Advertisement

Involving Teachers in the Change Process: One English Language Teacher’s Account of Implementing Curricular Change in Philippine Basic Education

  • Maria Luz C. VilchesEmail author
Chapter
Part of the International Perspectives on English Language Teaching book series (INPELT)

Abstract

Through the experiences of a Filipino English teacher who was actively involved in both initial consultations about curriculum content and new textbook design, Vilches highlights the value of such involvement in helping the teacher to make sense of the changes. The teacher’s story illustrates the important link between planners’ willingness to establish genuine communication with local implementers at the initiation stage of any curriculum reform process, and the extent to which teachers feel empowered to bring about desired changes in the classroom. Vilches also reasserts the importance of viewing any national curriculum change as a process not an event, and so of planning ongoing support to those tasked with implementing change.

References

  1. Al-Daami, K.K., and G. Wallace. 2007. Curriculum reform in a global context: A study of teachers in Jordan. Journal of Curriculum Studies 39 (3): 339–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alberto, R., and S. Gabinete. 2014. Levelling up to ASEAN community 2015: Basic education reforms in the Philippines. Proceedings of the 7th international conference on educational reform (ICER 2014), Innovations and Good Practices in Education: Global Perspectives, 123–135. Available at http://www.icer.msu.ac.th/index/paper/fullpaper/13.Rosario%20P.%20Alberto.pdf. Accessed 6 July 2015.
  3. Altinyelken, H.K. 2010. Pedagogical renewal in sub-Saharan Africa: The case of Uganda. Comparative Education 46 (2): 151–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bascia, N., and A. Hargreaves. 2000. Teaching and leading on the sharp edge of change. In The sharp edge of change: Teaching, leading and the realities of reform, ed. N. Bascia and A. Hargreaves. London: Routledge/Falmer.Google Scholar
  5. Briefer on the Enhanced K-12 Basic Education Program. Available at http://www.gov.ph/2010/11/02/briefer-on-the-enhanced-k12-basic-education-program/. Accessed 1 July 2016.
  6. Department of Education. 2013. K-12 Curriculum Guide: English (MS). pp. 1–166. Available at http://deped.gov.ph/sites/default/files/page/2015/English%20CG%20Grade%201-10%20July%202015.pdf. Accessed 6 April 2015.
  7. Fullan, M. 2000. The return of large scale reform. Journal of Educational Change 1 (1): 5–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Fullan, M. 2007. The new meaning of educational change, 4th ed. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  9. Hallinger, P., and M. Lee. 2011. A decade of education reform in Thailand: Broken promise or impossible dream? Cambridge Journal of Education 41 (2): 139–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Humphries, S., and A. Burns. 2015. ‘In reality it’s almost impossible’: CLT-oriented curriculum change. ELT Journal 69 (3): 239–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hutchinson, T., and E. Torres. 1994. The textbook as agent of change. ELT Journal 48 (4): 315–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Karavas, E. 2014. Implementing innovation in primary EFL: A case study in Greece. ELT Journal 68 (3): 243–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kennedy, C. 1983. Language planning and language education. London: Unwin Hyman.Google Scholar
  14. Kirk, D., and D. Macdonald. 2001. Teacher voice and ownership of curriculum change. Journal of Curriculum Studies 33 (5): 551–567.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kirkgöz, Y. 2008. A case study of teachers’ implementation of curriculum innovation in English language teaching in Turkish primary education. Teaching and Teacher Education 24: 1859–1875.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Lee, J. C.-K., and H-B. Yin. 2011. Teachers’ emotions and professional identity in curriculum reform: A Chinese perspective. The Journal of Educational Change 12: 25–46.Google Scholar
  17. Lovett, S., and A. Gilmore. 2003. Teachers’ learning journeys: The quality learning circle as a model of professional development. School Effectiveness and School Improvement: An International Journal of Research, Policy and Practice 14 (2): 189–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Markee, N. 1997. Managing curricular innovation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Mohammed, R.F., and B. Harlech-Jones. 2008. The fault is in ourselves: Looking at ‘failures in implementation’. Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education 38 (1): 39–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Murray, D.E. 2008. Learning to anticipate the unforeseeable. In Planning change, changing plans, ed. D.E. Murray, 5–10. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Park, M., and Y.-K. Sung. 2013. Teachers’ perceptions of the recent curriculum reforms and their implementation: What can we learn from the case of Korean elementary teachers? Asia Pacific Journal of Education 33 (1): 15–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Policy Guidelines on Classroom Assessment for the K to 12 Basic Education Program. Available at http://www.deped.gov.ph/sites/default/files/order/2015/DO_s2015_08.pdf. Accessed on 7 July 2016.
  23. Power, T., R. Shaheen, M. Solly, C. Woodward, and S. Burton. 2012. English in action: School based teacher development in Bangladesh. Curriculum Journal 23 (4): 503–529.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Priestley, M., R. Edwards, A. Priestly, and K. Miller. 2012. Teacher agency in curriculum making: Agents of change and spaces for manoeuvre. Curriculum Inquiry 43 (2): 191–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Republic Act No 10533. 2013. MS. Republic of the Philippines. pp. 1–7.Google Scholar
  26. Song, E. 2015. Cambodian teachers’ responses to child-centred instructional policies: A mismatch between beliefs and practice. Teaching and Teacher Education 50: 36–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Vilches, M.L.C. 2005. Learning to learn: Perspectives from the Philippines English Language Teaching Project. In Teaching English from a global perspective (Case studies In Tesol practice series), ed. A. Burns, 113–127. Virginia: TESOL.Google Scholar
  28. Vilches, M.L.C. 2009. The Philippine experience of reflective practice in INSET teacher development initiatives. In English education in Asia: History and policies, ed. Y.E. Choi and B. Spolsky, 115–139. Seoul: AsiaTEFL.Google Scholar
  29. Waters, A. 2005. Expertise in teacher education: Helping teachers to learn. In Expertise in second language learning and teaching, ed. K. Johnson, 210–229. Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Waters, A. 2006. Facilitating follow-up in ELT INSET. Language Teaching Research 10 (1): 32–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Waters, A., and M.C.L. Vilches. 2000. Integrating teacher learning: The school-based follow-up development activity. ELT Journal 54 (2): 126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Waters, A., and M.C.L. Vilches. 2008. Factors affecting ELT reforms: The case of the Philippines basic education curriculum. RELC Journal 39 (1): 5–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Waters, A., and M. Vilches. 2012. ‘Tanggap, tiklo, tago’ (receive, fold, keep): Perceptions of best practice in ELT INSET. Report on British Council English Language Research Award Project, 2009: Identifying Best Practice in ELT INSET. ELT Research Papers 12-01. Available at http://www.teachingenglish.org.uk/publications. Accessed 8 October 2016.
  34. Waters, A., and M. Vilches. 2013. The management of change. In Innovation and change in English language education, ed. K. Hyland and L. Wong, 58–72. Oxon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  35. Wedell, M. 2003. Giving TESOL change a chance: Supporting key players in the curriculum change process. System 31 (4): 439–456.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Wedell, M. 2009. Planning for educational change—putting people and their contexts first. London: Continuum.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Ateneo de Manila UniversityQuezon CityPhilippines

Personalised recommendations