Rogan (2003)

INT. J. SCI. EDUC., 2003, VOL. 25, NO.
10, 1171–1204
Towards a theory of curriculum implementation with

particular reference to science education in developing
countries
John M. Rogan, Centre for Mathematics, Science and Technology Education,

University of Pretoria, Pretoria 0002, South Africa; e-mail:
Downloaded by [Dalhousie University] at 10:14 06 October 2014
jrogan@scientia.up.ac.za, and Diane J. Grayson, Centre for the Improvement

of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, Faculty of Science,
University of South Africa, PO Box 392, UNISA 0003, South Africa; e-mail:
graysdj@unisa.ac.za
Improving science education is often regarded as a priority for developing countries in order to promote long-
term economic development. Thus initiatives, both government and foreign-aid sponsored, aimed at improving
science education in developing countries abound. However, all too often the focus of such initiatives is limited
to the development of science curricula, while the details of how the curricula will be implemented at school
level are often neglected. This paper represents an effort to lay the groundwork for a theory of curriculum
implementation with particular reference to developing countries. We have drawn on school development,
educational change, and science education literature in order to develop three constructs that could form the
heart of such a theory, namely, Profile of Implementation, Capacity to Innovate, and Outside Support. Six
propositions are offered to suggest how the constructs may inter-relate as a basis for the development of the
theory. The implementation of the natural sciences learning area of the South African Curriculum 2005 is used
to illustrate the emerging theory.
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 and politicians are focused on the ‘what’ of desired educational change,
neglecting the ‘how’. Porter (1980: 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: 133), in his analysis of 21 World
Bank supported educational change programmes 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 idea.
International Journal of Science Education ISSN 0950–0963 print/ISSN 1464–5289 online © 2003 Taylor & Francis Ltd
http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
DOI: 10.1080/09500690210145819
1172 J. M. ROGAN AND D. J. GRAYSON
As a result, a great deal of time, money and effort may be wasted, as good ideas are
never 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: 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 educa-
tional principles, and incorporates many practices that have gained favour
worldwide, such as child-centred learning and continuous, performance-based
assessment. The document lists 12 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 environ-
ments – 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 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 human activity 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 utilising 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 most areas. Both the pace and the
content of the INSET assumed a ‘one size fits all’ approach. However, recent
A THEORY OF CURRICULUM IMPLEMENTATION 1173
research (Khulisa Management Services 1999) suggests that the whole process of
the implementation of C2005 was hopelessly 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: 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 paper, 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 takes the conditions of a developing
country into account. This article is an attempt to set in motion a process toward the
development of such a theory.
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 worldwide 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 programmes 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 categorize institutions as complex and diverse as schools are
fraught with danger. Any categorization scheme will, at best, be a crude and broad
generalization 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 categorize 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.
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:
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: 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 practising mathematics teachers and 60% of science teachers had 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: 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 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 characterize 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:
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 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: 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: 88) suggest that,
If teachers lack a proper background and confidence in their subject, in-service education
should start concentrating on this.
Child-centred teaching approaches can be tackled later. Verspoor (1989: 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 recognized. 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, 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 programmes 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 recognize 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
within 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: 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.
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 Manage-
ment 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: 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 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 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: 591), are likely to be
‘deep’ and enduring.
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 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.
Table 1. Change forces, their consequences and likely endurance –

adapted from Sergiovanni.
Change forces Change consequences and endurance
Bureaucratic change forces These changes rely Teachers/schools change just enough to
on mandates, policy documents, avoid sanctions. Change stops when
standardised outcomes, direct outside sanctions are removed. Changes are likely to
supervision, external assessment and other be superficial in that they are concentrated
prescriptive methods. on visible structures rather than on
substance.
Personality/leadership change forces These Teachers/schools change enough to receive

changes rely predominantly on the vision, the recognition that they are part of the
drive and interpersonal skills of a strong ‘movement’. The understanding of and
and/or charismatic leader. allegiance to the vision may be uneven.

