcomes that deal with the interface of maths/science and society are largely

absent from the lessons. Nevertheless, the Grade 9 science teacher feels that making thelink to everyday life is relatively easy in science.

Profile of Implementation—AssessmentLevel 2/3 The science/maths subject policy calls for two tests per quarter. It does not specifiy any other

kind of assessment. Written tests were used as one of the methods to assess the students.Most questions did not require recall, but needed application of knowledge gained in thestudy. Some questions needed higher order thinking.

Despite the lack of mention of other assessment strategies in the policy document, all theteachers used other sources besides the tests to assess the progress of their learners. Theseinclude projects (e.g., the creation of a chart), class work, homework, written reports, andoral presentations.

No learner portfolios where seen in science and mathematics.

Profile of Capacity—ResourcesLevel 1 The school has no library, although there are plans to convert one classroom into a library.

There is no laboratory, although again there are plans to improve one, and very little scienceequipment. There are no computers. There is a copier machine situated in the principal’soffice.

The principal’s office and classrooms all have electricity. Outside lights have been put on thebuildings recently.

Classrooms have enough desks for learners, but the furniture needs to be upgraded as a lot ofthe desks and chairs are broken. The classrooms are small and therefore overcrowded.

Profile of Capacity—Teacher factorsLevel 2 The teachers are all qualified to teach math and science, being in possession of Senior

Teaching Diplomas (STDs) or University Diplomas in Education (UDEs). One is studyingfor a degree at the moment, and others intend to study further at some future date.

Teacher morale at the school is good, however, the threat of redeployment is discouraging.Teachers cooperate well with one another and are hard working. There is a good team spiritamong teachers at the school.

They try to do their work by applying different teaching methods, use improvised resources inteaching, and provide extra classes to their learners. Conversations with them, both formaland informal, are often peppered with phrases that convey their concern and care for thelearners at the school. Interactions between teachers and learners are relaxed andrespectful.

(Continued)


and standard deviations as well as the score for each of the 10 case-study schools on the 13

subconstructs are given in Table 5.

The numeric values given in the data in Table 5 indicate a level of practice, and are not strictly

interval; however, working with the data as if they were ordinal rather than just nominal can allow

for some useful analysis of the constructs. Table 5 gives rise to some immediate overall

impressions. The first is that capacity may not be a major problem. By and large, the capacity levels

have reasonably high averages, the lowest of these being the learner factor at 1.80. In other words,

the picture is not as bleak as sometimes assumed.

Table 4

(Continued )

Profile of Capacity—Learner factorsLevel 2 In general, the learners are well behaved, under control, hard working, and motivated.

Language proficiency among the learners is poor to reasonable. It is not possible to teach inEnglish alone.

Learners attend school on a regular basis, and absenteeism is not a major problem. Theaverage attendance probably runs at about 90%.

Profile of Capacity—School Ethos/ManagementLevel 2/3 The ethos of the school and the way in which it is managed are supportive of the kinds of

innovations envisaged by C2005. What exists at present could provide a solid platform onwhich to continue to build and improve.

Profile of Outside Support—Professional DevelopmentLevel 1/2 Workshops have been conducted for science and math teachers. These workshops were

provided by the Department, both as part of general OBE training and as part of the MSSIproject. The workshops generally last from 2 days to 1 week and are done in clusters ordistricts.

Profile of Outside Support—Support to LearnersLevel 0 Not much support is given to learners. Extra lessons have been provided by the teachers on

their on initiative. For example, the mathematics teacher for Grade 9 provides extra lessonsif she feels the lesson is not well understood by some of the learners.

Government subsidized lunches are not provided by the school. In summary, the learnersreceived no tangible outside support.

Profile of Outside Support—Provision of ResourcesLevel 1/2 The Department has been active in the past year in terms of the provision of physical

resources. The school has been provided with barbed-wire fencing, water, and electricityby the Department. New rooms have been built, also by the Department. New textbookshave been received, but only for Grade 9 and not for all learning areas. These books areinsufficient for every student. The school is in need of science kits, chemicals, apparatus,and furniture for the laboratory and the library. Other materials such as stationary also areneeded.

Dominant change forceLevel 1 Changes that have taken place at the school are basically in response to outside, top-down

directives about the implementation of C2005. While there is general satisfaction about theoverall directions of these changes, there is some disquiet about the pace and lack ofsupport.

