1

Assignment #2 CURRICULUM IMPLEMENTATION My Understandings of Curriculum Implementation During my first teaching placement more than ten years ago, I was charged with delivering a number of courses for which curriculum did not exist. I found that to develop curriculum under such time constraint, coupled with the inherent challenges faced by novice teachers, made this a very stressful and discouraging experience. I quickly gained an appreciation for well-researched and designed curriculum packages. However, as Fullan & Pompret (1977) indicate, to have the curriculum does not mean that it will be implemented or has been implemented in the way it was intended. In this paper, I relate my understandings of curriculum implementation, gained through course readings, to the context of my current role as a part-time instructor at Durham College. Through this, I gain an appreciation for the importance of identifying the purpose of the curriculum at the initial stages of curriculum design. At Durham College I am a member of a team of instructors that teach the course, Math for Science. Although there is a course outline that identifies the learning outcomes, sequence of instruction, evaluation criteria and textbook of the course, over the years, there has been variation in the way the course has been delivered and evaluated. Administration has indicated that more consistency is required to ensure that students who use their mark in this course, towards their application to competitive programs such as nursing, paramedics and dental hygiene, have an equal opportunity to succeed. According to Altrichter (2005), this is a move toward a more programmed approach to implementation, where the curriculum is more clearly specified prior to implementation. This is in contrast to the adaptive-evolutionary approach which allows for more variation in the implementation of curriculum; users are provided with limited resources from which to modify and build curriculum to meet the needs of their particular learning environment (Altrichter, 2005). Understanding that one purpose of the math

Assignment #2 CURRICULUM IMPLEMENTATION course is to provide students with a grade that may be used as part of the selection criteria to get into competitive health programs, helps us recognize the need for curriculum that is more clearly defined. One of the strengths of a programmed approach is, it takes care to communicate its intentions and ways of implementation as clear as possible and, thus, its evaluation criteria are unambiguous (Altrichter, 2005, p. 6). Altrichter (2005) summarizes the strengths and weaknesses of both the programmed approach and the adaptive-evolutionary approach and suggests that understanding the way curriculum will be implemented is an important consideration when determining what approach is more appropriate. A programmed approach seems appropriate for our situation given that our teaching environment and student needs are understood and constant within our program area. Also, the explicit evaluation criteria are consistent with the message that administration conveys regarding standardized math curriculum within our program area. Regardless of the approach taken, there are many similarities amongst the determinants of successful implementation of the curriculum (Fullan & Pompret, 2005). A clear understanding of the direction we need to move in to improve the math curriculum, allows our team to develop strategies for ensuring the curriculum meets the needs of the students and institution. To date, our teams success at a more consistent approach to the delivery of the math curricula is mainly attributed to two of the determinants of implementation as described in Fullan & Pompret (1977): explicitness of the curriculum and feedback mechanisms. Our team leader, a full-time faculty member, has provided detailed curriculum to all part-time instructors. The course curriculum includes tests, assignments, handouts and PowerPoint presentations. Although as teachers we can modify the PowerPoint presentations and provide additional resources to meet

Assignment #2 CURRICULUM IMPLEMENTATION the needs of our students, we have very clear implementation guidelines to ensure a minimum level of consistency. All instructors actively participate in regular staff meetings to ensure feedback mechanisms are in place to discuss any issues or questions that arise with the curriculum and the individual learning challenges of our students. As Fullan & Pompret (1977) state, this supportive network of peers is a vital component of the implementation process. When I relate the readings in Fullan & Pompret (1977) and Altrichter (2005) to my current teaching practice, I have developed a deeper appreciation for the complexities surrounding curriculum implementation. Although there are many similarities in the characteristics required for successfully implementing curriculum, it is important to understand what approach to implementation would be appropriate given the specific implementation situation (Altrichter, 2005). I come back to Egans (2003) comment, to know what the curriculum should contain requires a sense of what the contents are for (p. 14). Taking time to understand the intent of the curriculum in the initial stages of development will help to not only develop it to the appropriate degree, but also provide the appropriate implementation strategies to give users the best chance of success in implementing it into their own environments.

Assignment #2 CURRICULUM IMPLEMENTATION

References Altrichter, H. (2005). Curriculum implementation limiting and facilitating factors. In P. Nentwig & D. Waddington (Eds.), Context based learning of science (pp. 35-62). Mnster: Waxmann. Egan, K. (2003). What is curriculum? Journal of the Canadian Association for Curriculum Studies, 1(1), 9-16. Fullan, M. & Pompret A. (1977). Research on curriculum and instruction implementation. Review of Educational Research, 47(1), 335-397.