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

Abstract

With continued effort since the early 1970s, researchers identified three curriculum implementation approaches: fidelity, adaptation, and enactment where they respectively based themselves on positivist, post-positivist, and constructivist paradigms. The purpose of the study was to explore university ELT teachers’ curriculum implementation approaches based on those three models of curriculum implementation. A mixed-methods design was employed, in which qualitative design was the major data collection technique. That is, one-to-one interview, observation and post-observation interview methods were used. Five teachers were chosen for interviews using purposive sampling, and the two teachers were chosen for observations among the interviewed teachers using random sampling. The results from the interviews and observations were analysed using qualitative descriptions after categorising the issues into themes. However, some parts of the observation data were quantified using frequency and percentages. The result showed that ELT teachers were not adequately equipped to adapt the curriculum at the classroom level. Rather, they jeopardised the professional roles they could play in the classroom at the expense of meeting the interests of the institutions rather than meeting the needs of students and the requirements of the environment. Teachers’ adherence to the intended curriculum contents arose as a result of institutional, personal, and student-related reasons. The implication is that teachers need professional development training. Matching institutional motives with individual freedom to adapt and modify contents based on students’ needs and interests needs to be implemented. Individual teachers’ autonomy in adapting and modifying curriculum contents based on students’ needs and interests needs to be encouraged.

Keywords:

• Adaptation
• curriculum implementation
• EFL teachers
• fidelity
• freshman

REVIEWING EDITOR:

• Abbas Pourhosein Gilakjani, English Language Translation Department, Islamic Azad University, Lahijan Branch, Iran, Iran

SUBJECTS:

• Language & Linguistics
• Introductory Linguistics
• Applied Linguistics
• English Language
• Language Teaching & Learning

1. Introduction

The way teachers carry out the curriculum in the classroom has a significant effect on the learning outcomes, motivation, and interest of the students. Teachers who adhere to the fidelity approach regardless of the classroom setting do not support students’ learning outcomes, as opposed to those who adjust the activities and materials of the planned curriculum (Hongboontri et al., 2020; Shawer, 2017). According to Hongboontri et al. (2020) research, EFL teachers at a Thai University implemented the curriculum using the fidelity approach; they only found one teacher who made modifications on the contents of the designed curriculum.

A study conducted in Turkey by Bümen et al. (2014) revealed that teachers were in a state of uncertainty about using the intended curriculum with fidelity, though they were required to adhere to the official curriculum, which was designed using a top-down approach. Teachers faced difficulties in abiding by the curriculum policy that is exercised in the country. Furthermore, Imran and Wyatt (2019) disclosed that EFL teachers struggled to use the fidelity approach even in situations where the contents were culturally inappropriate or inadequate because of the dogmatic outlook they held. Such teachers forgot the freedom they could exercise to adapt the curriculum contents when needed. Moreover, Shawer et al. (2009), who studied ELT teachers at various colleges, stated that while some teachers followed the fidelity approach, others used adaptation, and still others used the enactment approach, resulting in different student learning outcomes.

The role of teachers in adapting the contents of the designed curriculum is indispensable, though many teachers did not consider it. Hongboontri et al. (2020) disclosed that teachers have the power to make decisions about what to teach and what not to teach from the designed curriculum according to the context. However, teachers’ decisions on the contents of the curriculum are not only influenced by teacher/personal factors but also by institutional (environmental) and/or student-related factors. Whatever the case, a curriculum designed at the centre could not equally serve every institution with different contexts and realities. As is the case in many countries, Ethiopia follows a top-down approach to the curriculum design process. Since the freshman English curriculum was introduced in 1969 (Wondwesen Tamirat, 2019), it has not been delivered smoothly since it was interrupted and reinstated according to the interests of the regime.

In the centre-periphery curriculum design model, the approaches that [ELT] teachers follow at the classroom level have a determining effect on the desired learning outcomes of students. According to Shawer et al. (2009), Shawer (2010), and Snyder et al. (1992), teachers use three distinct approaches to execute curriculum: the fidelity, the [mutual] adaptation, and the enactment approaches. The three curriculum implementation approaches, each with its own paradigm, have varied effects on teachers. From the middle of the 1970s until the end of the 1980s, fidelity and adaptation approaches predominated the implementation of classroom curricula, with scholars and educators in the area taking sides in favour of or against the two camps. The fidelity approach requires teachers to implement the curriculum as intended by the curriculum designers. However, adaptation approaches empower teachers with the freedom to modify and adapt the official curriculum according to the classroom context. In the early 1990s, the third alternative, called the enactment approach, appeared. In the enactment approach, the curriculum has been developed as a consequence of ongoing communication between the classroom teacher and the students, giving the needs of the latter a priority (Cho, 1998; Shawer, 2010; Shawer et al., 2008, 2009).

How teachers approach the curriculum has a big influence on both the motivation of students and how well they acquire the required knowledge and skills (Shawer et al., 2008). Shawer et al. claimed that teachers who employ the adaptation approach produce more interesting educational activities that benefit students’ motivation and learning than those who employ the fidelity approach. Hongboontri and Egerton Darling (2020), in their study of ELT curriculum implementation approaches, conducted interviews with four Thai university ELT teachers. They discovered that only one of the teachers made some modifications to the official curriculum, while the other three strictly adhered to the material provided. Moreover, a qualitative study on the curriculum implementation approaches used by ELT teachers was carried out by Shawer et al. (2009) and found that various motives, especially the needs of students, lead ELT teachers to follow a particular curriculum implementation approach.

Moreover, the approaches used by teachers to execute the curriculum have a big influence on their professional careers, the learning results of their students, and the curriculum itself (Shawer, 2017). Shawer (2010) also analyses ELT teachers’ approaches to putting the curriculum into practice using a qualitative case study methodology and finds that some teachers follow the fidelity, others the adaptation, and still others the enactment approaches. Hamdan (2015) also surveyed ELT teachers’ curriculum implementation approaches and found that ELT teachers were not adequately equipped to adapt the curriculum at the classroom level. In other words, teachers like adhering to a set curriculum that has been termed a ‘teacher-proofed’ curriculum by Cho (1998, p. 12).

To investigate ELT teachers’ curriculum implementation approaches, the freshman English curriculum was selected. With the 1991 regime change in Ethiopia noted with the coming of the Ethiopian People’s Revolutionary Democratic Front (EPRDF) into power, the delivery of freshman English curriculum to first-year university students was interrupted, which had been given for more than 25 years (1969–1995). After the freshman English curriculum was interrupted, the performance and quality of university graduates in Ethiopia have been reported to have declined. In addition to several other factors, the discontinuation of the freshman curriculum was cited as one of the primary causes for the decline in the standard of education throughout Ethiopian universities, particularly in the area of English as a Foreign Language (Jha, 2014; Wondwesen Tamirat, 2019). The government introduced a minimum of a 3-year undergraduate programme, which had been a 4-year programme before. Together with other courses, freshman students were required to complete two freshman English courses in the first and second semesters of their first year. The goal of the freshman English curriculum was to assist students in succeeding in both their academic endeavours at university and professional careers later in their lives.

