Factors Affecting ELT Reforms: - CiteSeerX

Article

Factors Affecting ELT Reforms: The Case of the Philippines Basic Education Curriculum* Alan Waters Lancaster University (UK) [email protected] Ma. Luz C. Vilches Ateneo de. Manila, Philippines [email protected] Abstract ■ A number of recent studies, especially within the East Asian region, have chronicled the problems involved in successful implementation of the English language teaching component of large-scale, system-wide educational innovations. This paper reports on the findings of research into the implementation, in both general and ELT-related terms, of another similar recent initiative, the Philippines Basic Education Curriculum (BEC). The data indicate that classroom-level implementation of the BEC has been difficult to achieve, principally because (i) the curriculum design is insufficiently compatible with teaching situation constraints and, (ii) the necessary levels of professional support and instructional materials have not been provided. The data also show that both drawbacks can be traced in the first instance to a shortage of teaching situation and implementation process resources, a phenomenon frequently noted in the other studies and elsewhere. As the literature on curriculum develop-ment also indicates, however, such problems occur in both resource-rich as well as resource-poor contexts. The paper therefore concludes by discussing a number of additional possible underlying causes for inappropriate forms of curriculum innova-tion, with a view to informing directions for further enquiry. Keywords ■ BEC, curriculum, development, ELT, implementation, Philippines.

I must Create a System, or be enslaved by another man’s (William Blake, ‘Jerusalem’)

Vol 39(1) 5-24 | DOI: 10.1177/0033688208091138 © 2008 SAGE Publications, Los Angeles, London, New Delhi and Singaporehttp://RELC.sagepub.com

at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 15, 2016rel.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://rel.sagepub.com/

6 Regional Language Centre Journal 39.1

Introduction There have been a number of recent studies concerning the difficulties involved in attempting to bring about reform in English language edu-cation at the basic education level on a system-wide scale, often as part of a wider curriculum innovation initiative (see, e.g., Karavas-Doukas 1998; Li 1998; Goh 1999; Carless 1999; Nunan 2003; Lamie 2005; Lee 2007). The main purpose of this paper is to complement the picture provided by these accounts, many of them located within the East Asian region, by reporting on research into the implementation of the recently-introduced Philippines ‘Basic Education Curriculum’ (BEC). In what follows, thus, we first of all describe the overall nature of the BEC, and then present some of the findings of a recent BEC overall implementation evaluation study conducted by the Philippines Department of Education (DepEd). This is followed by information about and data from a research study of our own, focusing on the implementation of the BEC ELT component. In both of these sections, the nature and causes of BEC implementation problems are analysed. In the final section, these findings are compared with those reported in the studies mentioned above, and the overall impli-cations in terms of possible lines for further research into the design of large-scale curriculum development projects are considered.

Characteristics of the BEC The Philippines BEC was developed in response to dissatisfaction with student achievement at the basic education level, a problem attributed in part to the ‘overcrowded’ nature and ‘ “one-size-fits-all approach” ’ of the previous curriculum (DepEd Undated: 5-7). Thus, in order to attempt to address these problems:

the [BEC]1 curriculum is based on the principle that there are two main sources of reliable and meaningful knowledge for contemporary basic education: expert systems of knowledge and the learner’s experience in his/her context. The curriculum has been restructured so that these two main sources will interact with one another reciprocally, and in this sense, the restructured curriculum is an interactive one.

The curriculum promotes more mutual interaction between students and teachers, between students themselves (collaborative learning), between students and instructional materials, between students and multi-media sources, and between teachers of different disciplines (collaborative teaching)…



7 Factors Affecting ELT Reforms

The ideal teacher for the interactive curriculum is not the authoritarian instructor but the trustworthy facilitator or manager of the learning process. She is not somebody on whom learners lean but somebody who gradually rids them of the tendency to lean. She enables learners to become active constructors of knowledge and not passive recipients of information (DepEd Undated: 9).

This approach is reflected in the specification for the English ‘learning area’, where the curriculum:

addresses the communication needs…of students by adopting a com-municative, interactive, collaborative approach to learning as well as reflection and introspection with the aim in view of developing autono-mous language learners aware of and able to cope with global trends (DepEd 2002: 19).

The BEC is, therefore, learner-centred and process-oriented in nature, and teachers are expected to use a teaching methodology appropriate to putting such an approach into practice. In this way, the intention has been that greater relevance and depth of learning will be achieved, thus remedy-ing the main drawbacks in the previous curriculum.

