The Process of Change and Curricular
Innovation
Introduction
Change is too often falsely perceived by
individuals and organizations as a fairly simplistic phenomenon. This is
a comfortable, sometimes useful, yet extremely deceiving notion.
(Everad and Morris, 1990). The purpose of this paper is to draw attention
to the intricacy and multidimensionality of change with special reference
to curricular innovation. Awareness of the complexity and inherent problems
involved in instituting change may assist language teaching professionals
to better manage the transition involved in curriculum implementation,
and allow for reflection on personal reactions and feelings towards the
proposed change.
Background
The English teaching profession in Israel
is about to embark on an adventurous journey of change - the implementation
of a New Standards Curriculum. This change is received with mixed feelings
among the teaching population: on the one hand, consent in general as to
the nature of the document and the need for innovation, and on the other,
a combination of hesitant reservation and perturbation. Teachers
at all levels are asking their colleagues, their superiors and themselves
vital questions, some of which convey anxiety, doubt and uncertainty as
to the nature of the change about to occur. Teachers’ queries range from
questioning certain aspects in the document which they find obscure, confusing
and unfeasible, to the effect the change may have on their workload, and
last but not least, on their professional competence.
We, on the curriculum writing committee,
have likewise experienced similar feelings during the course of numerous
meetings held over the past three and a half years. We have also continuously
asked ourselves some very tough and perplexing questions, to which we did
not always have sufficient answers. Breaking away from former curricula
formats and accepting a novel perspective, leaving behind familiar territory
and venturing towards the unknown was and is often very disturbing. Yet
I believe that our feelings of doubt, and sometimes even despair, have
largely been replaced by a sense of achievement and satisfaction and a
feeling that yes, we can do it--there may still be some obstacles ahead
but we can already see the light at the end of the tunnel.
Change As a Process
Going through change, be it curriculum
or other, is seldom an easy matter. It is often a strenuous and draining
experience; yet, at the same time, challenging and rewarding.
Since innovation lies at the heart of educational development it is essential
that the teachers who are about to undergo a change process are introduced
to some of the assumptions underlying the notion of change, in order to
consider their ramifications to their personal and professional lives.
(Markee.1997).
Change can be perceived in different
ways: a rather simplistic view relates to change in terms of the object
of change, i.e. the new curriculum, the new technique or textbook.
Innovation, according to this approach, is perceived as being confined
to a restricted time span. Such a limited perspective, however, deliberates
on neither the need for change nor on the factors which may interact with
the intended innovation, and consequently can not anticipate nor account
for all the intricacies and difficulties involved in implementing change.
Contrary to the formerly described approach,
current literature on educational change describes it as a process rather
than as a one-time event: The introduction of the new curriculum on a set
date, for instance, cannot be referred to as THE change or innovation affecting
the English teaching community, but rather as the process which occurred
prior to and subsequent to the event. Thus, Hargeaves (1994) describes
change as a phenomenon which includes “the practices and procedures, the
rules and relationships, the sociological and psychological mechanism”
of the involved parties which will “shape the destiny of any change, whatever
its content”, and will “lead it to prosper or falter.” (p. 9). Hence,
change is perceived from a broad perspective which relates to the pertinent
behavioral transformation required of the participants involved, in order
to accommodate themselves to the proposed innovation. Consequently change
entails a slow process of immense complexity, one which engages the participants’
emotions as well as their intellect, and which questions norms and modes
of behavior of individuals and the organizations within which they operate.
Identifying the
Impetus for Change
The nature of the planned change and the
factors which may determine its success or failure to permeate the system
depend to a great extent on the impetus for change. Motivation to initiate
innovation may have emanated from a variety of sources, some top-down,
e.g. high ranking government officials; others bottom-up, e.g. interested
parties at the school and community level. In the case of the introduction
of a new English Curriculum, the call for change at top-down levels
may have emerged from diverse government bodies, including the Ministry
of Education, who could have expressed concern at the ability of Israelis
to reach a sufficient level in the English language so as to meet the challenges
of the next millennium. Universities may have exerted pressure for change
due to academic demands. The Chief or local English inspectors may have
likewise expressed desires for change based on their familiarity with current
educational and language acquisition theories, as well as with the needs
of the local student population.
On the bottom-up level, schools may
have put forth a plea to implement an innovative approach to language teaching
congruent with the approach utilized for teaching other school subjects.
Moves initiated by bottom up stakeholders towards changing the English
curriculum may also include efforts by parents who regard mastery of the
English language crucial for purposes of social mobility, and may thus
push for early exposure. Students may have also argued that the present
standards of the matriculation are unsuitable for their future needs. And,
of course, teachers may have felt the need for change and innovation due
to an apparent lack of compatibility between teaching programs and/or materials,
students’ needs and classroom realities, or discontentment with methods
imposed on the system for a variety of reasons.