After eliminating the freshman programme and installing a 3-year undergraduate programme, there has been a widespread perception within the university community as well as the larger society that the English language proficiency of university students has declined. Research also revealed the poor English-language proficiency of university students. Jha (2014) stated that the problem of the English language proficiency of university students emanated mainly from two sources: the problem of the curriculum and the teachers themselves. Jha (2014, p. 239) claimed that ‘…today’s dismal state of English in Ethiopia is not only due to teachers’ pedagogic and linguistic incompetence but also due to sloppy ELT curricula at the tertiary level’.

To bring solutions to the problems of the ELT curriculum in higher education, an education roadmap (called the Ethiopian Education Development Roadmap, or EEDR) was prepared and endorsed as a result of the party reform in March 2018. The document briefly discusses the issues with Ethiopian students’ English competency among those who have successfully finished secondary school and graduated from universities. Ministry of Education [MOE] (2018, p. 53) disclosed that students who passed the General Secondary School Leaving Examination were unable to read and write in English adequately. The document also noted that ‘…oral and written communication in English are identified as major deficiencies of university graduates’ (p. 56). Moreover, English is commonly held responsible for the low employability rates in the country, student withdrawals and expulsions from colleges, and potential learning obstacles for students in higher education.

Furthermore, Jha (2014) revealed one of the issues with the standard of English language teaching at higher education institutions. He disclosed that the ELT curriculum, which may be held accountable for the appalling condition of English education in Ethiopia, is one of the issues with learning the language in Ethiopia. Jha (2013) further disclosed that learning English in Ethiopia is hindered by a ‘sloppy’ curriculum that does not include real-world and interactive lessons for genuine conversation (p. 245). He continued by saying that the Ethiopian TEFL curriculum places greater emphasis on the theoretical complexities of teaching English.

Many research reports indicated that teachers’ classroom curriculum implementation approach(s) has implications for student learning outcomes, teacher professional development, and curriculum development and improvement (Bümen et al., 2014; Shawer, 2010, 2017). Gebretsadik et al. (2023) studied curriculum implementation and the challenges to teacher education using a descriptive research design. Jha (2014), using a qualitative method, explored the mismatch between teacher training and curriculum implementation at the Ethiopian tertiary level of education. While there are also other studies based on survey research design that focused on general curriculum implementation, no study could be found that attempted to explore ELT teachers’ curriculum implementation approaches using a mixed methods design in Ethiopia.

1.1. Study purpose

While many studies (Bümen et al., 2014; Hongboontri et al., 2020; Imran & Wyatt, 2019; McNeill et al., 2018; Seneechai, 2020; Shawer, 2010) have examined the curriculum implementation approaches of ELT teachers in Western societies education based on fidelity, adaptation, and enactment models, there has been comparatively little research conducted in Africa generally focusing on the models used in this study. In particular, no research on the implementation approaches of ELT curricula based on the three approaches has been carried out in Ethiopia. Hence, it holds paramount significance for ELT educators to measure the potential impact of the curriculum implementation approaches, while teachers depend on the three models of curriculum implementation.

The present study employed qualitative design as a major data collection method to offer more depth and meaning to the issue under study, followed by a quantitative method to support the qualitative data within the context of ELT teachers’ curriculum implementation approaches. The objective of this study was to collect detailed descriptions and opinions concerning ELT teachers’ classroom curriculum implementation approaches based on fidelity, adaptation, and enactment models of examining teachers’ practices triangulated with quantitative data. So, this study sought to address the following key question:

• What classroom implementation approaches do ELT teachers in Ethiopian universities follow in teaching freshman English curriculum?

2. Literature review

2.1. Curriculum implementation approaches

Teachers’ curriculum development and implementation at the classroom level represent the notion of instructional interactions between the teacher and students and among students around the curriculum materials (Shawer et al., 2009; Snyder et al., 1992). Among these, teachers play the central role as their knowledge, experience, and skills affect the interactions of students and materials that neither the students nor the materials can do alone (Cohen & Ball, 1999). The interactions among the teacher, the students, and the material produce an actual or effective curriculum that could be different from the pre-designed curriculum. Doyle (1992) emphasised teachers’ role as the ones that turn curriculum knowledge, which is decided on at the institutional level, into pedagogy (experienced curriculum). Snyder et al. (1992) suggested different approaches that teachers use in the classroom. The different approaches have different consequences for students, teachers, the curriculum itself, and the institution (Shawer et al., 2008). They have different influences on teachers’ professional development (Schon, 1983). Schon also showed that teacher curriculum implementation approaches directly influence student learning and motivation. Therefore, the theoretical foundation of this study is based on the three curriculum implementation approaches that were used by different researchers: fidelity, [mutual] adaptation, and enactment approaches (Cho, 1998; Shawer, 2010; Shawer et al., 2008, 2009; Shawer, 2017; Snyder et al., 1992).

Different studies showed that teachers’ classroom implementation tends to lean more towards one of the three approaches than the other on the continuum of curriculum implementation approaches. Researchers also found that the approach that teachers dominantly use in their classrooms directly affects the success of students’ learning outcomes, the needs of students, and advancing teachers’ academic professional development (Cho, 1998; Shawer et al., 2008).

In order to distinguish the three paradigmatic frameworks of curriculum implementation approaches (fidelity, mutual adaptation, and enactment), Cho (1998, p. 12) showed them in connection to paradigms (positivism, post-positivism, and constructivism), which are adapted from Guba and Lincoln (1994) to identify how each approach is put into practice in different contexts. As Guba and Lincoln (1994, p. 109) revealed, ontology, epistemology, and methodology seem to become indicators as the basis for singling out essential assumptions of different implementation approaches, as shown below (Table 1).

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)

In connection to the paradigms and indicators, it would be important to discuss the three curriculum implementation approaches.

2.2. The fidelity approach

Because it is based on the positivist paradigm, the fidelity approach severely limits the flexibility that teachers have in the classroom. For example, it limits teachers’ role as transmitters or receivers of the curriculum (Shawer et al., 2009), views teachers as ‘conduits’ (Kumaravadivelu, 2006, p. 216), reduces teachers’ role in the classroom (Shawer, 2010), and ignores contextual variations like student differences, institutional infrastructures, and differences in teacher practices (Ocak & Olur, 2019).

Cho (1998) asserts that the fidelity approach, also known as the programmed approach, encourages fidelity of use, which is mirrored directly in the fixed text with little room for flexibility (i.e., teacher-proof curriculum). The approach inherently hopes that ‘there will be as little contamination of the programme goals and design as possible’ (Snyder et al., 1992, p. 412). It is required of teachers to be as impartial as possible, and they will subsequently be judged on how well they implement the designed material. According to Cho (1998), the fidelity method requires teachers to implement the curriculum precisely as it was intended by the designers. As a result, it has also been demonstrated to hinder students’ learning results as well as teachers’ critical thinking and creativity (Shawer, 2017). Teachers under the fidelity approach are referred to as ‘consumers who just deliver the curriculum message as intact as possible according to specific curriculum implementation instructions’ (Shawer, 2017, p. 297).

