Curriculum Implementation

Curriculum starts as a plan. It only becomes a reality when teachers implement it with real students in a real classroom. Careful planning and development are obviously important, but they count for nothing unless teachers are aware of the product and have the skills to implement the curriculum in their classrooms.

As noted by Fullan (1999) and Scott (1999), a curriculum, however well designed, must be implemented if it is to have any impact on students. Although this is obvious, there are thousands of curriculum documents now gathering dust on storeroom shelves because they were never implemented or because they were implemented unintelligently. The obvious importance of curriculum implementation has not necessarily led to widespread understanding of what it entails or of what is problematic about it. The term ‘implementation’ refers to the ‘actual use’ of a curriculum/syllabus, or what it ‘consists of in practice’ (Fullan and Pomfret, 1977). It is a critical phase in the cycle of planning and teaching a curriculum. Adoption of a curriculum refers to somebody’s intentions to use it, be it a teacher or a head office official, but it does not indicate whether the curriculum is implemented or not.

Implementation refers to actual use, as outlined above, but there is also an important ‘attitudinal’ element. In education systems where teachers and principals have the opportunity to choose among competing curriculum packages (i.e. acting as ‘selectors’) then attitudinal dispositions are clearly important. For example, if a teacher perceives that the current curriculum he or she is using is deficient in certain areas, then an alternative will be sought which overcomes these problems. Leithwood (1981) maintains that teachers will

only become involved in implementing new curricula if they perceive a dysfunction – they have a desire to reduce the gap between current and preferred practices, with reference to their teaching in a particular subject. But for many subjects, a revised or new curriculum is produced to be used by teachers in all schools in a school district and no choice is available. There is no opportunity for teachers to consider alternatives. Their task is to find out how to use the new curriculum as effectively as possible. In these circumstances, the dominant implementation questions for the teacher might be:

 How do I do it?

 Will I ever get it to work smoothly?

 To whom can I turn to get assistance?

 Am I doing what the practice requires?

 What is the effect on the learner?

This emphasis on how to use a new curriculum is a major concern for teachers because as ‘craft specialists’ they gain most of their intrinsic satisfaction from being successful in using a particular approach and materials with their students. However, the implementation of any new curriculum will take a teacher a considerable period of time as he or she needs to become competent and confident in its use. It is only when a new curriculum is completely accepted by teachers in a school and the activities associated with it are a matter of routine, that the phase ‘institutionalization’ is said to have been reached.

Nonetheless, some writers (for example, Snyder et al., 1992) argue that the idea of institutionalization unduly implies that the curriculum is something concrete and static. These writers suggest that ‘curriculum enactment’ is a more useful way of describing the ongoing process of implementation because it emphasizes the educational experiences that students and teachers jointly undergo as they determine what the curriculum will be like in each classroom. There is also the matter of commitment to change (Cuban, 1992). Not all teachers will automatically accept the notion that a newly proposed curriculum is what they should use, nor will all want to use it with their students (Fullan and Hargreaves, 1991). Most would no doubt welcome the opportunity to choose among several alternatives. In fact, some teachers might be perfectly satisfied with their existing curriculum. In situations where teachers have no choice about whether or not to use a new curriculum, they may embrace the new curriculum with enthusiasm, becoming what is known as ‘consonant’ users (willing to conform to the new curriculum), or they may be reluctant, making considerable alterations in the curriculum, thus becoming what is known as ‘dissonant’ users (unwilling to conform). In extreme cases, a dissonant user may erect a fac¸ade of compliance while adopting Machiavellian tactics to resist or even to undermine the new curriculum. Again, the attitudes of individual teachers are extremely important in implementation.

Some subjects in schools are considered to be important core areas and are given detailed treatment in syllabus documents. For these subjects, teachers may be expected to cover particular content and to follow a certain instructional sequence. The term used for this adherence to prescribed details is ‘fidelity of use’. Alternatively, there may be other subjects where teachers can exercise their creative flair and implement very special, individual versions of a curriculum. This is then termed ‘adaptation’ or ‘process orientation’.