The impetus for change can often be
located in a number of sites simultaneously, for seldom do any of the above
described initiatives operate in isolation. Such, I believe, was the case
in the resolution to introduce a new curriculum for the teaching of English
in Israel, whereby forces at different levels contributed to the decision-making
process. Interaction between top-down and bottom-up forces in the implementation
of innovation has in fact been found to be one of the factors which contributes
to the potential success of the change process. ( Hargreave, 1994)
Planning for Change
Once the change has been initiated, it
evolves into a plan which will be introduced to the system. It is worthwhile
noting at this stage that even meticulous planning of the change process
does not guarantee smooth implementation. This is due to the fact that
innovation does not follow an orderly course of events since it never operates
in a vacuum. (Everad and Morris, 1990; Hargreave, 1994). On the contrary
- it is fraught with contextual variables, some of which can not be foreseen,
making the management of change an immensely “messy” multi-faceted and
chaotic process. (Markee, 1997).
Curricular innovation cannot therefore
be launched without consideration of the local context, especially the
prevailing practices, beliefs and expectations of the English teachers,
the agents of change. This assumption is certainly reflected in the approach
followed by EFL professionals in Israel who are engaged in the implementation
of the new curriculum in both pre- and in-service frameworks. It is also
in accord with current research findings as to the paramount significance
of teachers’ Background, Assumptions and Knowledge (BAK) in the teaching
process. (Woods, 1996). Following such an approach implies allocating time
for sessions in which individuals describe personal influential background
factors and share and discuss their beliefs and assumptions. These
personal “teachers’ stories” will in turn be associated with, and critically
compared and contrasted with, the newly introduced notions, thus creating
a meaningful learning experience for the parties involved.
Innovation is disruptive for it poses
a threat to key meanings, relationships, our status and view of ourselves,
our habits and routines. (Everard and Morris, 1990). This may result in
feelings of bereavement over loss of the familiar and known which is left
behind to start anew. In terms of the Standards Curriculum, feelings of
loss and helplessness may occur in a number of instances. Consider the
veteran English teacher, proficient in and accustomed to the teaching of
grammar structures in the progression spelled out in the 1988 English curriculum.
Sudden change of both the conceptualization of grammar teaching and the
lack of dictated sequencing are bound to cause uncertainty, as are new
unfamiliar terms such as “standards” and “benchmarks”. The approach is
domain rather than skill-oriented, and requires knowledge in the assessment
arena. Areas of expertise not explicitly mentioned in the previous document,
such as appreciation of language and culture, need to be mastered. Emphasis
is placed on teacher autonomy, on independent planning and decision-making
for many of the components are not specified and left to the teacher’s
discretion. Such freedom is liberating yet intimidating. Former feelings
of confidence, positive self-image and esteem may now be endangered as
part of the change. Hence individual or group resistance is often a natural
reaction to the change proposed.
Resistance may take different forms.
It may be expressed by total passivity on the part of the teacher, relying
on the inertia of other parties, presupposing that the innovative spirit
will disappear soon enough, as it has often times before. Another common
resistance strategy is accentuating the negative, emphasizing the impracticality
of the new curriculum and its adverse repercussions. The teacher
may also question the very legitimacy of the change, arguing in favor of
the previous curriculum and state of affairs and against the proposed
futile disruption of the system.
Conclusion: How
to Facilitating Change
What steps can be taken to ease the process
of change and make the transition less painful? First and foremost, refraining
from an underestimation of the complexity of the process practitioners
at all levels are experiencing, and recognizing the legitimacy of the feelings
delineated above. Second, building on the invaluable previous knowledge
that teachers have, and using that knowledge to embrace the new knowledge;
realizing that many of the changes outlined in the new curriculum have
been taking place for the last few years, initiated by either top-down
or bottom-up forces, or both interactively. Issues such as starting age,
heterogeneity of learners and the need to cater to it, awareness of different
learning styles and alternative assessment have been part of our reality
as English teachers for quite a while, and have demanded our attention
and expertise. This recently acquired knowledge along with the previous
experience, wisdom and insight gained throughout the teacher’s career,
will now serve as a solid basis for further professional development.
Finally, since the management of innovation
is so very disruptive and convoluted, teachers must be provided with ample
time to comprehend, discuss, doubt, question, and express anxiety and frustration.
Such a process will hopefully be accompanied by an integration of the essence
of the document with the personal background, assumptions and knowledge
of each one of the teachers, thus creating a sense of ownership--making
the change their own.
Sources Cited:
-
Everard, Bertie, and Geoffrey, Morris.
1990. Effective School Management London: Paul Chapman Publishing Ltd.
-
Hargreaves, Andy. 1994. Changing Teachers,
Changing Times. Toronto: Oise Press.
-
Markee, Numa. 1997. Managing Curricular
Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
-
Sarason, Seymour B. 1996. Revisiting
“The Culture of the School and the Problem of Change”. New York: Teachers’
College Press
-
Woods, Devon. 1996. Teacher Cognition in
Language Teaching. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Ofra Inbar is a member of the writing
committee of the new Standards for Pupils of English Curriculum for
Israeli schools. She is a lecturer in the English Department at Bet Berl
College and in the School of Education at Tel-Aviv University.ofra_in@netvision.net.il
|