Furthermore, according to Shawer (2017), rigid adherence to the fidelity approach ignores variations in context among working institutions, which limits the role and autonomy of teachers and ignores student differentiation and curriculum flexibility. Teachers, who play a crucial role in the fidelity approach, ‘…dogmatically follow a curriculum developed by policymakers or authorities’ (Hongboontri et al., 2020, p. 70). Furthermore, Shawer et al. (2008) disclosed the curriculum transmitters as teachers ‘… who just deliver curriculum materials’ (p. 1) and ‘…who use the student’s book as the only source of instructional content’.

According to Imran and Wyatt (2019), many English language teachers use materials that are unsuitable and culturally inadequate for assisting students in learning the language. According to Fullan and Pomfret (1977) and Seneechai (2020), teachers who adhered to the fidelity approach held the belief that a curriculum’s uniform execution is the means by which good education is achieved. Shawer et al. (2008) provided additional support for their research by claiming that curriculum transmitters do not employ various strategies to modify the curriculum based on the setting or to exclude undesirable materials, activities, lessons, or assignments. They claim that curriculum transmitters seldom fill in the gaps and concentrate only on topic coverage, failing to take into account the unique dynamics of the classroom. The fidelity approach limits teachers’ choices to deliver the curriculum’s intended material as intended by its authors, allowing them to concentrate on the effective implementation of the curriculum as supplied by educational experts (Gundy & Berger, 2016).

2.3. The mutual-adaptation approach

In the mutual adaptation approach, which has its origins in the post-positivist worldview, teachers are allowed to modify the curriculum in accordance with the needs of the environment. The mutual-adaptation approach highlighted the mutuality of curriculum implementation, emphasising the necessity for policy-making, research, and practice to make implementation favourable while also requiring implementers to respect the intent of the curriculum designers. Negotiating with the curriculum developers is the foundation for curriculum adaptation (Cho, 1998). In the adaptation approach, teachers and the official curriculum designers have talked about how to modify the curriculum to better suit its contents to local requirements and allow for greater flexibility in how it is implemented. In contrast to the fidelity approach, the role of the teacher has become more active (Shawer et al., 2008). According to Shawer et al. (2008, p. 2), teachers who use the adaptation approach thereby ‘become curriculum-developers who use various sources in addition to the designed curriculum materials’.

To fulfil the particular needs of their students, teachers who employ the adaptation approach modify existing materials and topics, add new ones, exclude unnecessary components, create flexible lesson plans, respond to student differences, and employ a variety of teaching strategies (Shawer, 2017; Shawer et al., 2008, 2009). In this case, the teacher’s job is not limited to distributing content created at the centre; they also need to modify the curriculum to fit the actual setting in which they are employed. Teachers therefore actively contribute to curriculum creation, which impacts teachers’ professional growth as well as students’ learning, motivation, and interest (Shawer, 2017; Shawer et al., 2009). Shawer et al. (2009, p. 125) state that ‘curriculum change’ under the adaptation approach ‘is no longer linear as teachers adapt the curriculum’. In other words, compared to the transmission (fidelity) approach, the classroom teacher’s involvement becomes more active. According to Shawer (2010), a teacher’s knowledge, experience, and skills can lead the acquired curriculum-also referred to as experienced, enacted, effective, or actual-to diverge from the official or planned curriculum. According to Ben-Peretz (1990), teachers who employed the adaptation approach would supplement the official curriculum with hidden and null curricula.

It might be difficult for teachers and researchers to decide how far the teacher may stray from the prescribed curriculum. If implementers rigidly adhere to the designed curriculum components in every circumstance, there may be missed chances to improve the effectiveness of the curriculum (Daro & Cohn-Donnelly, 2001). Furthermore, modifying the existing curriculum can boost teachers’ sense of ownership and participation in its development (Backer, 2001; James Bell Associates, 2009). However, significant deviations from the official curriculum again result in missing the curriculum’s goals (Dusenbury et al., 2005; James Bell Associates, 2009). Consequently, it is unclear how to achieve a balance between maintaining a curriculum’s core components and customising it for the local environment (James Bell Associates, 2009). It should be mentioned that the third approach-the enactment approach-is responsible for creating the curriculum that the adaptation approach fails to delegate the full responsibility for teachers.

2.4. The enactment approach

Knowledge is built by the interaction between the student and teacher, according to Shawer et al. (2008) and Shabani et al. (2010), who represent the constructivist paradigm’s enactment approach. This strategy differs significantly from the other two in terms of conceptualization and curricular knowledge, as the curriculum is ‘jointly created and jointly and individually experienced by students and teachers’ (Snyder et al., 1992, p. 404). Local realities are prioritised in this approach since it is thought that external influences intended to regulate teachers’ and students’ classroom behaviours have a detrimental impact on both sides. Knowledge was regarded as ‘…temporary, developmental, and culturally mediated and thus non-objective’ (Cho, 1998, p. 14).

The enactment approach concentrated on making meaning in the classroom, regardless of how the curriculum had been prescribed (Cho, 1998). Cho continued by saying that curriculum under the enactment approach may be viewed as an event that is reinterpreted and reconstructed by the teacher and the students under the auspices of the experienced curriculum rather than something that is imposed by the developer outside the classroom. Cho revealed that the enactment approach looks at how to support both the teacher and the students as they jointly generate their knowledge, rather than who creates the curriculum. Therefore, it is urged that both teachers and students actively participate in bringing their background knowledge to the classroom.

Curriculum knowledge in the enactment method is regarded as a continual process of experience and production during teacher and student interactions, in contrast to the fidelity and adaptation that viewed knowledge as a product (Shawer, 2010, 2017; Shawer et al., 2009). Thus, curriculum is considered ‘a process of growth for teachers and students, a change in thinking and practice’ (Snyder et al., 1992, p. 429) by this approach. Teachers are thought to use outside information as a resource when creating a curriculum that emphasizes their personal and professional development. Thus, instructors are at total liberty to design the curriculum by their judgment of the needs of their pupils as of right now.

The approaches that teachers use to execute the curriculum rely not only on how they use the materials in the classroom but also on the approach used by a country to develop its curriculum (bottom-up vs. top-down/center-periphery). Additionally, the student, teacher, and institutional factors affect how teachers apply the curriculum in a particular region. In general, the fidelity approach is preferred by teachers who value stability and want to prevent ambiguity, whereas those who appreciate unpredictability and difficulties in the classroom would go for the adaptation and enactment approaches (Albilehi et al., 2012/2013).

3. Methods

3.1. Research design

The study employed a mixed-methods research design where the qualitative approach was taken as the major data collection technique. It is essential to realise each teacher’s curriculum implementation approach in his or her circumstances by finding their individualised curriculum implementation approaches through interviews supported by observation data. Since teachers’ classroom curriculum implementation approaches are greatly influenced by individual’s perceptions of social, political, and historical factors, it would be sound to undertake a qualitative exploratory research design as the main technique and use comparative data triangulation techniques that were obtained from the same person using observation.

This section includes a summary of data sources, participant sampling, data collection instruments and data analyses procedures used to investigate teachers’ curriculum implementation approaches as they taught freshman English which were thought to help students succeed in their field of study and future career.

3.2. Data sources

Data was gathered from teachers who had delivered the freshmen English curriculum at least once at Debretabor University. As a result, the table below shows ELT teachers who taught the freshman English curriculum in the study area.