Implementation However, successful implementation of the BEC has proved far from straightforward. Since its inception in 2002, a series of annual imple-mentation evaluations have been carried out by the DepEd Bureau of Secondary Education (BSE), via case studies involving a representative cross-section of 20 secondary schools (DepEd 2005). In the third such study, although a number of positive developments are also reported, the main findings at the classroom level are described as follows:

there are gross inconsistencies between the kind of learner/graduate that the schools desire to produce and the strategies they employ. For exam-ple, instruction is still predominantly authoritative and textbook-based; learning is usually recipient [sic] and reproductive; supervision is com-monly prescriptive and directive; and assessment is focused more on judging rather than improving performance.

Moreover, while teachers believe in the importance of contextualizing the curriculum, yet many of them derive lessons more from course syllabi, textbooks, and competency [i.e. objectives] lists rather than from learners’ felt needs (DepEd 2005: 3).




This part of the study shows that, quite clearly, the teachers in question were continuing to use methods that were not in keeping with the princi-ples of BEC. As the report continues:

Across all school types, teachers have a positive attitude toward the integrative, interactive, brain-based approaches endorsed by the BEC. However, teachers do not feel confident to use the approaches because of their limited knowledge to operationalize them in terms of lesson planning; instructional materials development; and subject matter organization, presentation and evaluation (DepEd 2005: 3-4).

This observation indicates that, even though teachers were apparently willing to implement the BEC approach, their level of practical under-standing prevented them from doing so. The report goes on to also say that:

Teachers have a limited knowledge of constructivism as a learning theory. ‘Learning as a construction process and the learner as a con-structor of meaning’ is among the basic concepts of the BEC… Appli-cation of the concept, however, was very limited. School documents like the yearly reports, school development and improvement plans, instructional and remedial programs, lesson plans, course syllabi, and teachers’ reports made little mention of how the concept was applied to the teaching-learning process (DepEd 2005: 4-5).

A theoretical understanding of the primary BEC concept of learning was thus also found to be largely absent. Finally, the report also points out that:

Teachers are open to new opportunities and possibilities offered by the BEC to accelerate learning…however…several factors…inhibit the teachers from playing the facilitator’s role effectively: namely, students’ English deficiency that hinders critical discussion; overcrowded classes that restrict interactive learning; insufficient supply of textbooks that predisposes teachers to lecture…confronted with these constraints teachers tend to fall back on traditional expository modes like lecturing, question-and-answer, dictation exercises, and practice tests (DepEd 2005: 6-7).

In other words, it is made clear here that, even though teachers were apparently motivated to apply the BEC approach, their attempts to do so were also severely constrained by resource and logistical problems. In overall terms, thus, the BSE study indicates that there have been significant failures in implementing the BEC at the classroom level because of inadequate teacher orientation and impracticable curriculum




design. In what follows, we attempt to throw further light on the first of these factors in particular, via a review of the findings of our own BEC study (conducted in July, 2005), which focused on the implementation of the secondary school-level ELT component.

Research Methodology Our investigation arose out of an interest in the empirical study of system-wide curriculum implementation processes, in order to attempt to add to understanding of what occurs in such situations, and to see what further lessons might be learned about how to optimize curriculum development effectiveness. We chose to focus on the implementation of the sector of the BEC in question because of our background in the subject-area and as a result of our previous involvement in the research setting, via the Philippines ELT Project (see Waters and Vilches 2001). In relation to the chosen area, our primary research questions were:

(i) what were the main characteristics of the implementation strategy and

(ii) what perceptions were there about its effectiveness? In order to attempt to answer these questions, data were generated via interviews and focus group discussions. These two methods were used partly in order to permit a more wide-ranging and probing type of enquiry than might have been possible by other means (e.g. survey question-naires), and also because logistics did not permit the use of certain other forms of investigation, such as observation of teaching, mentoring and so on. a. Interviewees In order to attempt to obtain a reasonably representative range of per-ceptions, two contrasting DepEd administrative regions were chosen as the research sites, namely (a) one in the metro-Manila (i.e. national capital) area, and (b) another in the Visayas (the central part of the Philippines). In addition, a ‘vertical’ cross-section of personnel were chosen as the interviewees in each of the two locales. They consisted of two main categories, namely, on the one hand, a variety of ‘ELT manag-ers’, comprising the Regional English Supervisor (RES), Division-level officials, and secondary school English Department Heads—in other words, those involved in varying degrees with overseeing the process of




implementing the BEC ELT approach—and, on the other, a number of secondary school teachers of English, that is, those directly involved in carrying out the implementation. In addition, apart from the RES, the other managers and all the teachers at both sites were drawn in equal numbers (as far as possible) from two different Divisions within each of the Regions, distinguished in terms of socioeconomic status, geographical location, and so on.2 Within each of the Divisions, however, the school-level personnel (i.e. the English Department Head and the English teachers) were drawn from the same institution, in order to aid ‘triangulation’ in terms of this aspect of the study. The resulting range of interviewees was as shown in Table 1 below:

