Education is as social process and curriculum is a dynamic process within education and it’s subject to change. Hence, curriculum change can be construed social change. What usually comes to our mind when we think about innovation? Perhaps readers might associate it with the use of technology such as smart board, video conference, computers, or a new way of teaching the language, doing things differently, meaningful and so on. Indeed, the meanings associated with the word innovation are varied, so let us initially, consider innovation in terms of methodology and syllabus design (MARKEE, 2001). Methodologically several methods have been put forward and afterwards the idea of approaches, the post method, ecological approach, etc. All these issues have introduced different ways of looking at the teaching of English and can be considered as mythological innovation in English Language teaching.
|Models of Curriculum innovation and social change|
Next, let us take into account three similar concepts regarding newness and planning as follows: firstly, Nicholls (1983: 4) defines innovation as “an idea, object or practice perceived as new by an individual or individuals, which is intended to bring out improvement in relation to desired objects, which is fundamental in nature and which is planned and deliberated”, that is, innovation is often further defined as a large-scale (e.g. across whole education system, as will be further discussed in this article). Similarly, Cook (1994: 16) points out that “innovation is understood as a change which introduces something ‘new’, that is, the introduction of an element or a configuration which was not or had not been there before”, which does not necessarily imply something new and lastly, Germaine and Rea-Dickens (1995) state that the change is often described as planned. These definitions present innovation as positive factors in ELT. Despite the positivism of such definitions, innovation has to be carefully analysed and implemented. model of curriculum innovation and Social Change is has a significant related to Contextual Teaching and Learning and School Based Curriculum Development And Action Research
Rogers and Shoemaker as in Ratnavadivel, (1995). In the survey of diffusion research, “communication of innovation” defines social change as follows:
The process of social change consists of three sequential steps: (1) invention, (2) diffusion, and (3) consequences. Invention is a process by which new ideas are created or developed. Diffusion is a process by which these new ideas are communicated to the members of the social system. Consequences are the changes that occur within a social system as a result of the adoption or rejection of the innovation. Change occurs when new ideas’ use or rejection has an effect. Social change is therefore an effect of communication.
Education is as social process and curriculum is a dynamic process within education and it’s subject to change. Hence, curriculum change can be construed social change. For the purpose of this research, I consider the introduction of KTSP as curriculum change involves social change in the role of school and teachers as educator. Educational change, including change can be in the form of reform and innovation. Reform mandated whereas innovation persuasion (Ratnavadivel, 1995). Both reform and innovation aims to bring about change, for the purpose of this study, KTSP is a reform in that the teachers have to used KTSP as given curriculum. However the implementation of KTSP necessity changes in the role of the school and teachers. The teachers have to be a more active role as curriculum developers. This is innovation of the form of SBCD. In indonesia we may say that KTP is a reform of SBCD, it is known well as KTSP as a Form of SBCD
Davis, Rhodes et al: 1998, as in Tatnall, (2000:35) state that Curriculum innovation does not, however, differ fundamentally from other forms of change. And all change is seen to cause some anxiety, struggle and loss to individual concerned (Maris 1975). Several scholars have come up with models of how people handle and react to change, and these models are useful in suggesting ways in which change can effectively be implemented by those who are supposed to take responsible in managing curriculum. For instance, Havelock classified three classifications of change models and utilization process. His classification comprises a “Research, Development and Diffusion” model, a “Social Interaction” model, and a “Problem Solving” model. In this study, I would like to analyze the change management model brought about by KTSP in relation to Havelock classification of change models. For that, I would now elaborate the three models:
1. The Research Development and Diffusion (RD&D) Model.
The first model referred to as research, development, and diffusion (RDD) reflected the attitude that if research is made known and presented in the right way, targeted audiences would use it. This model involves a sequence of research, development, and packaging activities prior to dissemination, large-scale planning, and division of labor, separation of roles and functions, and evaluation, (Glaser, as in Jennifer).
Havelock as in Morrish, (1976:119), has listed the model of characteristic in this RD&D.
(i), the model assumes that development and diffusion should be a rational process, that there should be a rational sequence of activities which moved from research to development to packaging before dissemination takes place. (ii). the model implies that there has to be planning on a really massive scale. All these activities of research development must be co-ordinates and a logical relationship establish between them. (III), there must be a division of labor and a careful separation of rule and function. (iv), there is a assumption of a more or less clearly defined audience, a specified passive consumer willing to accept the innovation if it is delivered on the right channel, in the correct manner, and at the right time.