3.3. Sampling of participants

As shown in Table 2 above, the study’s population, or sampling frame, consisted of 16 teachers who were at work at the time of observation (14 men and 2 women). Additionally, samples from the population were selected from those who taught freshman English at least once at the selected university. So teaching freshman English at least once at Debretabor University was taken as an inclusion criterion for selecting ELT teachers.

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.

Regarding the number of one-on-one interviews, five teachers were chosen using a purposive sampling strategy. That is, the purposive sampling technique was used to get interviewees who have experience working in the curriculum improvement committee in the English language and literature department and who could speak clearly about the subject and could represent the population of the study. All participants in the interview were given the opportunity to explain the issue at hand exhaustively.

Then, two teachers who were involved in the interview were chosen for observation using the simple random sampling technique (lottery system). The observation technique helped to triangulate teachers’ perceived practices with their actual classroom practices. The two teachers were asked for their consent to be observed. Soon after the observation session, the teachers who were being observed participated in a brief post-observation interview. The purpose of the post-observation interview was to verify the reasons behind how the observed teachers dealt with the activities in that particular session (why they did it the way they did).

3.4. Selection of the curriculum

There were two key reasons why the freshmen English curriculum was specifically chosen. First, the Ethiopian Education Development Roadmap (2018), which the ministry cited as justification for the curriculum’s implementation alongside other content-based curricula, clearly illustrates the requirement of a freshman English program. According to the document, university graduates who continue their academic studies have a poor command of the English language, particularly in oral and written communication. As a result, it became imperative for students to complete the freshman English curriculum since it was believed that doing so would help them succeed in their field of study at the university and in the future.

Second, compared to other English curricula that are taken by students who choose EFL as their field of study, the curriculum’s impact is on all students since it is the one that all students who enroll in Ethiopian universities are required to take.

3.5. Instruments

In this study, one-on-one interviews, post-observation interviews, and observation were employed as data collection tools.

3.5.1. Interview

In-depth, semi-structured, one-to-one interview questions were prepared. Stake’s (1995) guidelines and directions guided the interview, elucidating the reason(s) for each interviewee’s distinct approach. The interview questions from Shawer (2010) and Shawer et al. (2009) that focus on teachers’ approaches to curriculum implementation have been somewhat modified. ELT experts who teach at another university looked over the interview questions to ensure their context and validity. In-depth interviews with five ELT teachers were conducted with a focus on how they approach the freshman English curriculum based on the fidelity, adaptation, and enactment approaches of Snyder et al. (1992). The interview lasted between 42 and 55 min. Only the key questions were posed, and when the participants did not address the specifics, the follow-up questions were followed.

Moreover, after each session of the observation ended, teachers who were observed had a brief post-observation interview (an interview that did not exceed 10 min). The post-observation interview assisted in validating the facts gathered through observation and in elucidating the reasons behind the teacher’s actions during the class.

3.5.2. Observation

Non-participant observations were held with the two selected teachers. The selection of observed teachers was made on a random basis (lottery system). Getting the consent of the two teachers was easy since rapport was already well established with them before and during the interview. A semi-structured observation checklist was used to observe the two ELT teachers. The checklist was highly adapted from Keating (2020) so that the observer could record how ELT teachers dealt with the activities in the prescribed curriculum. Each teacher was observed for fourteen sessions—two sessions in a week. One session lasted 100 min, the other 50 min. The observer can score a single activity according to one of the indicators for the curriculum implementation strategy. Careful note-taking was employed during the observation session. Moreover, rating activities following indicators of classroom curriculum approaches were done that could support the qualitative data (Table 3).

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.

In addition to writing down what the observed teachers did in the classroom, rating activities based on the above indicators helped to substantiate the qualitative data using quantitative data (frequency and percentages).

3.6. Reliability and validity of the instruments

To increase the reliability and validity of the research’s findings, the tools were provided to experts teaching at another university. The suggestions and feedback of experts were taken, and amendments were made. In addition to the careful design of instruments, administration of the intended tools, analysis, and interpretation were done as promised in the first design process of research. The verbatim transcription of the interview data and the objective interpretation of the data could have also contributed to the validation of the data.

3.7. Data collection procedures

Before conducting classroom observations, interviews were conducted. This was done to contrast and compare teachers’ perceived practices of their approach to the intended curriculum with their actual approach. The interviewees were questioned about their classroom implementation approaches and the reasons that prompted them to approach the curriculum’s contents in the way they did. After the interview, the observations were carried out, which served to triangulate the data obtained from the interview. After each observation, post-observation interviews were held again to ascertain why teachers approached each activity the way they did in the classroom. This also supports the data that was obtained from interviews and observations.

3.8. Data analysis

The qualitative data from the main interview, observation, and post-observation interview were categorised based on themes and then subjected to analysis based on the three curriculum implementation approaches. The qualitative data of the observation were quantified based on categories derived from the literature (done as planned, modified/adapted, supplemented, skipped, and replaced) and tabulated under each category and expressed as frequency and percentages.

3.9. Ethical consideration

During the data-collection period and throughout other stages, the ethical concerns of confidentiality, anonymity, informed consent, avoiding deception, and privacy of the respondents and participants were respected as promised. Participants in the study received information on the purposes and advantages of the study and on the moral obligations of both the researcher and the participants. For the sake of data processing and interpretation, pseudonyms were assigned to the interviewees and the teachers who were observed.

4. Results and discussions

4.1. Introduction

ELT teachers that teach the freshmen English curriculum come from the same field of study but with a variety of experiences. The participant demographics are displayed in the table below (Table 4).

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.

As can be seen in the table above, five ELT teachers took part in a one-on-one interview with the pseudonyms Paulos, Seid, Yared, Rahel, and Dawit. Paulos, who has 8 years of experience, took HDP training. He doubtfully attributed the value of the training to his curriculum implementation approach and other ELT issues. He described the training as one that focused on broad educational activities, not on ELT-specific issues. Seid, who has 12 years of teaching experience in English at universities, acknowledged the value of HDP training as he shared experiences with other teachers. He similarly disclosed that HDP training did not have issues related to specific classroom curriculum implementation or other English language teaching issues. Seid ended up providing suggestions that HDP training should have been offered based on specific fields of study. Both Paulos and Seid recognised the pedagogical tasks they had taken during their pre-service training and the hands-on experiences that they had gotten from their day-to-day sharing of experiences at the university. Yared, who has seven years of teaching experience, criticised the organisation for failing to set up official in-service training after he joined the university. He admitted that he has been implementing the curriculum based on, according to his explanation, ‘the knowledge and skills that I had gotten in pre-service training as well as my own teaching experience’.

Rahel, who has nine years of experience in teaching English at the university, revealed that she took courses related to developing a syllabus and preparation of language material as pre-service training. She also admitted that she is currently taking HDP training. She stated that the training is relevant to sharing experiences with other teachers and trying out new experiences in the classroom. However, she confirmed that she did not get issues that were specific to her field of study—a comment similar to the other three participants. Dawit disclosed that despite having a second degree in ELT and being an assistant professor, as well as having fifteen years of experience in teaching English in high schools and courses at the university level, he has not participated in in-service training specifically that focuses on issues related to English language teaching. He expressed the HDP training as a training is not need-based. He complained that the university planned the same issue and delivered it to all teachers from diverse fields of study. He also disclosed that he was certified in a continuous professional development programme in high school, which is similar to the HDP he took at the university. He generalised that the training had little relevance to his professional career since it was not based on his needs.

