ELT teachers’ curriculum implementation approaches in teaching freshman English at Ethiopian public universities’ context

Figures & data

Table 1. Curriculum implementation paradigms.

Paradigms	positivism	Post-positivism	Constructivism [Critical theory]
Approaches	Fidelity	Mutual-adaptation	Enactment
Ontology	Pure reflection	Negotiation/grounded	Local realities
Epistemology	Objectivist	Modified dualism	Subjective/Created
Methodology	Evaluation-based	Variation-based	Meaning making [Emancipatory Participation]

Adopted from Cho (1998, p.12)

Table 2. Profile of ELT teachers in teaching freshman English curriculum.

Status of teachers	Male	Female	Total
PhD in ELT	3	0	3
MA/MED in ELT	10	2	12
MED/MA in ELT plus assist. professor	1	0	1
Total	14	2	16

Note:Teachers who did not teach freshman English at least once were excluded from the sample.

Table 3. Indicators of curriculum implementation approaches and the descriptions of the level of implementation.

Indicators	Level of implementation
Done as planned	When all the element of the activity are done as planned by curriculum designers When the methods suggested by the curriculum designers are used by the classroom teachers without modifications When no additional activities are given and no activities are skipped When the time suggested (if there is any) by the curriculum designers or by the teacher him/herself are respected
Adapted/modified	Modifications on some elements of the activity (on example sentences & questions; change on words, phrases, clauses and chunks). Change on whole or part of the suggested units and topics Change on the suggested methods and instructions
Supplemented	All elements of the activity are completed as planned, and supplementary activities are provided or added
Substituted/replaced	Use another activity instead of the activities designed by the curriculum designers or use another activity leaving out what has been planned
Skipped	Ignore the activity at all without replacement, supplement, etc.

Table 4. Participant demographics.

*Name	Gender	Educational status	Years of teaching experience	Formal in-service training
Paulos	M	MED TEFL	8	*HDP
Seid	M	MED in ELT	12	HDP
Yared	M	MED in ELT	7	—
Rahel	F	MED in ELT	9	HDP
Dawit	M	Assistance professor in ELT	15	HDP

(* Names are Pseudonyms);*HDP-is a broad pedagogical in-service program that is delivered to teachers chosen from any field of study.

Table 5. Observation data.

*Name	# of sessions observed	Classroom curriculum implementation approaches										Total observed activities
		Activities done as planned		Adapted/modified activities		Supple-mented activities		Activities skipped		Activities replaced
		f	%	f	%	f	%	f	%	f	%
Paulos	9	51	67.11	0	0	0		25	32.89	0	0	76
Seid	11	50	65.79	0	0	3	3.95	23	30.26	0	0	76

(*Names are pseudonyms; f stands for frequency).

Table 6. Summary of justifications given by participants for adhering to and/or skipping the suggested activities of the official curriculum.

No	Name	Participant’s justifications
1	Paulos	Needs and interests of students (S-R) Students’ language proficiency (S-R) The quality of the official curriculum (I-R) High stakes exam (I-R) Assessment type: focusing on reading and vocabulary (I-R) Large class-size (I-R) Shortage of time to cover the curriculum (I-R) Professional development training of teachers is ignored (I-R)
2	Seid	Students’ language background or proficiency (S-R) Needs of students (S-R) The quality of the designed curriculum (lacking vertical integration (I-R) Lack of relevance of activities to the needs of students (E-R) Trying to follow similar teaching and assessment approaches (I-R) High-stakes exam: used for students’ field placement (I-R) Assessment type (focus on reading and vocabulary) (I-R) Large class-size (I-R) Knowledge, skills and experience of teachers (P-R) The institute did not design any training on curriculum improvement (I-R)
3	Yared	Assessment procedure followed in the university (I-R) Students’ language proficiency (S-R) Use of students’ score for field placement (I-R) Assessment type-focus on reading and vocabulary (I-R) The curricular materials (I-R) Skills, knowledge and experience of adapting the material (P-R) Lack of interest and willingness to adapt the material (P-R)
4	Rahel	Assessment system of the department (I-R) The activities of the curriculum Use of students’ result for placement purposes (I-R) Knowledge and skills of teachers in adapting curriculum (P-R) Lack of in-service training (I-R) Large class-size (I-R) Shortage of time to finish the curriculum (I-R) Feeling safe when she does the prescribed activities (P-R)
5	Dawit	Lack of vertical integration of curricular activities with activities of previous curricular materials (I-R) Assessment process and the type of questions students were tested (I-R) Less relevant activities to the current needs of students (E-R) Skills, knowledge and experience of teachers (P-R) Lack of professional development trainings in the institute (I-R) Commitment of teachers in adapting activities (P-R) To implement the curriculum in a similar way as other teachers (P-R)

Cho, J. (1998). Rethinking curriculum implementation: Paradigms, models and teachers’ work [Paper presentation]. Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association. https://doi.org/10.24941/ijcr.35889.07.2019

 Google Scholar

Data availability statement

The corresponding author will provide the data that support this study on request.