Table 1. Details of Interviewees Metro-Manila Area Region Visayas Area Region Main categories

Nos. Personnel Main categories

Nos. Personnel

1 Regional English Supervisor

1 Regional English Supervisor

1 English Division Supervisor (Division ‘A’)3

2 English Division Supervisor (1 from Division ‘X’, 1 from Division ‘Y’)

1 Division Superintendent (Division ‘B’)

Managers

1 English Department Head (school within Division ‘A’)4

Managers

2 English Department Head (1 from school in Division ‘X’, 1 from school in Division ‘Y’)

Teachers 4 English teacher (2 from same school in Division ‘A’ as English Department Head above, 2 from school in Division ‘B’)

Teachers 4 English teacher (2 from each of same schools in Divisions ‘X’ and ‘Y’ as English Department Heads above)

An interview was also conducted with senior personnel in the Cur-riculum Development Division of the BSE, that is, the body with primary responsibility for BEC implementation at the level under focus, in order to try to also obtain a perspective from this quarter.




Focus Groups Participants

Two focus groups meetings were also arranged at each of the research sites, one comprising a cross-section of ELT managers, the other made up of English language teachers. The composition of each group excluded personnel who had taken part in the interviews, on the one hand, and, on the other, attempted to include as wide a range as possible of personnel from other Divisions in each of the two Regions, once again in the interests of trying to maximize the ‘spread’ of personnel involved. The resulting compositions of these groups were as follows:

Table 2. Focus Group Details

Metro-Manila Area Region Visayas Area Region

Groups Personnel involved Groups Personnel involved Managers’ focus group (n = 9)

5 × Division English Supervisors, 1 × Division Superinten-dent, 1 × Secondary School Principal, 2 × English Department Heads

Managers’ focus group (n = 6)

3 × Division Super-visors, 3 × Secondary School Principals/ Acting Principals5

Teachers’ focus group (n = 8)

Secondary School English teachers from 8 different schools in 8 different Divisions

Teachers’ focus group (n = 11)

Secondary School English teachers from 9 different schools in 5 different Divisions

Instruments Interviews The questions used for both sets of interviews, that is, those with the managers and those with the teachers, were similar, in order to try to maximize the potential for cross-referencing of responses. The question routine as a whole was intended to create a framework for eliciting information about and perceptions of BEC implementation practices.6 The length of each interview ranged from 30 to 45 minutes. Focus Groups As for the interviews, a similar question routine was used for both the ELT manager and teacher focus groups, and once again the overall intention




was to ‘scaffold’ a framework in which information and views about BEC ELT implementation processes might emerge and be explored as appro-priate. Each meeting lasted for approximately one hour. All the interviews and focus group meetings were conducted in English, and because of the high levels of English language proficiency of the subjects, this did not appear to cause any communication or other problems. The researchers made notes of the interviewees’ and focus group participants’ responses during each of the events. All of the interviews and meetings were also audio-recorded and subsequently transcribed. Analysis The transcripts were analysed using Atlas ti. in order to identify the sections in each of the datasets where the primary features of the imple-mentation process were described (e.g. training programmes) and the views typically held by the various categories of subjects about each of these activities. Finally, each of the main datasets was also analysed in order to identify recurrent themes concerning implementation issues (e.g. regarding resources). Findings First of all, the data indicate that the primary training approach for BEC dissemination was based on a ‘cascade’ model. The main features of this system were described in one of the Visayas Division Supervisor interviews as follows:

VDS1: …after the regional conference or seminar about the…BEC, we did that in our own division…we had a seminar for three or five days…we started first with the higher-ups…the division supervisors were trained, then afterwards were the principals, and then the core group of teachers…

Researcher: So from the top to the—

VDS1: From the top to the bottom, yes. (MP7: 120-24)

The focus of these ‘seminars’ appears to have been primarily on uni-form information-giving:

Researcher: Was there a different kind of training, say, module or train-ing content for each of these different categories?