Moreover, observations were made with Paulos and Seid. The observation session was held until teachers had finished units two and three. The observation was held from April 24 to May 26 for 5 weeks. Each unit received 15 sessions, and each session lasted 50 min. However, three sessions (1 week) were used for mid-exams, which made the observation session 12. It is also important to note that the teachers who were observed taught a large class size of predominantly female students. Contrary to what the MOE had promised to be a maximum of 50 students in a class, Paulos was teaching in a classroom of 56 students (19 males and 37 females), whereas Seid was in a classroom of 58 students (24 males and 34 females).

4.2. Results

The data generated from the main interview, observation, and post-observation interview were presented following the themes derived from the data. Data on teachers’ curriculum implementation approaches are presented in association with the deriving motives for teachers’ classroom approaches.

4.2.1. Teachers’ curriculum implementation approaches

Almost all participants in the one-to-one interview stated that they followed the fidelity approach of curriculum implementation rather than adaptation. Most of the participants attributed this to various external reasons that were beyond their control. When they faced circumstances that made teachers unable to adhere to the designed curriculum, they preferred the skipping strategy of adaptation, which should have been carefully used to eliminate irrelevant contents or activities. All participants also admitted that they supplemented grammar contents for the sake of preparing students for examinations. That means participants seldom used changing, replacing, and modifying adaptation strategies to suit the activities to the local context.

The observation’s findings also demonstrated that Paulos and Seid adhere to the fidelity approach to curriculum implementation since they both employed 51 (67.11%) and 50 (65.79%) of the 76 activities that the curriculum’s ‘experts’ had developed, as shown in Table 5. Only Seid supplemented 3 (3.95%) activities, focusing on grammar and reading activities. Seid brought additional mixed activities on conditional sentences as he felt that the activities in the designed material were insufficient for university students. He also brought a reading text entitled ‘Housing in Britain’ for, according to him, ‘making students further identify the topic sentence in the given paragraph’.

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).

As can be observed from the table, the two ELT teachers neglected to adapt, supplement, or replace activities in the designed curriculum. However, both teachers skipped many activities that curriculum designers anticipated students to do. Paulos and Seid skipped 25 (32.89%) and 23 (30.26%) activities in the two units, respectively.

Looking at the overall implementations of the two teachers, and as they confirmed in the post-observation interview, they were also found to perform the duties of a teacher who followed the fidelity approach. Paulos and Seid adhere to the official curriculum’s prescribed instructions, activities, examples, and contexts in areas where they did not skip. They often follow the suggested guidelines, despite there being a few minor deviations in how the exercises were carried out or in the methods. For example, they made students do activities in groups, while curriculum designers suggested that it had to be done in pairs, individually, or vice versa.

As the observed teachers depicted in the post-observation sessions, the changes that they made in the instructions were done with no intention of changing them, or the instructions were simply done. The curriculum materials contain predicted activity sequences and sub-activities that were suggested by curriculum designers. Except when they skipped activities, the observed teachers appeared to follow the specified order or sequence of doing the activities, which were typical characteristics of a teacher who follows the curriculum rigidly. The analysis is presented based on different themes generated, especially in the interview.

4.2.2. Motives hindering teachers’ curriculum implementation

Participants suggested different reasons not only for their adherence to the designed curriculum but also for their use of skipping strategies as a way of adapting the material.

4.2.2.1. Student characteristics

Paulos started his response by associating his curriculum implementation approach with teaching other courses. He stated that he took the needs and interests of students as a major factor in shaping his curriculum contents in the classroom. It was the students’ backgrounds on particular language items that guided Paulos on how to approach the curricular contents of the designed curriculum. He went on to say that he did activities as designed in the material whenever he felt that the activities were appropriate to his students’ levels and changed them if he felt that activities did not suit the context. However, Paulos complained that he tried to accomplish the contents of freshman English as a result of environmental or institutional influences. Similarly, Seid revealed that it was the needs of students that shaped his curriculum implementation approaches while teaching courses other than freshman English. He stated that ‘I do not follow any one single curriculum implementation approach’ in teaching courses other than freshman English. He elucidated that he implemented the curriculum according to the context of the classroom. Dawit also believed that the needs and language background of students should be taken as a guiding principle for curriculum implementation, though he mentioned hindrances that he faced in teaching the freshman English curriculum. Yared mentioned the students’ language backgrounds that made him revise some lower-level language forms, though he consistently adhered to the intended activities.

During the post-observation, Paulos unveiled students’ preference for completing some activities as a compelling factor to stick to some activities, ignoring the others. He also confirmed that students had different needs that he could not afford to address. Paulos stated, ‘Students have varied needs and interests when I do the reflection of the first unit. Most of the students dislike the listening activities, while some want to do them as they missed them in secondary school’. He added that there were students who liked to make presentations, while others hated them. As a result, he concluded that he could not address the various needs of students, which in turn made him adhere to the prescribed curriculum contents.

4.2.2.2. Institutional concerns

Paulos and Seid stated that they do not follow the same curriculum implementation approaches in teaching the freshman English curriculum as those in teaching other major courses. In teaching the freshman English curriculum, both participants disclosed that they, in most cases, adhered to the activities of the designed curriculum. They enumerated various factors that made them follow the fidelity approach. Both participants mentioned institutional motives that obliged them to follow the fidelity approach in teaching the freshman English curriculum. They revealed that the institute urged teachers to use the designed curricular activities and assessment techniques to avoid student complaints that could arise as a result of the disparities among teachers’ curriculum implementation approaches and assessment techniques.

Moreover, Dawit and Rahel made the institution responsible for their adherence to the designed freshman English curriculum, a complaint similar to Paulos and Seid. They revealed the presence of a department-established curriculum committee that examined and made small adjustments to the official curriculum. Then, what was required of Dawit and Rahel was to put the activities forwarded by the ministry and the department into practice (following the fidelity approach). Hence, they strived to satisfy organisational needs at the expense of the needs of students.

4.2.2.3. Overemphasis on examinations

Paulos and Seid revealed that the high-stakes exam that may affect students’ placement in different academic disciplines has been taken as a major motive to follow a fidelity approach to curriculum implementation. They are both concerned about the placement of students in various fields of study. Students are expected to pass the freshman curriculum to continue their higher 3education. In addition, students’ first-year experience is used to place them in the field they want to study at the university. The participants also revealed that the institute urged teachers to use the prescribed assessment techniques to avoid student complaints that could arise as a result of the disparities in assessing students.

Both participants also highly criticised the assessment type used at the university. According to them, the curriculum includes all four language skills—listening, reading, speaking, and writing—as well as the sub-skills (grammar and vocabulary). However, they questioned the content presented in the midterm and final exams. Paulos, from his experience, stated that reading and grammar made up 80% of the exam, leaving out listening and writing from the assessment domain.