Monitoring mechanisms and accountabilityLevel 2 School monitoring by the Department has not been done for 2 years. At a less formal level, CIs

have visited the school twice, and it was after the workshops.It would appear that the monitoring of progress in the implementation of C2005 is weak and

sporadic, both internally and externally. There seems to be a great desire by staff at theschool to know ‘‘how they are doing.’’


On the other hand, the implementation subconstructs tend to be low, suggesting that schools

may not be reaching their potential based on the assumption that implementation and capacity are

positively related. Classroom observations and teacher interviews about classroom practice

indicate a tendency to retain most of the pre-C2005 practices, but to attach new jargon to them. For

example, in one lesson we observed a teacher doing a procedure on the chalkboard. Halfway

through, he stopped and said, ‘‘This should be a child-centered lesson,’’ and then called on one

of the students to finish off what he had started. He seemed quite satisfied that because a student

was up at the chalkboard doing the procedure in his place that the lesson had suddenly been

transformed into a child-centered one. Other teachers take comfort in the view that ‘‘we have been

teaching the C2005 outcomes all along.’’

A second tendency is to make sense of the intended curriculum in superficial and even trivial

ways. In the interviews, it became clear that not many aspects of the new policy had been

internalized, or even understood, by many of the teachers; however, one aspect has been latched

onto with tenacity: Students must work in groups (Actually group work is not mentioned anywhere

in the policy documents.) Group ‘‘learning’’ has become what Rogan (2003) described as the

‘‘new orthodoxy’’ of the implementation of C2005:

A topic is selected and the learners, in groups, are given a question to ‘discuss’. For

example, one such question was, ‘‘What changes take place to your body between the age

of 10 and 15 years?’’ Another was, ‘‘Discuss what you know about engines.’’ The groups

then get on with the task, sometimes writing down their answers, but most times not. No

additional resources are provided. After twenty minutes or so, each group then reports back

its ‘findings’, and might answer additional questions put by the teacher. This process takes

an additional forty minutes. At the end of the hour, the learners know precisely as much as

they started with. (p. 746)

Table 5

The means and SDs of the 13 subconstructs

School

MSDdevA B C D E F G I J K

ImplementationClassroom interactions 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.5 1.0 2.0 1.0 0.0 2.5 1.10 0.70Science practical work 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 1.0 2.5 0.0 0.0 1.5 0.75 0.95Science in society 1.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.35 0.47Assessment 1.0 2.5 1.5 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 1.50 0.58

CapacityPhysical resources 1.0 1.0 2.5 2.5 2.0 3.0 2.5 2.0 1.0 3.5 2.10 0.88Teacher factors 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.5 2.0 3.0 3.0 2.25 0.43Learner factors 1.5 2.0 2.5 2.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 2.0 3.0 1.80 0.82School ethos/management 3.0 2.5 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 3.0 2.25 0.64

Outside supportProvision of resources 1.5 1.5 1.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 2.5 2.0 0.0 1.0 1.45 0.73Teacher professional

development0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 2.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.35 0.82

Direct support to learners 1.0 1.5 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 3.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 1.05 0.83Change forces 1.5 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.5 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.10 0.21Accountability and

monitoring3.0 2.0 2.0 0.5 1.0 1.0 3.0 1.0 0.0 4.0 1.85 1.25


The interpretation that C2005 means working in groups is one which appears to have been

adopted, and subsequently has spread like wildfire. In the past when visiting Mpumalanga schools,

one would have expected to find desks arranged in rows—now this arrangement is all but extinct.

Finally, the low level of classroom interaction was, in some of the case study schools at any

rate, a matter of deliberate policy. In South Africa, the matriculation examination, written at the

end of Grade 12, is a major, high-stakes event which can determine both the future of individual

learners and the status of a school. Great pressure is brought to bear on schools to achieve high pass

rates, which are made public. In our case studies, we found that some of the high-achieving

schools, in terms of matriculation results, were clearly determined not to jeopardize their status,

and hence continued to emphasize Level-1 interaction and assessment practices since these were

seen to be the surest route to good results. In this belief, they are probably correct. The formless

discussion groups that now characterize C2005 in many schools do little to foster any kind of

learning, let alone the kind of learning to succeed in an examination that to a large extent relies on

rote memorization and the application of routine algorithms.