This RD&D model is a linear model. It begins with the research product and its packaging rather than the ultimate user and their needs. The RD&D model assumes that changing curriculum is an orderly, planned sequence in which experts assist in identifying a problem, finding a solution and then diffusion for distributing the innovation and installing it in target system. This models do not accommodating the interest and wishes of individual teachers or the characteristic of particular school in which the innovation might be used. The receiver/teachers, just receive the innovation and to be experienced about the development of this curriculum model. According to Kelly (2004:108), he assumes that the developer in RD&D model just identified the problem and a receiver who is essentially a passive recipient of the innovation developed to resolve that problem. The receiver remains passive because the initiative is taken by the researchers, the developers and the disseminators. It is a product embodying solution, rather than the hypotheses or ideas behind those product, which is are being tested. The main concern is getting the product “right” and the marketing it (Stenhouse 1975, as in Ratnavadivel, 67:1995)
This model also works on the top-down ‘target system” has come under some heavy criticisms. (Skillbeck 1984:97) states that there has been a great deal of criticism of the RD&D model, in the form we have been examining, applied to curriculum development and educational reform generally. This range from dissatisfaction with its apparent neglect of school utilization of new resources and the implementation of change
2. The Social Interaction Model.
According to Havelock as in Ratnavadivel, (1995)
An innovation is presented or brought to attention of a potential receiver population. The receiver and the receiver needs are determined exclusively by the sender. The receiver is supposed to react to the new information, and the nature of his reaction determines whether or not subsequent stages will occur. If awareness is followed by an expression of interest, he is launched on a series of stage which terminate with the acceptance or rejection of the innovation. The diffusion of innovation depends greatly upon the channels of communication within the receiver group, since information is transmitted primarily through the social interaction of the group members.
The social interaction model focuses on human relationships and influencing strategies at each stage of the dissemination and adoption processes. Social Interaction model places a great stress on the social interaction between members of the adopting group, and it focuses on the diffusion of ideas and flow of messages from person to person rather than the marketing of product. This model also limited the need of consumers, because it is determinate by central planner/agency. The SI model has been criticized as a top-down model in that the need of receiver is identified by the central planner and not the teachers as the receivers of innovation at school level or in the case of teacher training, the trainer/instructor would be better positioned to identify the receivers’ need in terms of the effectiveness of curriculum implementation at school level.
Ratnavadivel, (1995:68), assumes that this model will suffice for the central agency to act a service agency that only needs to draw on and disseminate expertise that is already available in system and that the teachers or trainers will then be able to sustain the change via interaction within them and with minimum support from center agency/planner. However it seems to neglect the many constraints and inadequacies inherent and experienced by local groups. If the diffusion of the innovation depends upon the channels of communication within the receiver groups, the crucial question that needs to asked is whether and what sort of communication channels are available for diffusion to occur in such model.
3. Problem Solving Model
The third is Problem solving. Generally, in the problem solving model a problem exists, a decision for making the decision. The pending decision drives the search for knowledge and subsequent application of that knowledge. The problem is identified by costumer and the process of innovation is initiated by them. According to MacDonald and Walker in Ratnavadivel, (1995:69). The receiver (an individual or group) initiates the process of change by identifying an area of concern or sensing a need for change. Once the problem area is identified, the receiver undertakes to alter the situation either trough his own efforts, or by recruiting suitable outside assistance. Whereas the receiver in the S-I and RD&D model is passive, the receiver in the P-S model is actively involved in finding an innovation to solve his own problem. Specifically what the new input will be is determined largely by the receiver himself; the relationship between sender and receiver is one of collaboration it is here called the “client system”. The client system may range in size from an individual person to an entire nation.
This model gives the responsibility for change to the costumers, and emphasizes on the need of users. Teachers at the school determine their problems and then make decision about what kind of curriculum innovation to make and how to implement it. It assumes that the teachers at school level will be able to analysis of the needs, diagnosis the problems, search and get the ideas, get the solution (innovation) and evaluation. On the other hands, this model give the freedom to the teachers to create their curriculum be based on their concern, such social culture, environment and the need of society, at glance we may assume that this model looks like school based curriculum development model. Kelly states that;
The relationship between the consumer and the external support agent is one of mutual collaboration rather than that of the receiver and the sender of message; and the whole process is personalized to the point where it has to be recognized that this not a model of mass dissemination, since the solution that is devised for the problem need not be seen as solving the problem of the consumers. In short, it might be fairly claimed that this is not a model of dissemination at all but rather than a model for school-based curriculum, A.V Kelly (2004:109).
On the other hand, the problem solving model is more popular in the country that has decentralization education system, we may see that the implementation of school development project within last two decades was dominated by PS model. We can find examples of innovation-oriented user in the field, where teachers and students as the main consumers. Many of the methodologies that have been used in the education system based on the teachers experiences at school level. For instance, the various methods of teaching, principle of school and educational work are based on the nearest environment. The problem that may occur in this model is whether the teachers are able to acquire sufficient capability to do that, because the lack of available information for the teachers can spoil the effects of this model. So this model still needs sustained training from the agency/planner to educate the teacher as the evaluation of the effectiveness of the implementation this model. However Stenhouse (1975:220, as referenced in Ratnavadivel 1995:69), criticizes it on the grounds that it is still emphasizes solution and that:
There is a continual emphasis on the use of expertise by school s to solve specific problems rather than to generate their own expertise in problem solving.