Change may not endure beyond the tenure
of the leader. Changes are likely to be more
substantive than above, affecting both
structures and substance.
Market driven change forces These changes Teachers/schools change enough to remain
rely on market forces (parental pressure and or become competitive and keep their clients
choice) to provide the incentive and (students and parents) satisfied. Changes are
motivation to change. likely to be superficial, concentrating on
visible structures, and may even be
educationally unsound. Changes are likely to
endure as long as they retain their market
desirability.
Professional change forces These rely on a Teachers/school change in response to

sense of professionalism that embraces combination of their own professional
codes of conduct and standards of teaching imperatives. These changes are likely to
and learning. affect substantive issues of teaching and
learning. They are likely to endure as long
as professional attitudes are sustained.
Learning community based change forces These Teachers/school change in response to the
changes rely on shared cultural values and initiatives of a critical mass of like-minded
goals regarding teaching and learning and a teachers (a learning community or
commitment to put these into practice for community of practice) which begins to
the “common good”. chart new ideas and practices based on
norms developed by the learning community
itself. These changes are likely to affect
substantive issues of teaching and learning.
They are likely to endure as long as the
community of learners is able to sustain
itself.
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:
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.
Another tool for influencing educational change is systems design. Using systems
design (Banathy 1991: 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 organized: (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 1, Banathy’s four levels of educational
organization have been contextualized for the South African education system by
adding a fifth level, the broader community (called societal level by Banathy 1991:
97).
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 organized with governance
as the primary level, which is typical of a society in which educational authority is
centralized. In this model (Banathy 1991: 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-experience level’; of the administrative level it is ‘to formalize information
about requirements for resources that facilitate learning and negotiate the use of
those resources’; of the instructional level it is, ‘to provide resources and
arrangements that facilitate learning’; and of the learning-experience level ‘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 conceptualized and how
learning is measured.
Figure 1. The various levels according to which education is organised in

South Africa.
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 charac-
teristics: (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 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 conceptualize levels of
implementation of C2005. The Hall and Loucks (1977) Levels of Use provide a
useful starting point, in that they too emphasize that there are different degrees of
implementation of a new curriculum. The beginning levels, Orientation 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 (1991: 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.
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 2. It serves as an example of what the Profile might look like in a given
context, with the realisation 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.
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-organized, 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.
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
sophisticated 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 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
Table 2. Profile of implementation contextualized for the natural science learning area of C2005.
A THEORY OF CURRICULUM IMPLEMENTATION

Level Classroom interaction Science Practical Work Science in Society Assessment
1 Teacher:
Presents content in a well Teacher uses classroom Teacher uses examples and Written tests are given that
organised, correct and well demonstrations to help develop applications from everyday life cover the topic adequately.
sequenced manner, based on a concepts. to illustrate scientific concepts. While most questions are of the
well designed lesson plan. Teacher uses specimens found recall type, some require higher
Provides adequate notes. in the local environment to order thinking.
Uses textbook effectively. illustrate lessons. Tests are marked and returned
Engages learners with promptly.
questions.
Learners:
Stay attentive and engaged. Learners ask questions about
Respond to and initiate science in the context of
questions. everyday life.
2 Teacher:
Textbooks are used along with Teacher uses demonstrations to Teacher bases a lesson (or Written tests include at least
other resources. promote a limited form of lessons) on a specific problem 50% of the questions that
Engages learners with questions inquiry. or issue faced by the local require comprehension,
that encourage in depth community. application and analysis.
thinking. Some of the questions are
based on practical work.
Learners:
Use additional (to text book) Some learners assist in Teacher assists learners to
sources of information in planning and performing the explore the explanations of
compiling notes. demonstrations. scientific phenomena by
Engage in meaningful group Learners participate in closed different cultural groups.
work. (cook-book) practical work.
Make own notes on the Learners communicate data
concepts learned from doing using graphs and tables.
1183
these activities.
1184
Table 2. (Continued)
3 Teacher:
Probes learners’ prior Teacher designs practical work Written tests include questions
knowledge. in such a way as to encourage based on seen or unseen
Structures learning activities learner discovery of ‘guided discovery’ type
along ‘good practice’ lines information. activities.
(knowledge is constructed, is Assessment is based on more
relevant, and is based on than written tests. Other forms
problem solving techniques). of assessment might include:
Introduces learners to the reports on activities
evolving nature of scientific undertaken; creation of charts
knowledge. and improvised apparatus;
reports on extra reading
assignments.
Learners:
J. M. ROGAN AND D. J. GRAYSON