Looking at the outside support factors, it would appear that the kind of support that requires

the most attention is the professional development of teachers. The interviews with teachers

certainly reflected this finding.

To explore the data in Table 5 more systematically, they were analyzed for possible trends,

particularly between the four implementation subconstructs and the nine capacity/outside-

support subconstructs. Areas where possible positive relationships might exist are indicated with

an asterisk in Table 6. No negative trends where found.

Classroom Interaction

A positive relationship existed between the level of classroom interaction and two ‘‘capacity’’

subconstructs, physical resources and the school ethos, and one ‘‘support’’ subconstruct, ac-

countability and monitoring. The first is to be expected. Greater access to curriculum resources

and a good learning environment are conducive to more imaginative and effective teaching and

learning. The relationship between classroom interaction and the way in which a school is run, and

Table 6

The possible relationships between the four sub constructs of implementation and the other nine sub

constructs

ClassroomInteraction



Capacity factors Physical resources *Teacher factors *Learner factors *School ethos/

management* * *

Outside support Provision of resourcesTeacher professional

development*


* *

Change forcesAccountability and

monitoring* *


the general ethos of the school, also is to be expected. This finding confirms those of other studies

(e.g., Malcolm et al., 2000), and once again emphasizes the important role of the school

management team in curriculum innovation. A less expected, but interesting, finding is the

relationship between this subconstruct and the level of accountability and monitoring. It would

seem that schools that take a greater responsibility for their own curriculum actions, as opposed to

being held accountable by outside agencies, tend to incorporate more of the higher level practices,

as described by Levels 3 and 4 of the Profile of Implementation, into their classrooms.

On the other hand, the lack of some expected relationships is puzzling. Regarding the

‘‘capacity’’ construct, neither the teacher nor learner factors appeared to have much bearing on the

level of classroom interaction. In the case-study interviews, teachers often tended to cite low

learner capacity, especially with respect to language proficiency and motivation, as a factor which

limited the scope of what they would have liked to achieve in the classroom. Nevertheless, looking

at the level of implementation across the 10 case studies, no clear relationship between it and the

level of learner capacity emerges. Again, it might be expected that teachers who are better

qualified and more motivated might exhibit a greater range of teaching strategies as outlined in the

Profile of Implementation; however this did not appear to be the case. Finally, one might expect a

strong relationship between the level of teacher professional development and the level of

classroom interaction. Such professional development was, in most cases, intended to bring about

some measure of change; however, no such relationship emerged.

It would appear that the ethos of the school, the way in which it is managed and the way in

which monitoring occurs, are the best determinants of the level of classroom interaction.

Science Practical Work

The level of science practical work was only influenced by one of the ‘‘capacity’’

subconstructs, school ethos. On the other hand, outside-support factors did appear to have a much

greater influence. As with classroom interaction, school ethos/management and accountability/

monitoring did exhibit a positive trend with the level of science practical work. Schools that were

higher on these two subconstructs tended to do a greater variety of types of practical work.

Interestingly, the level of professional development appears to have more influence on science

practical work than it did on classroom interaction. Much of the professional development offered

over the past years has focused on doing practical work, and so this finding is not entirely

unexpected.

The lack of relationship between science practical work and physical resources seems to run

counter to expectations. In the interviews, teachers often claimed that lack of science equipment

and laboratories prevented them from doing more practical work. Taking this claim at face value,

there should be a direct relationship between level of resources and practical work, but this was not

the case. In fact, almost all schools had some science apparatus, but in some cases it had not yet

been unpacked. Some schools even had well-equipped laboratories—four in the case of one

school; however, in no instance did we observe the laboratory being effectively used for its

intended purpose.

Societal Issues

The implementation of societal issues into the science curriculum does not appear to be

strongly influenced by any of the subconstructs in ‘‘capacity’’ and ‘‘outside support.’’ Given the

lack of variation (many schools scored 0 here), this finding is not surprising; however, a positive

trend did emerge between the incorporation of societal issues and the school ethos/management

subconstruct.