VDS1: There was a—you mean the modules that we used?




Researcher: Yes. For training.

VDS1: I remember it was as thick as that one or much thicker than that, we used that one.

Researcher: On BEC.

VDS1: On BEC… Containing all the subject areas.

Researcher: U-huh. So was it like giving a background? Information?

VDS1: Ya. Everything in that. Everything in that module.

Researcher: I see. So for all the levels. VDS1: For all the levels, yes.

Researcher: What was contained in that thick, very thick book?

VDS1: Objectives of the BEC, why was BEC implemented, and then the competencies…the expectations from First Year to Fourth Year, and all others. (MP7: 158-80)

In addition, the training modules for teachers also provided demon-strations of BEC teaching methods, which were later ‘echoed’ (i.e. repro-duced) at the school level:

Researcher: In relation to the teachers, was there anything in addition to those types of information? In relation to the teaching application? VDS1: Yes…we give some kind of demonstration, and then we give them the time allotment for each subject area, yes, and how BEC should be taught in their own classrooms… And there was the return demo from the participants themselves…in their schools…

Researcher: Was it like an ‘echo’?

VDS1: Ya, echo training. (MP7: 182-237)

Finally, in the Visayas managers’ focus group meeting, the stage from training to initial classroom implementation was described as having pro-ceeded thus:

VMFG1: …we were trained in the regional office…then immediately after the training we trained our principals. But then the implementation of BEC in our division was sort of haphazard, because immediately after the training during summer, we implemented BEC in our division. Which shouldn’t be the case. We should have chosen a pilot school for the BEC, not immediately for all schools in the division. Researcher: I see. Right. Was that the case with all divisions? That that’s the strategy for implementation?




VMFG1: There was an abrupt change. (MP10: 105-11) The overall picture given of this aspect of the BEC implementation strategy, thus, is of a largely top-down process, in which information was transmitted and teaching behaviour modelled through a series of hier-archical levels, with the version of the curriculum thus communicated then being put directly into practice. The cascade model adopted, in other words, was ‘transmissive’ rather than ‘reinterpretative’ (Hayes 2000), and this obviously helps to account for the inadequate level of understanding by teachers of BEC principles and practices as reported in the BSE evaluation. The data also show that lack of funding appears to have been a primary factor determining the sparse provision of training, as indicated by another part of the data from the Visayas managers’ focus group meeting:

VMFG2: …as of now our system has not really allowed for so much time for in-service trainings. We are more now on the classroom, using time for classroom instruction. So time we can call our teachers would probably be—we are limited to off-work hours, or on Saturdays. And many of our teachers shy away from these kinds, because—it’s very normal—they are also family—people with families. They would rather have their time off with their families rather than attend in-service trainings.

Researcher: Is it different from the way it was in the past in that respect, or—?

VMFG2: There is a difference. Before, in-service trainings were also big things. And many people would like to be called to in-service training. It’s a time away from their classrooms, and it’s a time to learn. But it also entails so much finances for the division. And teachers were called away from their classes, so what would the class do when the teacher is not there? So they had a change. Teachers stay in the class-room, they will be called for in-service trainings off-hours. This is where the factor of the family comes in. And so we are in a quandary what to do. (MP10: 507-11)

In addition, the data indicate that other kinds of logistical problems also hampered on-service follow-up. Heads of department were seen as competent staff developers, but lacked the time to carry out this aspect of their duties. As a Manila Division Supervisor interviewee put it:

MDS1: …all department heads in English in [name of Division] are all competent. Now they can handle staff development program. But there is another ‘but’ there. Because of the workload given to them by the




principal, they do the staff development program haphazardly, because they have to teach, they have to monitor teachers, they have to check lesson plans, and they attend…to other business, some are adminis-trative in nature. Because they are the…‘sidekick’…the ‘angels’ of the principal. (MP1: 178-84)

There were also equipment problems:

MDS1: There is one school that is videotaping the lessons… I encour-aged the principal to videotape the lessons and then show it during department meetings, like English for example, to show the lesson and they— Researcher 1: Give feedback.

MDS1: They’d give feedback.

Researcher 2: But only one school does that.

MDS1: Maybe—maybe one or two. Researcher 1: Because as well of the—it’s having the gadget.