Seid, on his part, complained that ‘I don’t have the freedom to assess my students with a focus on all skills’. He felt that he had to adhere to the institute’s chosen assessment protocol. Both Paulos and Seid became conscious that students showed interest in doing reading and grammar activities. According to the respondents, students became aware that most questions would be drawn from reading and grammar, which resulted in students’ interest being in those language areas and not in areas that were not the focus of the exam. They also purported that the assessment type also let them skip activities on listening and writing. Paulos and Seid reiterated the assessment type and the value attached to students’ assessments as reasons for their adherence during the post-observation interview.

Yared and Rahel also shared similar views with Paulos and Seid concerning the assessment practiced at the university. They complained about using students’ scores to place students in their field of study. According to him, this trend shaped students to always focus on areas where exams would be drawn. He said, ‘Since students’ first-year achievement serves as criteria for placing students in various fields of study…I adhere to the given activities’. Yared firmly acknowledged that he often followed the activities of the intended curriculum, even when teaching other courses. Yared also admitted that he sometimes skipped activities, particularly those that may not appear in the students’ assessments. However, he did not skip reading and grammar activities, knowing that most of the questions that would appear in assessing students would be about those two language skills. Rahel also complained about the assessment system that influenced her to adhere to the designed curriculum activities. Dawit also criticized the assessment scheme used by the institute. As to him, the items drawn for assessing students were reading and grammar. He said, ‘We spent the time suggested for listening and writing, but the exam ignored those skills’.

Paulos and Seid, during the post-observation interview, blamed the assessment type that urged them to place emphasis on reading and grammar, which are most tested in the mid- and final exams. The observed teachers also witnessed that students are motivated to do activities on reading and grammar. When Paulos and Seid were asked the reasons for students’ preference, Paulos said, ‘Students know the pattern of the exam used in the department’, while Seid, ‘I guess it is their language learning experience in lower grades and high schools’.

4.2.2.4. Teacher characteristics

Paulos questioned teachers’ skills, commitment, and motivations in adapting the official curriculum. According to him, teachers, including himself, preferred to use activities as designed by the curriculum experts. Paulos further mentioned the relevance of in-service training and the extent to which the institute ignores it. He believed that in-service training helps teachers know when and how to adapt and when to adhere to the designed curriculum. Paulos vehemently expressed the challenge he faced in exercising his professional activities due to the common assumption that teachers need to follow similar curricular material, assessment types, and procedures in the university.

Seid also revealed that his knowledge, skills, and experience in classroom curriculum development and a lack of in-service training contributed to his adherence. He pointed out, ‘The institute did not design any training opportunities for teachers that could strengthen and improve their knowledge of and skills in curriculum development and implementation’.

Yared boldly disclosed that he made an effort to adhere to the activities that the curriculum designers had created in teaching freshman English. Circumstances like students’ language backgrounds sometimes obliged him to revisit language forms that students had learned in high school. That is, he sometimes supplemented grammar activities when he observed gaps in that particular area. Yared and Dawit expressed their doubts about teachers’ enthusiasm, knowledge, and skills in developing the material at the classroom level, which concurred with Paulos’ view. While Yared mentioned the personal factors that affect teachers’ classroom curriculum development (the experience, skills, and knowledge of the designed curriculum), Yared elucidated the willingness and commitment of teachers to adapt the curriculum in addition to the skills, knowledge, and experience teachers possess in curriculum improvement. As a result, it would be rather good for Yared to follow the curriculum that is sent from the center.

Rahel did not deny the freedom she had to improve the curriculum at the classroom level. In her expression, she stated, ‘I know I have the freedom to improve the curriculum, but I cannot take the responsibility…’ She took into account personal factors (knowledge and skills of curriculum development) and institutional-related factors that might inhibit her from adapting the official curriculum. On the one hand, it would be difficult for her to ensure whether the activities she designed could be better than those of the original material, and it was challenging to accept the accountability that might be aroused as a result of implementation differences with other teachers on the other. She expressed that she felt good when she did activities according to the ministry’s and institution’s suggestions. She attributed the dearth of training opportunities at the university to her lack of confidence in adapting to the material, in addition to other factors. She also admitted that she used a skipping strategy for activities that she thought to have less relevance and that were difficult to implement in the context in which she was teaching.

5. Resources

Paulos revealed the large class size as a factor that stood against his use of the adaptation approach in the classroom. Paulos overstated that he could not support students or give feedback for their piece of writing as a result of the class size that could not be completed within the given limit of time. Rahel also shared the class size and the time allotted to finish the curriculum as reasons for her adherence to and for skipping activities from the designed activities.

During the post-observation interview, Paulos and Seid disclosed the shortage of time and the class size that hindered their use of adaptation strategies beyond skipping, though how it affected them is not clear. Paulos added that there is a lack of time to finish all the intended activities of the official curriculum. As a result, he chose skipping as an alternative strategy.

6. Curriculum materials

Participants mentioned the designed curriculum materials as major justifications for adhering to and skipping the prescribed activities. Yared believed that the curricular materials that are prepared at the center and sent to institutes have better quality than those prepared by teachers at the university.According to Yared, materials prepared at the centre would promote standardised performance among teachers and institutions. Though he uncovered the freedom that teachers have to improve activities of the official curriculum based on real and tangible reasons, he pointed out his reservations about teachers’ willingness and interest in taking time to improve the activities of the prescribed curriculum. He mentioned that he sometimes brought additional grammar questions to boost students’ understanding when he thought doing so was necessary. He generalised, however, that teachers, including himself, commonly follow the prescribed curriculum.

Dawit, on his part, criticised the freshman English curriculum for lacking vertical integration with the material covered in earlier grades (similar to a complaint made by Seid). He stated that the freshman English curricula consisted of contents that had less relevance to university students as they learned them in high schools with greater depth than the existing ones. As to Dawit, he either skipped such types of activities or asked students a few questions to ensure they knew the content and proceeded to the next activities.

Seid elaborated further that he would adhere to the contents or activities of the designed curriculum if he found that curricular activities were well integrated. He explained the importance of vertical and horizontal integrations of contents across various courses as well as across contents in the same course. He added the relevance of activities to the current needs of his students as a factor that made him adhere to the prescribed curriculum. Paulos appreciated the first curricular material as it embraces language skills in an integrative manner that made him adhere to it. However, he criticised the second curriculum material as a repetition of the first, which let him skip many activities.

Paulos and Seid cited the curricular material as reasons for adherence to the intended curriculum as well as for their skipping of some activities. Seid mentioned the lack of vertical integration of contents and the recurrence of some activities as reasons for skipping. According to him, the contents were repeated without differences in difficulty level. Paulos, on his part, stated that some activities were impractical to carry out as suggested in his context. He went on to say that the writing activities and the listening activities were particularly difficult to carry out in a classroom that consisted of more than 60 students. For activities that were skipped, both teachers explained their intention that they would prepare supplementary activities by the end of the semester, though practically the supplementary activities were mostly on grammar and few on reading.

It would be sound to summarise the motives that drive ELT teachers to adhere to the designed curriculum and skip some others in the table below. The motives are categorised into three groups: environment- or institutional-related motives (E-R/I-R), student-related motives (S-R), and personal-related motives (P-R) (Table 6).