What is most puzzling is the lack of a relationship between levels of societal issues and

teacher professional development. The incorporation of societal issues into the curriculum is a

major thrust of C2005: Five of the nine natural science specific outcomes are based on societal

issues. Much of the professional development offered by the Mpumalanga Department of

Education over the past couple of years has been specifically targeted at the implementation of

C2005. Hence, the lack of a relationship is disappointing. The notion of basing a curriculum on

societal issues is very new to South Africa, and does not really appear to have taken root yet.

Assessment

The level of assessment practices, unlike the other implementation subconstructs, appears to

be influenced by teacher- and learner-capacity factors. Assessment does not seem to follow the

trend of the other three implementation subconstructs, in that it does not appear to be influenced by

school ethos and accountability but seems to depend more directly on immediate classroom

factors such as the capacity of teachers and the ability of learners.

The implementation of C2005 requires a radical change in the way in which learners are

assessed. Traditionally, assessment has been summative in nature and has relied on tests and

examinations comprised largely of questions that can be answered by relying on the rote

memorization of facts or the application of routine algorithms. The new assessment policy

requires the incorporation of new techniques such as ‘‘performance assessment,’’ and the creation

of portfolios. Professional development in Mpumalanga has dealt with these issues on a theoretical

level; however, the case studies indicated that teachers were still very much ‘‘at sea’’ on the actual

implementation of the policy on the ground. Indeed, many of the persons providing the

professional development probably had little or no actual experience of its implementation.

Hence, problems with assessment were a recurring theme in the case-study interviews with

teachers.

Discussion

In this section, we attempt to explore the aforementioned observations in greater detail and to

speculate on possible reasons and explanations why some changes are or are not taking place. We

also, where appropriate, explore in what ways our findings are similar to those elsewhere and to

what extent some of them might be unique.

Level and Nature of Implementation

The analysis of implementation reported in this article was done in terms of the Profile of

Implementation. In a different study (Rogan, 2003), the natural science specific outcomes of

C2005 were used as the basis for an analysis. Both studies confirm that while changes have

occurred, these are often superficial and not closely aligned to the intended curriculum of the

policy makers, and in some cases show misinterpretation of C2005. What kind of lens is best suited

to interpret these findings?

In the implementation literature, teachers are at times described as being reluctant to change

(Waugh & Punch, 1987), of being bound to tradition, or even active saboteurs of the intended

curriculum. In our case studies, the low level of implementation, for the most part, cannot be

ascribed to ‘‘foot dragging’’ or lack of effort. The interviews, by and large, revealed an

overwhelming desire to faithfully implement the new curriculum, but tinged with an enormous

perplexity about how to do so, and an uncertainly as to whether their efforts in the classroom were


‘‘the right way.’’ A more fruitful way of interpreting the case-study observations is in terms of

‘‘sense-making,’’ a process which can occur both at an individual and a group level (Spillane,

Reiser, & Reimer, 2002).

At the individual level, teachers have attempted to make sense of C2005 in terms of their past

experiences, which in most cases could not be further removed from the intended curriculum. One

manifestation of these attempts is to simply reinterpret an existing practice in terms of the new

goals or to take comfort in the view that they have been teaching the C2005 outcomes all along.

In this scenario, existing practices are continued with no or little modification, albeit with new

jargon attached. A second tendency is to make sense of the intended curriculum in superficial and

even trivial ways. One manifestation is this sense-making tendency is the tenacity with which the

arrangement of learners in groups appears to have taken hold. While the philosophy and intentions

expressed in the policy documents have to a large extent been ignored or misunderstood by many

teachers (and policy implementers themselves), group work is a simple and appealing idea which

can and has been readily implemented.

Spillane et al. (2002) emphasized that ‘‘although individual cognition and the search for

universal patterns are important, sense-making is not a solo affair’’ (p. 404). It has been the policy

of the Mpumalanga Department of Education to bring teachers together for professional

development in a variety of ways. One such effort, supported by the Japanese-funded MSSI, has

been to create clusters of teachers who meet on a regular basis for school- or cluster-based

professional development. It is at these meetings that collective sense-making can occur and

common understandings emerge. Schools themselves also provide forums for group sense-

making, which may differ from one another (Coburn, 2001). Some case-study schools had come to

a collective, but unofficial, decision that the implementation of the new curriculum would be

detrimental to the reputation that they had built up over the years of high achievement. Here lip

service was paid to the new curriculum during the interviews, but the old tried-and-true teaching

practices were practiced and sanctioned.