Engage in minds-on learning Learners perform ‘guided Learners actively investigate the
activities. discovery’ type practical work application of science and
Make own notes on the in small groups, engaging in technology in their own
concepts learned from doing hands-on activities. environment, mainly by means
these activities. Learners can write a scientific of data gathering methods such
report in which they can justify as surveys. Examples here
their conclusions in terms of might include an audit of
the data collected. energy use or career
opportunities that require a
scientific background.

4 Learners:
Take major responsibility for Learners design and do their Learners actively undertake a Performance on open
their own learning; partake in own ‘open’ investigations. project in their local investigations and community-
the planning and assessment of They reflect on the quality of community in which they apply based projects are included in
their own learning. the design and collected data, science to tackle a specific the final assessment.
Undertake long term and and make improvements. problem or to meet a specific Learners create portfolios to
community-based investigations Learners can interpret data in need. An example might be on represent their ‘best’ work.
projects. support of competing theories growing a new type of crop to
or explanations. increase the income of the
community.
Learners explore the long term
effects of community projects.
For example, a project may
have a short-term benefit but
result in long term detrimental
effects.
Teacher:
Facilitates learners as they
design and undertake long-
term investigations and
projects.
Assists learners to weigh up the
merits of different theories that
attempt to explain the same
phenomena.
1185
Figure 2. Higher levels of the Profile of Implementation incorporate the

practices of the lower ones, rather than replacing them.
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.
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 recognised 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: 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: 16) is an awareness on the part of
teachers that being isolated from their colleagues 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, Hall and Hord 1987, Fullan 1991). A shared
vision as to how the innovation will play out depends 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 paper, 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 3 is an attempt to create
a profile of these four factors. In each case, an increase in level indicates a greater
Table 3. Profile of the capacity to support innovation.
1188
Level Physical resources Teacher factors Learner factors School ecology and management
1 Basic buildings – classrooms Teacher is under-qualified for Learners have some proficiency Management
and one office, but in poor position, but does have a in language of instruction, but A timetable, class lists and
condition. professional qualification. several grades below grade other routines are in evidence.
Toilets available. level. The presence of the principal is
Some textbooks – not enough felt in the school at least half
for all. the time, and staff meetings are
held at times.
Ecology
School functions i.e. teaching
and learning occur most of the
time, albeit erratically.
School is secure and access is
denied to unauthorized
personnel.
2 Adequate basic buildings in Teacher has the minimum Learners are reasonably Management
good condition. qualification for position. proficient in language of Teacher attends school/classes
Suitable furniture – adequate Teacher is motivated and instruction. regularly.