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)

As the table depicts, environmental concerns are seen as the main motive influencing teachers’ adherence to the planned curriculum as well as their decisions to skip activities. In these categories, the curriculum material, the resources, the administrative concerns (from MOE to the department level), and the examinations or assessment scheme are included. The table also showed that all participants cited the assessment process, assessment type, the curriculum, and the importance of student scores for placement as significant environmental factors. Additionally, large class size was noted as a second environment-related motive for ELT teachers’ adherence to the prescribed curriculum as well as for skipping some activities. Following environmental (institutional)-related motives, personal factors (teachers’ abilities, knowledge, and experience) followed by student-related factors (students’ language competence) were seen as factors that impact teachers’ adherence to the designed curriculum. Participants talked about how little in-service training was available at the institution to help them carry out their responsibilities for improving the curriculum in the classroom.

7. Discussion

The fidelity, adaptation, and enactment frameworks were applied to analyse the data collected using different instruments. Although two participants (Paulos and Seid) described their experiences as if they were using the adaptation perspective in teaching other courses, the knowledge and experience of all participants on classroom curriculum development appeared to be dominated by the traditional assumption of the role of the teacher as consumers who need a teacher-proof curricula (Cho, 1998, p. 28). Such teacher-proof curricula, according to Cho, require teachers with technical abilities and factual knowledge that can aid them in managing the classroom, not teachers who are outfitted with group methods of curriculum inquiry that can face the difficulties resulting from individual, pedagogical and context variations that in turn promote teachers’ educational or professional growth. This study concurred with Okoth’s (2016) study in Kenya. Okoth revealed that how little in-service training was offered by the institution to support teachers in carrying out their duties for enhancing the curriculum in the classroom. To narrow the gap between the intended and implemented curriculum, Okoth stressed the need for in-service training. Smylie (1988) further emphasised that classroom approaches to implementing the curriculum have been shown to improve when they get professional development training that includes observation and support. The institute overlooked the value of professional development training and did not offer any that may have updated teachers’ approaches to implementing curricula.

According to data from all study sources, ELT teachers mostly depended on the fidelity approach to curriculum implementation when teaching freshman English. Global study findings demonstrated that teachers who prioritise the fidelity approach over other approaches have several detrimental consequences in comparison to those who employ the adaptive approach. According to research by Hongboontri and Egerton Darling (2020), and Shawer (2017), fidelity-oriented teachers strictly follow the prescribed curriculum and behave like consumers. They are perceived as lacking motivation for professional growth as they do not modify the curriculum to fit the situation or make it more relevant for students (Cho, 1998). Furthermore, teachers who follow the fidelity perspective fail to consider contextual variations, student differences, or teacher characteristics (Bümen et al., 2014; Ocak & Olur, 2019).

Furthermore, teachers who adhered to the fidelity approach overlooked the significance of learning environments and the manner in which learning occurs. They were unwilling to assist students in developing the capacity to control their learning, which ultimately results in learner autonomy (Yeni-Palabiyik & Daloglu, 2016). Opportunities to increase curricular effectiveness become scarce for teachers who apply the fidelity model (Daro & Cohen-Donnelly, 2001); they also fail to consider student learning differences and do not significantly improve student learning and motivation (Shawer et al., 2008). All of these research outcomes were consistent with the circumstances facing ELT teachers in the study area. Despite their criticisms of the designed curriculum, teachers stuck to the prescribed contents for freshmen English because they believed that adhering to the designed curriculum would encourage students to learn.

On the contrary, several studies have shown how crucial it is to modify the curriculum to take into account the needs and interests of the students as well as the requirements of the educational setting in which teachers are employed. According to Beck and Kosnik (2001), effective teachers modify the curriculum in light of the classroom setting. Furthermore, curriculum implementation is a response by teachers to the needs, motivations, and performances of their students, as highlighted by Shawer (2017). The adaptation and enactment approaches, in contrast to the fidelity viewpoint, consider the ‘teacher as learner and teacher as a member of the classroom community’ (Cho, 1998, p. 31), which enables teachers to adjust to changing circumstances. Furthermore, Albilehi et al. (2012/2013) claimed that while teachers were essential to the curriculum’s effective implementation, the notion that they are transmitters of the prescribed content made them fail to be productive. They clarified that curriculum design is not merely the responsibility of academics, theorists, or administrators, but also that teachers must be involved in the process while they are teaching. With so many advantages associated with the adaptation approach, it became puzzling that ELT teachers harshly criticised the designed curriculum while adhering to the fidelity approach.

Teachers made up for the inappropriate content of the material by employing a skipping technique rather than other forms of modification. Both the observational data and the interviewee’s response indicated that teachers had omitted key curricular tasks, which might have been essential to meeting the programme’s objectives. Due to their use of skipping techniques, teachers did not seem to address the high fidelity score anticipated of them when they adhered to the fidelity model, nor did they modify the curriculum to suit the requirements and interests of their pupils.

In addition to the interviewees’ responses, it was found that the two ELT teachers who were observed utilised skipping activities as their only strategy instead of modifying the curriculum in the classroom to account for the needs of the students and the environments in which learning occurs into consideration. As per Combs et al. (2022), skipping activities can impede the learning of the fundamental aspects of the curriculum or jeopardize its vital components. Consequently, skipping also affects the fidelity perspective-based curriculum implementation strategies that teachers employ. It is discovered that there is low adherence when a significant number of activities are omitted. Again, there is a greater chance students will not meet the curriculum’s intended objectives if there is less adherence to the curriculum without activities that are supplemented and adjusted to the context.

Therefore, ELT teachers who adhere to the fidelityapproach while omitting a large number of activities do not adopt an adaptation strategy or encourage students to meet curricular objectives. Teachers who do not match the curriculum with teaching contexts and skip curricular activities also fail to adhere to the fidelity criteria that pro-fidelity educators believe in for achieving students’ learning goals. It is meant to say that such teachers neither us the adaptation approach nor fulfill the requirements of the fidelity approach. Okoth (2016), relating this to teachers’ roles, uncovered that teachers may fail to notice, deliberately ignore, or selectively implement activities when they find them inconsistent with their interests and experiences. Spillane et al. (2002, p. 393) summarised it as teachers’ curriculum implementation ‘depends to a great extent on their repertoire of existing knowledge and experience’.

Thus, ELT teachers who follow the fidelity perspective but skip many activities neither follow an adaptation approach nor promote student achievement of curriculum objectives. Teachers who do not match the curriculum with teaching contexts and skip curricular activities also fail to adhere to the fidelity criteria that pro-fidelity educators believe in for achieving students’ learning goals. It is meant to say that such teachers neither use the adaptation approach nor fulfil the requirements of the fidelity perspective. Okoth (2016), relating this to teachers’ roles, uncovered that teachers may fail to notice deliberately ignore or selectively implement activities when they find them inconsistent with their interest and experiences. Spillane et al. (2002, p. 393) summarised it as teachers’ curriculum implementation ‘depends to a great extent on their repertoire of existing knowledge and experience’.

There arose various reasons for ELT teachers’ adherence to the prescribed activities of the curriculum as well as skipping activities. Participants mentioned environmental (institutional) factors as the main factors influencing teachers’ curriculum implementation approaches. All of the study’s participants cited the assessment process, assessment type, and the importance of student scores for placement as significant environmental factors. Okoth’s (2016) study in Kenya found similar results. Okoth (2016, p. 172) stated that due to the great value given to examinations in Kenya, ‘teachers may tend to concentrate on curriculum areas most tested in examinations that could affect the broad goals of the curriculum.