The sense-making process, whether individual or group, appears to be driven by two

conflicting imperatives. On one hand is the imperative to maintain the reputation of the teacher

and the school, and to adhere to what has been developed as the norm of ‘‘good teaching’’ over the

years. Experience dictates what practices and strategies have worked in the past to achieve a

variety of goals both academic and social. Caution and common sense suggest that these should

not be abandoned with unseemly haste in favor of the unknown. On the other hand is the imperative

to support the efforts of a popularly elected government to make enormous, although untested,

changes in the curriculum which will, in theory at least, bring about a better-educated population

and address the inequalities of the past. In the years before the 1994 elections, it was the

confederation of trade unions that to a large degree carried forward the ANC banner while it was

still a banned organization. Most of the teachers in the case-study schools belonged to the teacher

union that was part of this confederation, and hence feel morally bound to support the policies of

the new government that they helped to bring to power.

Implementation and Capacity

The school as a community is one forum in which sense-making occurs and from which

traditions emerge. This sense-making certainly predates the periodic introduction of new

curricula, and has resulted in a weight of tradition that suggests how interactions ought to be

conducted in the classrooms of a particular school. Such traditions are not the exclusive domain of

the science teachers but are often diffused throughout most of the school. Of special interest here

is the finding that the levels of performance on the assessment subconstruct appeared to be


influenced by different capacity factors than the other three implementation subconstructs (see

Table 6). What happens in a classroom, in terms of the transactions taking place, is public and

visible, even to the visitor. In the case studies, the incorporation of higher levels of practice in the

subconstructs of classroom interaction, science practical work, and the introduction of societal

issues into the curriculum all tended to be influenced by the level of the school ethos and

management. It would appear that changes on these three subconstructs are less likely to occur

independently of the ‘‘way things are done’’ at a particular school. The influence of consensual

sense-making seems to outweigh the influence of other factors such as the qualification of

teachers, the motivation of learners, and professional development. On the other hand, assessment

of students might be seen as a more ‘‘local-classroom’’ issue. Table 6 indicates no relationship

between school ethos and management and assessment. Assessment practices are certainly not as

visible to the casual observer as the other three implementation subconstructs. It is possible that

less constrained by tradition, the incorporation of higher levels of assessment is determined more

by factors such as teacher confidence and learner ability.

A second issue that warrants further exploration is the unexpected lack of a relationship

between laboratory resources and science practical work. It appears that most of the case-study

schools experience a self-perpetuating cycle when it comes to the nonuse of hands-on, inquiry

approaches to the teaching of science. It is more than likely that none of the case-study teachers

experienced any hands-on science teaching during their own schooling or teacher training. Hence,

they tend to perpetuate the kind of science teaching that they themselves were exposed to. On the

other hand, they are aware of the policy, which calls for a different, inquiry-type science teaching,

but have little idea of how the policy might be realized in practice. An easy way then to rationalize

the situation is to blame their current practice on the lack of equipment; however, many of the case-

study schools had been supplied with at least some equipment, which in many cases was unopened

or unused. In the past, outside agencies such as the Department of Education have sought to break

the cycle by equipping schools with apparatus but have not provided the professional

development, which might create the ability and desire to make use of what was supplied.

National governmental organizations and projects such as the MSSI have often provided training,

but no equipment. Hence, the challenge is to institute a policy that develops teacher capacity and

laboratory equipment in a coordinated way.

Implementation and Outside Influences

A dominant change force, and hence influence on implementation, on the educational scene in

South Africa at the moment is the policy of C2005; however, as revealed by the case studies, its

effect has been far less than hoped for by the policy makers. Two aspects, alignment and stability

(Porter, 1989, 1994), will be discussed next.

Issues around policy alignment need to be resolved. As long as schools and students are

judged by the results of the matriculation examination, teaching and learning will be geared

towards this end rather than the C2005 outcomes. This examination is due to be phased out, but

probably not until 2008. Until then, policy ambiguity will likely persist. Lack of alignment

between the intended curriculum and external assessment appears to be a common problem, with

minor variations, in many parts of the world (e.g., Kahle & Rogan, 2004). The words of Kahle and

Kelly (2001) could be applied to our situation as well: ‘‘Because of the success, teachers have been

unwilling to incorporate standards-based reforms that may enhance students’ mathematical

thinking into their teaching’’ (p. 88). The second example pertains to teacher-capacity professional

development. In South Africa, there are many unqualified and underqualified teachers teaching

science throughout the system. While development is encouraged, there is no policy that will


prevent teachers remaining in positions for which they are not qualified to teach. There is no doubt

that teaching C2005 requires higher levels of conceptual understanding of science and greater

professional commitment than teaching with the old syllabus. At a time when better qualified

teachers are required to implement a new mandated curriculum, other policies have resulted in

the most experienced teachers being retrenched and the departure of many others for ‘‘greener

pastures.’’