Factors Affecting Implementation

Several education experts have produced very useful insights about implementation and the relative success of it in schools. In the early 1980s Fullan (1982) produced a list of factors affecting implementation which is frequently quoted in the literature. These factors refer to the attributes of the innovation or change, characteristics of the school district, characteristics of the school as a unit, and factors external to the local school system. A wideranging list of factors is provided based on the experiences of a project developer (Parsons, 1987). House (1979) uses three perspectives (technical, political and cultural) to explain how and why certain implementation practices have occurred over the decades. The ‘technical’ perspective assumes that systematic planning and a rational approach can overcome typical teacher problems of lack of time and expertise. The ‘political’ perspective recognizes that rational behaviour is limited in practice and that it is the balance of power among parties that determines whether curriculum implementation efforts will be successful or not. The ‘cultural’ perspective emphasizes cultural transformation as a major factor in determining the success or otherwise of implementation endeavours. It is the deeply ingrained beliefs and values of stakeholders, which are socially shared and shaped, that ultimately affect what happens in classrooms.

Problems of Describing/Measuring Implementation

Attempts to describe the implementation of new curricula are fraught with all kinds of difficulties. For example, do you focus upon the curriculum materials, or what the teacher is doing, or what the students are doing? If the intention is to try to do all three things, what criteria do you use to select instances of each, since they are all occurring simultaneously in the classroom? Are there optimal times to examine how a curriculum is being implemented, such as after 6 months of operation, or a year, or even longer?

Trying to measure degrees of implementation is even more difficult than trying to describe it. Decisions have to be made about what kinds of data should be collected, such as observational data, document analysis or self report data. Measurement data also tend to have a punitive air about them and so this can lead to concerns about who is doing the measuring and who is to receive the results.

Measuring Student Activities and Achievements

A major reason for producing a new curriculum is to provide better learning opportunities for students, such as higher achievement levels in terms of particular understandings, skills and values. Rarely is it possible, however, for measurements to be obtained on student achievements so that it can be stated unequivocally that a new curriculum is superior to the previous one, in terms of particular dimensions. There are so many confounding variables which affect student scores. A single test is unlikely to be suitable for use and to be able to provide valid and reliable comparable data between a new curriculum and the previous one. Despite the lack of empirical evidence linking testing with student achievement, high stakes testing of students became a political priority during the 1990s (Nave et al., 2000), and there is pressure from some quarters for a single national test for all students (Porter, 1993). A differing point of view holds that a more promising development is authentic assessment of student learning, such as through the use of portfolios of student work or through increasingly sophisticated ways of measuring problem-solving, reasoning and critical thinking (Resnick and Tucker, 1992).

Measuring Use of Curriculum Materials

In most teaching programmes, curriculum materials figure prominently in the day-to-day activities undertaken by the teacher and students. In fact, surveys have revealed that school students can spend up to 80 per cent of their time engaged with particular curriculum materials (Cornbleth, 1990). It is clearly important in any study of implementation to gather information about how curriculum materials are used. Some of the curriculum materials analysis schemes developed in the 1970s provide convenient criteria for evaluating curriculum materials (for example, Piper, 1976; Eraut et al., 1975). However, these schemes are often very time-consuming to complete and tend to emphasize the characteristics of the curriculum materials in isolation.

During the 1980s more attention was paid to developing checklists which provide ratings of curriculum materials ‘in use’ (for example, the Innovations Configuration developed by Hall and Loucks, 1978; and the Practice Profile developed by Loucks and Crandall, 1982).

The Innovations Configuration (IC) describes the different operational forms of an innovation that result as teachers implement it in their classrooms. The checklist can be structured to indicate the variations that are considered to be ideal, acceptable and unacceptable uses of an innovation (Hord and Huling- Austin, 1987).