and in good condition. diligent. Enjoys his/her work. Learners attend school on a Principal is present at school
Electricity in at least one room. Teacher participates in regular basis. most of the time and is in
Textbooks for all. professional development Learners are well nourished. regular contact with his/her
Some apparatus for science. activities. Learners are given adequate staff.
Teacher has a good relationship time away from home Timetable properly
with and treatment of learners. responsibilities to do school implemented.
work. Extramural activities are
organized in such a way that
they rarely interfere with
scheduled classes.
Teachers/learners who shirk
their duties or display deviant
behaviour are held accountable.
Ecology
Responsibility for making the
school function is shared by
management, teachers and
learners to a limited extent.
A School Governing Body is in
existence.
Schools functions all the time
i.e. learning and teaching
always take place as scheduled.
3 Good buildings, with enough Teacher is qualified for position Learners are proficient in Management
classrooms and a science room. and has a sound understanding language of instruction. Principal takes strong
Electricity in all rooms. of subject matter. Learners have access to quiet, leadership role, is very visible
Running water. Teacher is an active participant safe place to study. during school hours.
Textbooks for all pupils and in professional development Learners come from a Teachers and learners play an
teachers. activities. supportive home environment. active role in school
Sufficient science apparatus. Conscientious attendance of Learners can afford textbooks management.
Secure premises. class by teacher. and extra lessons.
Ecology
Well kept grounds. Teacher makes an extra effort Parents show interest in their
Everyone in the school is
to improve teaching. children’s progress.
committed to making it work.
Parents play active role in
School Governing Bodies and
in supporting the school in
general.
1189
1190
4 Excellent buildings. Teacher is over-qualified for Learners are fluent in the Ecology
One or more well equipped position and has an excellent language of instruction. There is a shared vision.
science laboratory. knowledge of content matter. Learners take responsibility for The school plans for, supports
Library or resource centre. Teacher has an extraordinary their own learning. and monitors change.
Adequate curriculum materials commitment to teaching. Learners are willing to try new Collaboration of all
other than textbooks. Teacher shows willingness to kinds of learning. stakeholders is encouraged and
Good teaching and learning change, improvise and practised.
resources (e.g. computers, collaborate, and has a vision of
Management
models). innovation.
There is a visionary, but

Attractive grounds. Teacher shows local and
participatory, leadership at the
Good copying facilities. national leadership in
school.
professional development
activities.
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.
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 characterized by
a visible ethos of learning and working together towards a shared vision. The key
players were 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 article, 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 paper 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 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 inter-
national), 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 do 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 is
an attempt to create a profile of 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 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 programmes 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 informa-
tion 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 implementa-
tion 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.
In the fourth column, table 4 expresses the kinds of forces that an organization
chooses to use as leverage in bringing about change. They are derived from table 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 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
Table 4. Profile of outside support.
Types of encouragement and support
Physical Resources. Categories Design of professional Direct support to learners

of resources: buildings, development
apparatus, curriculum
materials (print and Dominant change force Monitoring mechanisms
Level electronic), computers, etc. evoked by agency and accountability
1 Provision supplements what Information on policy Provision of basic needs, Bureaucratic. Inspections by authorities
exists, but not enough to and expected changes are such as lunches and Change is brought about are undertaken.
support the intended presented to school places to study. by top down directives to
changes. Provision is in one based personnel. bring about change.
category only. Typical mode is short,
one shot workshop.
2 Provision completely covers Examples of ‘new’ Basic academic needs are Charismatic. Inspections are
what is required to effect the practices as suggested by catered for in the form of Change is brought about undertaken in
intended change in one the policies are presented extra lessons. by top–down inspiration collaboration with
category, or partly sufficient to school based and encouragement. school-based personnel.
in two categories. personnel, who are given
an opportunity to engage
in these practices in a
simulated situation.
Typical mode is a series
of short workshops
lasting for one year.
1193
1194
Types of encouragement and support
Physical Resources. Categories Design of professional Direct support to learners

of resources: buildings, development
apparatus, curriculum
materials (print and Dominant change force Monitoring mechanisms
Level electronic), computers, etc. evoked by agency and accountability
3 Provision completely covers Professional development Enriched academic needs Professional. School-based personnel
what is required to effect the is designed by school are catered for in the Change is brought about monitor own progress,
intended change in two based personnel form of field trips and by encouraging role but report to authorities.
categories, or partly depending on which new other enrichment type players to embrace codes
sufficient in three categories. practices they wish to activities. of conduct and standards
implement, and of teaching and learning.
implemented using both
inside and outside
support.
Typical mode consists of
both external and school-
based INSET for two to
three years.

