Download - Search

264 DAVID R. CARLESS2 Review of selected factors affecting the implementationof in novat ionsl‘hc litcrature on the management of change (c.g. Fullan, 1991 ; Markee, 1997) indicates anumhcr of different factors that may affect the implcmcntation or non-implementation ofcurriculum innovations. This , tion \z ill hrictly discuss just three factors that seemparticularly relevant to the caw study discussed in this paper, namely teacher attitudes,teacher training and teachers’ undcrstantling of the innovation.’l’rachcrs’ attitudes otniously affcct thcir xhaviour in thc classroom. Thcir attitudestend to be derived from their owm expcricn as learners, thcir training, their teachingexperience, their interaction \vith collcagucs and the values and norms of the society inkvhich they work. When teachers’ attitudcs arc congruent with the innovation, then theyare likely to be positivcly tlisposctl to\vards its implcmcntation. However, teachers who arcinitially enthusiastic about an innovation may easily become disillusioned if there is a lackof support for thc innovation, such as inadcquatc rcsourcing or negative sentiments fromthe principal or colleagues.If the innovation is incompatible \vith teachers’ existing attitudes, resistance to changeis likely to occur (Waugh antl Punch, 1987). Within EIT, for cxample, there arc a numbernt reviews of largely unsuccessful attempts to implcmcnt learner-centredcommunicative curricula amongst teachers \vhosc background and experiencc tendstowards more traditional tcachcr-centred methods. In some form this scenario has beendocumented in China (Hui, 1997; l’cnncr, 1995), Egypt (Holliday, 1994), Grcccc (Karavas-Iloukas, 1995), and Oman (IIarrison, 1996). [. . .]Teachcr training antl support are crucial issues in the prcparation of teachcrs toimplcment a ne\v curriculum [. . .]. Vcrspoor (1989), in a study of change in developingcountries, suggests four clements nccdcd for successful teacher training to supportinnovation:permanent and locally available in-service training, e.g. through a cascading model;establishment of effective tcms for supcrvision antl support of teachers;adjustment ofthc content oftcachcr training to the teachers’ o\vn Icvcl of knowledgeand experience; andencouragement of teacher motivation antl commitment, e.g. through improvedworking conditions or opportunities for professional dcvclopment.Training therefore needs to be ongoing antl tlcvclopmcntal rather than piecemeal (Brintlleyand Hood, 1990). Teachers need both on- and off-site training; the former to relate theinnovation to the realities of the spccific school context, the latter to permit the opportunityto reflect on the meaning of the innovation away from thc pressuresIf teachcrs arc to implcmcnt an innovation succcssfully, it is e.thorough undcrstantling of the principles and practice of the proposed change. It is desirablethat they understand hth the theorctical underpinnings and classroom applications of theinnovation, but it is the latter that tends to prove most essential, especially in contexts kvhcreteachers are not \ycll-traincd and/or lack sound subject knowledge. Fullan (1991, p. 199)\varns us of a cardinal fact of social change, that “p~oplc will al\vays misinterpret andmisunderstand some aspect of the purpose or practicc of something that is new to them.”For example, Karavas-Doukas (1 995), in an investigation of a communicative syllabus beingintroduced in Grcck secondary schools, found that teachers exhibited incompleteunderstanding of the innovation they were charged with implementing and that thesemisconceptions contributed to negative perceptions of’ thc innovation.