Additionally, large class sizes and the quality of the curriculum were noted as second-environment-related factors. Following environmental motives, personal factors (teachers’ abilities, knowledge, and experience) followed by student-related factors (students’ language competence) were seen as factors that impacted teachers’ adherence to the designed curriculum. This is consistent with a study conducted in Zimbabwe that stated curriculum implementation may be affected by the teacher, the learner, and the assessment (Okoth, 2016).

Shawer et al. (2009, p. 5) also claimed that ‘learning has become just for exams’ in situations where the high-stakes institutional exams serve for other purposes. Shawer et al. cautioned that exams that are thought to serve other purposes drive teachers to follow the imposed curriculum, which in turn causes students to disregard learning or at least seem to learn but seldom internalise what is taught. Bümen et al. (2014, p. 224) also disclosed ‘high-stakes tests’ as a determining motive for curriculum implementation. Moreover, Gibbs and Habeshaw (1989) stated the effect of assessment on students:

On many courses students are driven by the assessment system. What is assessed is seen as what matters most. The tasks which you assess and which count towards a qualification will receive ample attention, whilst those which are not assessed will often be ignored (p. 23)

Therefore, teachers have to think ‘out of the box’ when they prepare students for exams and keep in mind the bigger goal of helping students to be proficient in the English language. They also need to understand that, according to Albilehi et al. (2012/2013), the teacher is the only person who is enthusiastically involved in effecting the designed curriculum, even in circumstances where the curriculum is designed centrally. Hence, ELT teachers first have to look at themselves, as they have the responsibility of adapting the designed curriculum to suit the classroom context, and second, trying to minimise the effect of the various factors that influence their classroom curriculum implementation approaches.

Moreover, institutional leaders usually prefer teachers’ use of the fidelity perspective since fidelity is amenable to evaluating what was completed and what was not completed. It is relatively easy to control how many of the contents have been covered or the teacher dealt with in the classroom through observation, using students’ feedback, or by interviewing the classroom teacher.

8. Conclusion and pedagogical implication

It became apparent that ELT teachers tended to apply the fidelity approach to curriculum implementation not only because they have not had the chance to get curriculum-related training but also because they were afraid of taking professional accountability for the gaps that come as a result of adapting the curriculum at the classroom level. Teachers who rigidly adhere to the fidelity approach do not critically think about the adaptation of contents to suit a specific context and to address the current needs of their students.

For adapting activities that were irrelevant or difficult to implement in the context, teachers took the skipping strategy as the only way out of adapting curriculum contents. They did not show their endeavour in creating, supplementing, or replacing activities that could not suit the classroom environment. Moreover, teachers rely on skipping strategies to overcome the constraints of institutional, student, and personal-related factors. As has been witnessed during observation, activities that were skipped included core activities that determine the achievement of the intended goals. As a result, skipping such activities increases the likelihood that students will not receive the essential linguistic input to improve their language proficiency. Moreover, teachers have complaints or criticisms about the officially designed freshman English curriculum, but they have used the fidelity approach in the classroom. A well-designed curriculum is amenable to fitting many contexts, which led teachers to use the fidelity approach, while an ill-designed curriculum calls for adaptations by implementers. Hence, teachers’ use of fidelity in using the curriculum became against teachers’ denunciation of the contents of the freshman English curriculum.

The high-stakes exam, the content of the exam, and the value of students’ scores for placement appeared to be the most influential institutional motives that affected teachers’ curriculum implementation approaches. Overemphasising exams and field placement of students based on their scores becomes the bottleneck to adapting the curriculum and executing the professional roles expected from teachers. Besides, personal or teacher-related factors were also considered in the curriculum implementation approach; they are usually difficult to screen out. Teacher-related factors could be obscured by many variables, such as teachers’ beliefs, attitudes, teaching styles, and other factors. The curricular material was another reverberated institutional factor that influenced teachers’ curriculum implementation approaches. To reiterate, well-designed materials may encourage teachers to follow the fidelity approach, whereas poorly designed materials may cause teachers to adapt or create materials. However, teachers in this study were struggling to implement the activities as planned, though they felt the activities could not be implemented in their context. This informed that the adoption of the fidelity approach by ELT teachers has significant implications for the creation, development, and implementation of curricula as well as for the outcome of students’ learning. It could inform the significance of professional development training for ELT teachers focusing on classroom curriculum improvement without ignoring the need to balance between fidelity and adaptation.

Hence, updating teachers using formal in-service professional development training is of paramount importance, which is in the hands of the teachers and the institution. If teachers do not stay current through on-the-job and/or in-service training, the information and abilities they acquired during initial or pre-service training may not help them manage the demands of the changing world. In addition, improving professional development would be likely to happen with the adaptation approach in contrast to the fidelity approach. The adaptation approach also has implications for teachers’ professional growth, improving their roles, skills, and concepts of classroom curriculum improvement. Teachers’ autonomy in improving the curriculum needs to be respected, which should not be in sharp contrast with the guidelines of the department, faculty, and top management of the institution.

8.1. Limitation/recommendation

This study contains limitations as many other studies. First, the sample for this study is teachers who work in one university. The distinguishing features of this particular university, such as its working culture, academic rank and structure, and teacher demographics, may influence the transferability of our results to other universities. Hence, studying the issue in diverse contexts may yield different results. However, the outcomes of this research could proffer important insights into Ethiopian Universities with similar settings. Second, it does not involve first-year students who take the freshman English curriculum. Research needs diverse samples in the issue under study. Therefore, including students (beneficiaries) in the study would be appropriate and help to triangulate teachers’ curriculum implementation approaches generated by teachers. In general, future research may continue by incorporating these and other limitations for the betterment of the approaches teachers prefer to follow.

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank the editor(s) and anonymous reviewers for their valuable feedback and suggestions which helped us significantly improve this article. We would also like to thank all those who contributed ideas to this article particularly research participants at Debre Tabor University.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Data availability statement

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

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Baye Ashebir Anteneh

Baye Ashebir Anteneh has received his BED in pedagogy and English and master’s degree in TEFL from Bahir Dar and Addis Ababa Universities respectively, Ethiopia. Currently, he works as a full-time lecturer at Debre Tabor University and is pursuing his PhD at Addis Ababa University. He has experience providing training to teachers and preparing and editing primary school textbooks. He published one paper and another in the press. His main research area includes curriculum and assessment in English language teaching.

Alemu Hailu Anshu

Alemu Hailu Anshu is an Associate Professor in the Department of Foreign Languages and Literature, Addis Ababa University. He did BA in Foreign Languages and Literature and MA in Teaching English as a Foreign Language (TEFL) at Addis Ababa University, and PhD in English Language Education at Central Institute of English and Foreign Languages (CIEFL), Hyderabad, India. His field of specialization is language curriculum/program design and language teaching and learning materials development. He consulted and led teams that designed new curriculum, renew language curriculum, developed textbooks and supplementary reading materials. Dr Alemu has published books, monographs, textbooks and a number of research articles in local and international journals.