MDS1: The gadget—yes. (MP1: 621-61)

Much of the teachers’ focus group data also describes similar prob-lems, for example, workload level (‘We’re burdened with so many loads’ [TP10: 612]), the expenses involved in training (‘We have to shoulder the seminar. Sometimes it’s 1500 Pesos’ [TP9: 514]), and so on (cf. Waters 2006, where similar difficulties were identified by teachers when account-ing for problems in implementing new teaching ideas). In short, the prime facie reason for the under-developed nature of the initial and on-going BEC orientation was resources-related. The data also throw light on another major resource problem affecting the ability of teachers to implement the BEC (and one also mentioned in the BSE evaluation), namely, a shortage of appropriate instructional mate-rials. Data from the interview with the Curriculum Development Division show that the need for this kind of resource to be made available as part of the implementation process was recognized, especially because of a con-cern about lack of qualified teachers:

CD1: …the Bureau of Secondary Education, through the curriculum development division, was able to prepare a prototype lesson plan for our teachers… It’s…prepared because of the concern that there are teachers in the field teaching not their major.

Researcher: And these exist for all levels in the Secondary Level? The four years?




CD1: …from First Year to Fourth Year. (MP12: 449-54) These ‘prototype lesson plans’ (PLPs) amount to draft sets of teaching materials, complete with texts, exercises and teacher’s notes. The need for such a resource is also echoed in many parts of the teachers’ data. Thus, it was viewed as an important means of saving time and energy:

It does the preparation, the finding the right materials for this particular skill. (TP10: 602)

Because as teachers handling 80 students, preparing two lesson plans or three lesson plans, it is very taxing for the teacher. Unlike if you have this already made, your time—you have a lot more time in doing your materials. Because you have to write the manila paper, you have to produce drawings, visual aids. (TP9: 408)

The PLPs were also seen as important in providing sufficient guidance about the type of lessons teachers should be teaching under the BEC:

As English teachers following the BEC, it is very important that the teachers and the students should have…the prototype lesson plan. Because it’s already BEC-type. (TP9: 403)

If you have already this prototype, it would be easy for you just to follow. Unlike if you don’t have this, you’re going to look for another book. Your lesson would be incongruent to the BEC. (TP9: 408)

However, unfortunately, the data also show that, due to financial con-straints, the PLPs were in very short supply in the field. Thus, as one of the discussants in the Visayas teachers’ focus group put it: ‘Their problem is just very simple, they’re not available in their schools’ (MP4: 195). In other cases, as the Manila area RES explained in her interview, only limited access was possible:

Researcher: But they actually have them [PLPs], do they?

RES1: Yes, sir.

Researcher: They are made available to all of the teachers if they want them?

RES1: Actually they are made available in their library.

Researcher: In their library. Right.

RES1: Because we cannot give them one by one, one copy each. (MP5: 252-62)




Even when PLPs were available to teachers, a further problem men-tioned in the Visayas teachers’ focus group was the lack of corresponding resources for learners:

the teachers in our school do have the textbooks and the teachers’ manuals as well, but the problem is, students do not have these books. So one of the solutions that we adopted is that the students would have the photocopy of let’s say the reading collections, but it’s very difficult for the teacher to just teach…if the students do not have a copy. And it would take a lot of time for the teacher, and effort as well, if he will write that on manila paper. (MP4: 440)

The nub of the matter was clarified in the interview with the members of the Curriculum Development Division:

Interviewee 1: So…the prototype lesson plans—were developed. And now we are ready to orient the teachers in the field. [But]…there is a problem… The government can only afford to re-print the materials for the SEDIP [Secondary Education Development and Improvement Program] schools… (MP12: 509-21)

In other words, there were insufficient funds to provide the PLPs for more than a minority of the DepEd schools. In another part of the same interview, the overall problem was eloquently summed up as follows:

You know what, this is my [x]th year in the Department. Simple. Bottom line is resources. If our teachers in the field will just be given enough—enough, just enough, not more than enough—resources, every-thing will be all right. (MP12: 388)

Taken as a whole, thus, such data help to explain one of the main reasons why, as indicated by the BSE report, the level of expertise needed by teachers in order to effectively implement the BEC was inadequate. A primary factor was shortage of resources. As a result, the necessary teacher development and provision of teaching materials did not occur.7 Finally, other parts of the data confirm the lack of fit between the BEC design and the logistical realities of many teaching situations in other respects as well, not only in terms of lack of teaching materials, as also noted in the BSE report. Thus, problems such as teaching time, student numbers and their level of English were seen in many cases as making it impossible to create the kind of classroom interaction envisioned in the BEC, as the following data from one of the Manila area teachers’ inter-views indicates:




Researcher: …when I read the documents about the BEC…they mention things like more emphasis on higher-level thinking skills, more participation and interaction. MT1: …in our case…we have so many students, and we only have one hour for each class. We can’t expect our students to participate. Researcher: …So it’s difficult to increase the amount of participation because of the time and the… MT1: Specially when it’s a group activity. Because there are more than 60, a group activity will not be finished… (MP3: 598-610)

MT1: …that [i.e. more emphasis on higher-level thinking skills, more participation and interaction] is only applicable for the higher sections. Because in the lower sections…sometimes, you answer your own questions. Researcher: Ya. MT11: What I ask them— MT2: The teacher answers. (MP3: 640-46)

Discussion The main BEC implementation problems identified both by the BSE study and our own research—that is, (i) shortcomings in teacher development and teaching materials provision, and (ii) a lack of fit between the cur-riculum teaching approach and teaching situation realities—and their underlying connection with resource problems, are, of course, widespread and recurrent phenomena. They are mentioned prominently in most of the studies referred to at the beginning of this paper, and in many others (see, e.g., van den Berg, Vandenberghe and Sleegers 1999; Fullan 2001; Ingvarson, Meiers and Beavis 2005). A primary question thus arises: why does the phenomenon nevertheless continue to occur with such depressing regularity? Ultimately, a definitive answer to this question requires further empiri-cal investigation. Meanwhile, however, it seems profitable to speculate about what might constitute potentially fruitful directions for enquiry of this kind. Thus, in the first instance, it might seem reasonable to regard the problem as related to the economic standing of the part of the world where the reform initiative takes place. However, Carless (1999: 25) reports on a lack of resources contributing to difficulties in the implementation of the ‘Target-oriented Curriculum’ in Hong Kong, a relatively well-off locale.




Similarly, in a survey of a large number of Australian teacher development programmes, Ingvarson, Meiers and Beavis (2005) found that the features of such programmes that correlated best with teachers’ ability to contrib-ute to curriculum implementation (e.g. ‘active learning’) were frequently under-represented or absent, because of funding constraints:

The findings from this cross-program analysis reflect findings from other research on professional development and challenges that policy makers have faced for many years. These studies often find a consider-able gap between the conditions that research indicates are optimal for professional learning and those that are provided (2005: 17).

Thus, although no doubt a contributory factor, economic standing does not of itself appear to be the root cause of the problem. A second potentially influential factor, it can be argued, is the exis-tence within the innovation situation of certain types of prevailing cul-tural norms. Thus, societies which have a high ‘power distance’ level (Hofstede 2001: ch. 3), such as the Philippines (i.e. where there is rela-tively greater social distance between superiors and subordinates), can be seen as tending to operate in a relatively ‘top-down’ manner, thus creat-ing a predisposition for a theory-driven, authority-centred, hierarchical approach to curriculum innovation, rather than a more collaborative, consensus-seeking model, based on shared understanding and appre-ciation of implementation realities and constraints. As a result, so this line of reasoning goes, insufficient account is taken of the latter perspective, leading to inappropriate curriculum design. On the other hand, however, as with the economic variable discussed above, similar curriculum devel-opment approaches also occur just as frequently in countries where there is a lower power distance level, for example, the US (see, e.g., Fullan 2001). Thus, although national-level cultural tendencies may no doubt act to reinforce certain styles of curriculum development, they cannot be regarded as their fundamental determiner. A third possibility (and a further variation on the cultural theme) is that, within any given innovation context, government curriculum policy and school-system implementation levels inhabit such different ‘universes’ that ‘intercultural’ understanding between the two is often difficult. This point can be clarified by adapting Kennedy’s well-known conceptu-alization of the contexts in which educational innovations operate, as shown in Fig. 1 below.