4 Provision completely covers Communities of practice Complete academic and Learning Community. All monitoring is
what is required to effect the take full responsibility for personal support is Change is brought about undertaken by school-
intended change in three their own continued provided, usually in the by developing based personnel.
categories, or covers two professional growth, and form of bursaries. communities that
categories and is partly for school governance develop shared values
sufficient in all four and curriculum and goals regarding
categories. implementation, calling educational practice and
on outside support as a commitment to put
appropriate. these into practice.
Typical mode consists of
ongoing school-based
and directed professional
INSET.
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 80 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 behaviour.
It should be noted that the profile in table 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 hypothesized inter-relationships between the three
constructs.
Proposition one
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 develop-
ment. 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: 86).
Vygotsky (quoted in Wertsch and Stone 1985) 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 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
Figure 3. Diagram illustrating possible levels of a classroom on each of the

dimensions of the Profile of Implementation (patterned areas) and the
Zone of Feasible Implementation for each dimension (gray areas).
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 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.
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).
Attempts to push a system in the implementation direction (the vertical axis in
figure 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. Possible relationship between Profile of Implementation and

Capacity to Support Innovation. As the Capacity to Support Innova-
tion increases it is likely that a bigger range of Profiles of Implementa-
tion will be possible.
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 total 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 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
Figure 5. Possible relationships between Capacity to Support Innovation

and Outside Support. Outside Support may be related to a wide range
of changes in the Capacity. The three lines represent what may be a
best case scenario (A) in which Outside Support leads to a rapid
increase in Capacity which is maintained without ongoing support, a
scenario (B) in which Outside Support causes capacity to increase

initially, but has less effect once Capacity reaches a certain level, and
a worst case scenario (C) in which increasing Outside Support has
little effect on Capacity.
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
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.
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.
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: 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: 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 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: 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: 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.
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: 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 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:
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, under-
standing 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).
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: 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-centred 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: 110–112). 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 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 programmes 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 paper we have proposed that a theory of curriculum
implementation may go some way towards combating such wasteful and demoraliz-
ing 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 centre 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 already suggested that relationships exist between the three constructs,
and have tentatively hypothesized what they might look like in figures 4 and 5.
However, research is needed 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.
In conclusion, we invite those who are involved in large-scale curriculum
change efforts, particularly in developing countries, to test the theory we have
proposed and report on the extent to which it is useful and how it should be
modified.
Acknowledgements
We are grateful to Cliff Malcolm and Jonathan Jansen for their suggestions and
critique of an earlier draft of this paper, and for the useful comments and
suggestions of the reviewers.
References
ARNOTT, A., KUBEKA, Z., RICE, M. and 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. and GILBERT, J. (1996). Teacher Development: A Model from Science Education (London:
Falmer).
BERMAN, P. and 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 A.
Hargreaves, A. Lieberman, M. Fullan and D. Hopkins (eds.) International Handbook of
Educational Change (Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers).
DE FEITER, L. P., VONK, H. and VAN DEN AKKER, J. (1995). Towards more effective Teacher
Development in Southern Africa (Amsterdam: VU University Press).
FULLAN, M. G. (1991). The New Meaning of Educational Change (New York: Teachers College
Press).
FULLAN, M. G. (1998). The meaning of educational change: a quarter of a century of learning. In
A. Hargreaves et al. (eds.) International Handbook of Educational Change (Dordrecht: Kluwer
Academic Publishers), 214–228.
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. and HORD, S. (1987). Change in Schools: Facilitating the Process (Albany, NY: State
University of New York Press).
HALL, G. E. and 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. and HOPKINS, D. (1991). The Empowered School. The Management and Practice
of Development Planning (London: Cassell Educational Limited).
HOPKINS, D., AINSCOW, M. and WEST, M. (1994). School Improvement in an Era of Change
(London: Cassell Educational Limited).
HOPKINS, D. and MACGILCHRIST, B. (1998). Development planning for pupil achievement. School
Leadership & Management, 18, 409–424.
JANSEN, J. D. (1999). Lessons learned (and not learned) from the OBE experience. Keynote address,
Western Cape Education Department Conference, Stellenbosch, December.
JOHNSON, S., MONK, M. and 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 A. Hargreaves, A. Lieberman,
M. Fullan and D. Hopkins (eds.) International Handbook of Educational Change (Dordrecht:
Kluwer Academic Publishers).
MCLAUGHLIN, M. L. and MARSH, D. D. (1978). Staff development and school change. Teachers
College Record, 80, 69–94.
MALCOLM, C., KEANE, M., HOOLO, L., KGAKA, M. and 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. and GERTZOG, W. A. (1982). Accommodation of a
scientific conception: towards a theory of conceptual change. Science Education, 66,
211–227.
1204 A THEORY OF CURRICULUM IMPLEMENTATION
ROGAN, J. M. and 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 A. Hargreaves, A. Lieberman, M. Fullan and D.
Hopkins (eds.) International Handbook of Educational Change (Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic
Publishers).
TAYLOR, N. and 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 DC: The World Bank).
VERSPOOR, A. and WU, K. B. (1990). Textbooks and Educational Development. Educational and
Employment Division, Population and Human Resources Department, PHREE back-
ground paper series No. PHREE/90/31 (Washington DC: The World Bank).
VYGOTSKY, L. S. (1978). Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes (London:
Harvard University Press).
WERTSCH, J. V. and STONE, C. A. (1985). The concept of internalization in Vygotsky’s account of
the genesis of higher mental functions. In J. V. Wertsch (ed.) Culture, Communication and
Cognition: Vygotskian Perspectives (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
WOOD, D., BRUNER, J. S. and ROSS, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of
Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 17, 89–100.

