OP‐ED

Abstract

In 1978, more than 100 science educators from Israel and ∼ 50 leading science educators and researchers representing 13 countries convened at the Weizmann Institute of Science, Rehovot (23–28 July) and The Hebrew University, Jerusalem (30 July–2 August) to discuss problems and issues of curriculum development and curriculum implementation in science.1 Forty years ago, when the revolutionary reform in science education emerged, many of these issues were new. Before that time, curricula had been developed locally, by those who planned to teach them; as a consequence, terms like dissemination, diffusion, utilization, and implementation were rarely used. The importance of such terms became evident as the movement of curriculum development at the national level gained prominence, especially in science.

Today, drawing on the experiences of the last 30 years, we are not only able to specify what curriculum developers have to consider in terms of implementation, but we can also draw some significant conclusions from our experiences with implementation for curriculum development in the future. The most important general conclusion is that curriculum development and implementation should not be viewed as two separate processes, but rather as one interactive process. The purpose of this paper is to describe the nature of this interaction and the factors which may influence it.

Notes

Pinchas Tamir, 22 Hagdud Haivri, Jerusalem 92345, Israel, is Professor of Science Education at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. His research has focused on curriculum, teacher education, science education, and evaluation.

JCS invites comments on this paper for publication on the journal's web site. Address comments to Ian Westbury, General editor of JCS, at [email protected]. All such comments on this paper, and on other papers in the journal, can be accessed at http:/www.ed.uiuc.edu/jcs/.

The conference was supported by the Bat Sheva Foundation and is referred to here as the First Bat Sheva Seminar. Of the 71 presenters, 30 were Israeli, while the remaining 41 were from other countries, as follows: USA–15; UK–14; Canada–5; Germany–4; Australia–3. The presentations were classified under seven categories: 1. Conceptualization; 2. Instructional materials and the learner; 3. Curriculum instruction and the teacher; 4. Implementation and the social context; 5. Adaptation and implementation; 6. Case studies; and 7. Evaluation of curriculum implementation.

The presentations are included in Tamir et al. (1979).

Adaptation has been carried out on a much larger scale when programmes developed in one country are adopted and modified for use in other countries. As a rule, direct adoption of programmes from one country to another has not been successful. No one best answer can be provided regarding the superiority of the fidelity or the adaptive mode at the classroom level. It may be useful to look upon these modes as extremes of a continuum. It is up to the classroom teacher to decide which point on this continuum will best meet his or her particular needs and preferences. As a rule, beginning and less experienced teachers may profit by using a high level of fidelity. More experience is generally associated with a higher level of success in employing modifications.

In a recent study, it was found that teachers were consistent in choosing the topics they teach. For example, the three most popular topics chosen by 73% of the teachers were ecology, the cell, and the blood‐transportation system. The two least popular topics were evolution, and regulation (Agrest and Tamir 2002).

Finally, quite often the implementation of innovations has not been actualized, even when the class was using the ‘new’ text. In these cases, the teachers continued to teach in their traditional manner with the new text. Consequently, the intended opportunities to learn have not taken place. Under these circumstances, it is no wonder that the intended has not been attained.

Havelock's model has been used in the development of a model implementation system in Israel (Eden 1979), in the development of a curriculum adaptation scheme (Blum 1979), and as a basis for designing an instrument for estimating the degree of receptiveness of teachers to curriculum innovations. This instrument, the Curriculum Attitude Survey (CAS), was described by Welch (1979).

Additional information

Notes on contributors

PINCHAS TAMIR

Pinchas Tamir, 22 Hagdud Haivri, Jerusalem 92345, Israel, is Professor of Science Education at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. His research has focused on curriculum, teacher education, science education, and evaluation. JCS invites comments on this paper for publication on the journal's web site. Address comments to Ian Westbury, General editor of JCS, at [email protected]. All such comments on this paper, and on other papers in the journal, can be accessed at http:/www.ed.uiuc.edu/jcs/.