Stability, or rather a lack thereof, is a factor which might help explain the gap between

policy and implementation. The original version of C2005 created much confusion (Khulisa

Management Services, 1999). It was laden with jargon and too cumbersome to implement. Hence,

the Minister of Education appointed a commission to create a new ‘‘streamlined’’ version for

Grades 1 to 9 which, although published, has yet to officially come into effect at the time of the case

studies. One consequence is that curriculum materials, including textbooks that were written in

accordance with the first version of C2005, will now need to be rewritten to be compatible with the

new version. Another is that teachers are being assembled for yet another round of one-shot

workshops in which the differences between the new and old versions of C2005 will be explained.

The unsettling effects of unstable change are likely to haunt the system for some time yet, adding

to the uncertainties of the implementation of C2005.

Conclusions and Issues Arising from the Study

In summary, we would like to touch on two concluding thoughts that were prompted, in our

minds at least, by this brief overview of the 10 case studies. First, of all the possible factors that

might influence the Profile of Implementation, the way in which the school is managed and the

school ethos in general appear to be the most potent. The level and style of accountability is a

close second. This finding enforces the notion that in the long run, whole school development is

more likely to yield positive results than those initiatives that focus only on some subjects or on

some grade levels. Most of the professional development that is offered to teachers is in the subject

areas that they teach. Therefore, teachers teaching different subjects are all exposed to different

approaches to curriculum change. The lack of cohesion between the different professional-

development efforts may work against the schools’ ability to form a bigger picture of what the

change in curriculum actually means. There is currently no professional development in

Mpumalanga that supplies a more generic view of the curriculum changes required. We contend

that this form of professional development, which will be aimed at whole-school improvement

rather than subject-specific improvement, will in the long-term lead to subject specific improve-

ment anyway and may be a more effective way of doing so.

Second, many studies (e.g., Loucks-Horsley, Hewson, Love, & Stiles, 1998) have shown that

professional development can play a significant role in the implementation of the new curriculum.

Certainly teachers we interviewed have clear expectations in this regard while the case studies

suggest that the potential of professional development has not been realized. It needs to become

institutionalized, systemic, and systematic—institutionalized and systemic in that ongoing

professional development needs to become a natural part of the fabric of the system as a whole

rather than as an ad hoc event, and that it needs to be part of an ongoing developmental sequence

supported by the Department of Education but operating at all levels—schools, clusters, and

regions; systematic in that it needs to work towards clearly defined and attainable goals. An

implication in our situation is that it needs to be grounded in what Rogan and Grayson (2003)

labeled the Zone of Feasible Innovation. In essence, the thinking here is that innovation is most

likely to succeed when it proceeds just ahead of existing practice and that implementation of an

innovation should occur in manageable steps. The Zone of Feasible Innovation is analogous to


Vygotsky’s (1978) zone of proximal development, which he defined as ‘‘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’’ (p. 86). By analogy, professional-development strategies

are appropriate and useful when they proceed just ahead of current practice, but are within the zone

of feasible innovation. Davis (2002) supported this notion by looking at it from the point of view of

teacher learning. She stated:

Those advocating change [should] acknowledge that teacher learning is a gradual

process—which we know learning is—instead of the learning on the spot, which seems to

be the picture of an all-at-once, comprehensive curriculum change. Full reform based CI

(curriculum implementation) can be overwhelming, especially for educators new to such

approaches. Partial/gradual CI allows teachers to reflect upon and change their practice in

small doses. (p. 23)

When education policy change is being conceptualized, these two considerations might

provide policy makers with a framework that will guide an easier transition from old to new. It

must be realized that schools have to be well run as a whole before effective implementation of

change can occur. The intended changes should be made clear to teachers, and the practical

changes that are required in the classroom must be thoroughly thought through and explicitly

transferred to teachers in a way that is considerate of the natural pace of acceptance of change. As

South African policy makers look ahead and try to formulate a way forward, these guiding

considerations may assist in making the continued implementation phase less bewildering that it

has been.