The rapid growth in the use of the Internet by teachers and students has also spread numerous new ideas about what can be included in checklists of curriculum materials and how they can be used (Means, 2001). In particular, the Internet has become a huge new resource for teachers and students (Molnar, 2000; Schofield and Davidson, 2000).

Measuring Teacher Activities

Various methods have been used over the decades to measure teachers’ implementation activities, ranging from formal visitations to observation checklists, questionnaires, interviews and self-report techniques. In the implementation studies have been very extensively undertaken since the 1970s, observation checklists and rating scales are commonly used. In these studies, particular categories of behaviour are determined in advance and used as the basis for the checklist items and rating scales. For example, self-report techniques are incorporated into the Stages of Concern (SoC), an instrument developed by Hall et al. (1977) and subsequently used widely in many countries. The SoC focuses upon teachers’ feelings as they become involved in implementing an innovation. These will vary in both type and intensity. Hall et al. argue that there are a definable set of major stages of concern and that as teachers become involved in implementing an innovation they will move developmentally through these stages .

The SoC has been widely used in a number of countries, as noted in studies by Wells and Anderson (1997), Bailey and Palsha (1992) and Guan (2000). Of special interest is a confirmatory study by Marsh and Penn (1988), who found that the concerns of students engaged in a remedial reading programme progressed in a sequence similar to the SoC. Second-generation research in Belgium and the Netherlands (Vandenberghe, 1983; Van den Berg, 1993; Van der Vegt and Vandenberghe, 1992) has produced an alternative version of the SoC that includes an increased number of self-oriented concerns.

Van den Berg (2002) highlights the major impact of concerns theory on the professional development of teachers and the extent to which concerns-based instruments, such as the SoC, have been used to examine levels of curriculum implementation in a variety of subjects, including new innovations such as School Net technology.  Nonetheless, weaknesses in the SoC have also been uncovered. One major weakness is that the fixed stages do not discriminate completely between how different teachers in different schools might implement a new curriculum.

How a planned curriculum is implemented as the enacted curriculum in any school is a complex process that can vary enormously from school to school. The only certainty about curriculum implementation is that there is no one right way of going about it for all teachers in all schools. The ongoing issues concerning curriculum implementation are not likely to be resolved, but in recent years there has been growing awareness of the complexity of the process, and hence more reason for both caution and guarded optimism.

1. Some common implementation problems according to Clough et al. (1989) include the following: . too little time for teachers to plan and learn new skills and practices; . too many competing demands make successful implementation impossible; . failure to understand and take into account site-specific differences among schools. Explain why these could be major problems. What solutions would you offer?

2. ‘For a new curriculum project to be fully implemented there are four core changes required of a teacher – changes in class groupings and organization, materials, practices and behaviours, and in beliefs and understandings’ (Fullan, 1989, p. 8). Do you agree with these four core changes? Give examples to illustrate

their importance. Alternatively, put forward other more important factors.

3. ‘Because implementation takes place in a fluid setting, implementation problems are never ‘‘solved’’. Rather they evolve . . . new issues, new requirements, new considerations emerge as the process unfolds’ (McLaughlin, 1987, p. 174). What are the implications of this statement for implementing new curricula in schools? What implementation elements can or cannot be planned in advance What contingency plans should be developed?

4. ‘Successful implementation is an individual development process within certain organizational conditions and strategies’ (Fullan, 1989, p. 24). To what extent are individual development factors (for example, commitment, skills, willingness to experiment) important? What are some important organizational conditions?

5. ‘Testing certain content in certain ways will result in an alignment of classroom practices with the official view of what and how subjects should be taught’ (Matheison, 1991, p. 201). Does testing ensure that fidelity of use implementation occurs? What are some problems associated with curriculum controlled by testing?

6. Pressure and support are both needed to ensure that implementation occurs. Do you agree? How might pressure and support occur simultaneously within your school or school district?