Rogan (2003)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Rogan (2003)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

INT. J. SCI. EDUC., 2003, VOL. 25, NO.

Towards a theory of curriculum implementation with

John M. Rogan, Centre for Mathematics, Science and Technology Education,

jrogan@scientia.up.ac.za, and Diane J. Grayson, Centre for the Improvement

Furthermore, he states that,

from the one which underpinned the syllabus/examination dominated practices

Developmental models for schools and their implications for

Meaning. Beeby’s work is not without controversy or problems. Guthrie (1980)

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

Although the developmental models of Beeby and Verspoor could provide a

Drivers of educational change

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

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

He recognises that change forces based on views of schools as bureaucratic

Table 1. Change forces, their consequences and likely endurance –

Change forces Change consequences and endurance

Personality/leadership change forces These Teachers/schools change enough to receive

and/or charismatic leader. allegiance to the vision may be uneven.

Professional change forces These rely on a Teachers/school change in response to

design (Banathy 1991: 86), it is possible to view, ‘the formalised manifestation of

Figure 1. The various levels according to which education is organised in

Constructs of a theory of curriculum implementation

Administrative and Governance levels. Indeed, two of our constructs originate at

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

A THEORY OF CURRICULUM IMPLEMENTATION

Level Classroom interaction Science Practical Work Science in Society Assessment

J. M. ROGAN AND D. J. GRAYSON

Level Classroom interaction Science Practical Work Science in Society Assessment

Figure 2. Higher levels of the Profile of Implementation incorporate the

Capacity to support innovation

J. M. ROGAN AND D. J. GRAYSON

J. M. ROGAN AND D. J. GRAYSON

capacity to innovate. Unlike the Profile of Implementation, the levels here do

Support from outside agencies

on the credibility of the organization. No matter which kind of force change is

Types of encouragement and support

Physical Resources. Categories Design of professional Direct support to learners

Physical Resources. Categories Design of professional Direct support to learners

J. M. ROGAN AND D. J. GRAYSON

Developing a theory of implementation – the interplay of

Vygotsky (quoted in Wertsch and Stone 1985) suggests that:

Figure 3. Diagram illustrating possible levels of a classroom on each of the

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

Figure 4. Possible relationship between Profile of Implementation and

Exclusive focus on aspects of capacity building alone have proved unproductive

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

Figure 5. Possible relationships between Capacity to Support Innovation

scenario (B) in which Outside Support causes capacity to increase

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

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

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

of improving the learning experience always in mind. At times, such interventions

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

You might also like