Fig. 1. Innovation Policy-making and Implementation Levels (adapted from Kennedy 1988). As the diagram tries to show, although there is a sense in which, in any innovation situation, all the various contexts represented by the arcs share certain characteristics in common, by virtue of all being derived from an over-arching set of sociocultural norms, it is possible to conceive of important differences also existing between the main levels, depending on the prevailing ‘micro’-culture of the ‘sub-strata’ in question. Thus, for example, because of its basic function, the educational institution might typically tend towards conservatism (see, e.g., Evans 2000), whereas a curriculum development unit, for similar reasons, may adopt an opposite, pro-innovation bias. Equally, the educational and socioeconomic back-ground of those in the higher echelons of government and administration may differ significantly from that of those who work at the ‘chalk-face’, resulting in important differences in terms of typical social outlook, and so on (cf. Fullan 2001: ch. 7). Such tendencies can result in a ‘two cultures’ situation, where the policy level ‘ethos’ may exhibit a lack of empathy for that of the imple-mentation level. As Havelock and Huberman point out:

Those designing, administering and advising projects do not generally have to make very many changes themselves. Their task remains the same. It is others who will have to modify their behaviours and very often to modify them rapidly in fairly significant ways, and with little previous or even gradual preparation. These are typically the kind of rapid and massive changes which planners or administrators or advisers would never plan, administer or advise for themselves (1977: 159; original emphasis).




The possibility of this factor also having a bearing on the matter—endemic as the institutional structures it relates to are in all nation states—therefore seems worth exploring further. Finally, it might also be useful to consider the possible influence on curriculum development of historico-political factors (Clark 1987; Trowler 2003). Thus, at any point in its development, a nation may be perceive itself to be suffering from ‘structural lag’ (Havelock and Huberman 1977: 119), that is, its educational system is no longer regarded as sufficiently developed to meet the challenges of the modern world (due to increased globalization, a predicament experienced nowadays in equal measure by both so-called ‘developed’ as well as ‘developing’ countries, it should be noted—see, e.g., Barber 2005). Political pressure therefore builds up for the system to be up-dated, usually as a matter of urgency, even when this results in the promotion of curriculum initiatives which contradict basic principles of sound innovation management, for example, because the ‘zone of innovation’ (Stoller 1994) is too big or the level of resources needed are inadequate. An additional problem of this kind may occur in nations with a recent history of colonialism. Such a legacy is likely to have restricted the oppor-tunity to nurture and develop indigenous educational traditions. Instead, taking the lead from the colonial ruler will usually have been the norm. Political independence does not alter this tendency of its own accord, of course: the effect may well linger on for some time afterwards (in the form of ‘internal colonialism’), until the necessary amount of post-colonial experience has accumulated to create a different, more autonomous mind-set, resulting in curriculum innovations more in keeping with national traditions and resources (cf. Marris 1974). The effects on curriculum development of political factors of these kinds would therefore seem to be another area where further enquiry might be profitable.

Conclusion This paper has concerned itself with an examination of the implementa-tion of the Philippines BEC, especially its ELT strand, and attempted to relate the findings to studies of similar initiatives elsewhere. This meta-analysis has revealed a persistent, recurrent pattern of implementation difficulties in such projects, principally related to shortcomings in curriculum design and inadequate provision of professional support and teaching resources.




On the surface, it has been concluded, these problems can be seen as stemming from financial constraints in the innovation situation and the existence of certain types of sociocultural tendencies. However, since the same phenomena were seen to occur in relatively resource-rich and across culturally diverse situations as well, it has been argued that other, more deep-seated factors must also be at play. It has therefore been speculated that potentially more satisfactory explanations for the occurrence of the problems were (i) the existence of ‘intercultural’ tensions between the policy-making and implementation levels in innovation contexts and, (ii) the influence of national historico-political factors. It is thus hoped that further research into these areas will be undertaken, with a view to throw-ing additional light on the deeper causes of the problem of inappropriate curriculum development.

NOTES * We wish to gratefully thank the Philippines Department of Education for its extensive cooperation and the British Academy Committee for South East Asian Studies for its financial support in carrying out of the research on which this paper is based. 1. Square brackets have been used here and elsewhere in order to indicate interpolations. 2. The selection of the locales and personnel drawn from them for interviews (and for focus groups meetings—see below) was made by the RES in each of the regions, according to the criteria indicated. 3. Division Supervisors are Division-level subject specialists. Division Superintendents (see below) are Division-level administrative heads. 4. Logistical problems prevented an interview with the Head of English from the school in Division ‘B’ also taking place. 5. Four Division Superintendents who were also supposed to attend this meet-ing were called away to a meeting in Manila at short notice. 6. Copies of the interview and focus group protocols can be obtained from the authors. 7. It is instructive to compare this situation with the very positive views expressed in other parts of the data (which space prevents from reproducing here) about the efficacy of the Philippines–Australia Project in Basic Education (PROBE), which was located in the same area as one of the research sites, and was funded at a level that permitted a very extensive programme of training opportunities and provi-sion of teaching resources.