References

Beeby, C.E. (1966). The quality of education in developing countries. Cambridge, MA:

Harvard University Press.

Chisholm, L. (2000). A South African curriculum for the twenty-first century: Report of the

Review Committee on Curriculum 2005. Pretoria, South Africa: Department of Education.

Coburn, C. (2001). Collective sense-making about reading: How teachers mediate reading

policy in their professional communities. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 23, 145–

170.

Cohen, D.K. & Ball, D.L. (1999). Instruction, capacity, and improvement. Consortium for

Policy Research in Education.

Davis, K.S. (2002). ‘‘Change is hard:’’ What science teachers are telling us about reform and

teacher learning of innovative practices. Science Education, 87, 3–30.

Department of Education, RSA. (1997). Curriculum 2005. http:/ /www.polity.org.za/

govdocs/misc/curr2005.html.

Fullan, M.G. (1991). The new meaning of educational change. New York: Teachers College

Press.

Hargreaves, D.H. & Hopkins, D. (1991). The empowered school. The management and

practice of development planning. London: Cassell Educational Limited.

Kahle, J.B. & Kelly, M.K. (2001). Equity in Reform: Case Studies of Five Middle Schools

involved in Systemic Reform. Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering, 7,

79–96.

Kahle, J.B. & Rogan, J.M. (2004, April). Science teachers’ reactions to systemic reform: Case

studies on two continents. Paper presented at the annual NARST Convention, Vancouver.


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

Outcomes Based Education (OBE) in Gauteng Province. Johannesburg: Gauteng Institute for

Curriculum Development.

Loucks-Horsley, S., Hewson, P.W., Love, N., & Stiles, K.E. (1998). Designing professional

development for teachers of science and mathematics. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Malcolm, C. (1999). Outcomes-based education has different forms. In J.D. Jansen &

P. Christie (Eds.), Outcomes-based education: Perspectives, policy, practice and possibilities.

Cape Town, South Africa: Juta.

Malcolm, C. (2001). Implementation of outcomes based approaches to education in Australia

and South Africa: A comparative study. In Y. Sayed & J.D. Jansen (Eds.), Implementing

educational policies after apartheid (pp. 200–239). Cape Town, South Africa: Juta.

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.

Johannesburg: RADMASTE Centre, University of the Witwatersrand.

Porter, A.C. (1989). External standards and good teaching: The pros and cons of telling

teachers what to do. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 11, 343–356.

Porter, A.C. (1994). National standards and school improvement in the 1990s: Issues and

promise. American Journal of Education, 102, 421–449.

Porter, P. (1980). Policy perspectives on the study of educational innovations. Educational

Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 2, 73–84.

Rogan, J.M. (2000). Strawberries, cream and the implementation of Curriculum 2005:

Towards a research agenda. South African Journal of Education, 20, 118–125.

Rogan, J.M. (2003). Out of the frying pan. . .? The implementation of Curriculum 2005 in

some Science Classrooms. African Journal of Research in Mathematics, Science and Technology

Education, 8(2), 165–179.

Rogan, J.M. & Grayson, D. (2003). Towards a theory of curriculum implementation with

particular reference to science education in developing countries. International Journal of Science

Education, 25, 1171–1204.

Spady, W.G. (1994). Outcomes-based education: Critical issues and answers. Arlington, VA:

American Association of School Administrators.

Spillane, J.P., Reiser, B.J., & Reimer, T. (2002). Policy implementation and cognition:

Reframing and refocusing implementation research. Review of Educational Research, 72, 387–

431.

Verspoor, A. (1989). Pathways to change. Improving the quality of education in developing

countries. Washington, DC: 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: World Bank.

Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes.

London: Harvard University Press.

Waugh, R. & Godfrey, J. (1995). Understanding teacher’s receptivity to system-wide

educational change. Journal of Educational Administration, 33, 38–54.

Waugh, R. & Punch, K. (1987). Teacher receptivity to system-wide change in the

implementation stage. Review of Educational Research, 57, 237–254.


Documents

Relationships between the constructs of a theory of curriculum implementation