REFERENCES Barber, M. 2005 ‘National Strategies for Educational Reform: Lessons from the British Experi-

ence Since 1988’, in M. Fullan (ed.), Fundamental Change: International Handbook of Educational Change (Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer): 73-97.

Carless, D. 1999 ‘Large-scale Curriculum Change in Hong Kong’, in C. Kennedy, P. Doyle and

C. Goh (eds.), Exploring Change in English Language Teaching (Oxford: Macmillan): 19-28.

Clark, J.L. 1987 Curriculum Renewal in School Foreign Language Learning (Oxford/New

York: Oxford University Press). DepEd 2002 Guidelines for the Pilot Implementation of the 2002 Secondary Education

Curriculum (DepEd Order No. 43; Department of Education, Republic of Philippines).

2005 The Monitoring and Evaluation of the Implementation of the Basic Education Curriculum: Findings and Recommendations (DepEd Order No. 35; Depart-ment of Education, Republic of Philippines).

Undated The 2002 Basic Education Curriculum (Department of Education, Republic of the Philippines).

Evans, R. 2000 ‘Why a School Doesn’t Run—or Change—Like a Business’, Independent

School, Spring 2000. At http://www.nais.org/publications/. Fullan, M. 2001 The New Meaning of Educational Change (London: RoutledgeFalmer). Goh, C.C.M. 1999 ‘Nationwide Curriculum Innovation: How Do We Manage?’, in C. Kennedy,

P. Doyle and C. Goh (eds.), Exploring Change in English Language Teaching (Oxford: Macmillan): 5-18.

Havelock, R.G., and A.M. Huberman 1977 Solving Educational Problems: The Theory and Reality of Innovation in

Developing Countries (Paris: Unesco). Hayes, D. 2000 ‘Cascade Training and Teachers’ Professional Development’, ELT Journal

54(2): 135-45. Hofstede, G.H. 2001 Culture’s Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions, and

Organizations across Nation (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2nd edn). Ingvarson, L., M. Meiers and A. Beavis 2005 ‘Factors Affecting the Impact of Professional Development Programs on

Teachers’ Knowledge, Practice, Student Outcomes & Efficacy’, Education Policy Analysis Archives 13(10): 1-24.



24 Regional Language Centre Journal 39.1 Karavas-Doukas, K. 1998 ‘Evaluating the Implementation of Educational Innovations: Lessons from

the Past’, in P. Rea-Dickins and K.P. Germaine (eds.), Managing Evaluation and Innovation in Language Teaching: Building Bridges (Harlow: Longman): 25-50.

Kennedy, C. 1988 ‘Evaluation of the Management of Change in ELT Projects’, Applied Lin-

guistics 9(4): 329-42. Lamie, J.M. 2005 Evaluating change in English language Teaching (Palgrave: Macmillan). Lee, K.W. 2007 ‘An Investigation of the Implementation of the Malaysian “Smart” School

Project’ (Phd thesis, Lancaster University). Li, D. 1998 ‘ “It’s Always More Difficult than You Plan and Imagine”: Teachers’ Per-

ceived Difficulties in Introducing the Communicative Approach in South Korea’, TESOL Quarterly 32(4): 677-703.

Marris, P. 1974 Loss and Change (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul). Nunan, D. 2003 ‘The Impact of English as a Global Language on Educational Policies and

Practices in the Asia-Pacific Region’, TESOL Quarterly 37(4): 589-613. Stoller, F.L. 1994 ‘The Diffusion of Innovations in Intensive ESL Programs’, Applied Lin-

guistics 15(3): 300-27. Trowler, P.R. 2003 Education Policy (London: Routledge, 2nd edn). van den Berg, R., R. Vandenberghe and P. Sleegers 1999 ‘Management of Innovations from a Cultural-Individual Perspective’, School

Effectiveness and School Improvement 10(3): 321-51. Waters, A. 2006 ‘Facilitating Follow-up in ELT INSET’, Language Teaching Research 10(1):

32-52. Waters, A., and M.L.C. Vilches 2001 ‘Implementing ELT Innovations: A Needs Analysis Framework’, ELT

Journal 55(2): 133-41.



Factors Affecting ELT Reforms: - CiteSeerX

Documents

Transcript of Factors Affecting ELT Reforms: - CiteSeerX