Change models and strategies in the context of managing curriculum change: a case study of managing curriculum year four history curriculum in the district of Kuala Selangor, Malaysia

Thangamalar Paramasivam

Abstract

This article is based on a case study of the management of curriculum change in primary schools. This was done by analyzing the management of curriculum change brought about by the introduction the History curriculum for the Year Four Primary Schools Standard-Based Curriculum. This instrumental case study employed a descriptive- interpretative approach grounded in the qualitative research tradition. Data was collected through analysis of documents, in-depth semi-structured interviews and the direct observations of teaching and learning of History lessons. It was located within the context of eight selected schools. A total of twenty eight participants (8 History teachers, 8 senior curriculum assistants, 8 headmasters, 1 National Trainer and 3 officers from Curriculum Development Division, State Education Department and District Education were interviewed. The process and procedures in managing curriculum change were analyzed in the context of characteristic of Havelock’s model, Schon’s models and Bennis, Benne and Chin’s innovation strategy. The findings showed that the central agency did predominantly use Havelock’s (1971) Research, Development & Diffusion model coupled with Schon’s (1971) Centre Periphery Model and Bennis et al.(1969) power-coercive strategy. However, the overall analysis showed that empirical rational and normative re-educative strategies were less practiced in managing the curriculum change.

References

1. Abdullah, H., & Asraf, R. M. (2017). Bringing the Malaysian Curriculum into the 21st Century. Advanced Science Letters, 23(8), 7706-7709. Diperolehi daripada https://doi.org/10.11 66/ asl.2017. 9558. 2. Beech, N. & Macintosh, R. (2012). Managing Change: Enquiry & Action. United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press. 3. Bennis, G. W., Benne, D. K., & Chin, R. (1969). The Planning of Change. (5th ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. 4. Creasey, T. (2009). Defining Change Management. Prosci and the Change Management Learning Centre. Diperolehi daripada http://www.change-management.com/Prosci-Defining-Change-Management-2009.pdf pada28 March 2017. 5. D’Ortenzio, C. (2012). Understanding Change and Change Management Process (Tesis Doktor Falsafah yang Diterbitkan). Australia: University of Canberra. 6. Fullan, M.G. (2001). The New Meaning of Educational Change (3rd ed.). New York: Teachers College Press. 7. Havelock, R. G. (1971). Planning for innovation through dissemination and utilization of knowledge. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan, Institute for Social Research. 8. Hayes, J. (2018). The Theory and Practice of Change Management (5th ed.). United Kingdom: Palgrave. 9. Haji Ahmad. (2014). Implementation of Strategic Education Policy Plan at Micro- Level Context: Management and Leadership Challenges. Malaysian Online Journal of Educational Management, 2(2), m.s 1-21. Diperolehi daripada http://mojem.um.edu.my. 10. Hussin, S. (2017). Spiral Dynamics in the Implementation of Performance Based Teacher Evaluation Policy in a Centralized Education System. Malaysian Online Journal of Educational Management, 2(2), 22-37. Diperolehi daripada https://jice.um.edu.my/index.php/MOJEM/article/view/6125. 11. Sharifah Maimunah Syed Zin. (2001). Kepimpinan dan Pengurusan Kurikulum Sekolah Rendah. Kuala Lumpur: Pusat Perkembangan Kurikulum. 12. Kementerian Pendidikan Malaysia. (2014). Surat Siaran Kementerian Pendidikan Malaysia Bilangan 1 Tahun 2014: Pelaksanaan Mata pelajaran Sejarah KSSR Tahap Dua Mulai Tahun 2014. Putrajaya: Kementerian Pendidikan Malaysia. 13. Lembaga Peperiksaan Malaysia. (2014). Informasi Pentaksiran Berasaskan Sekolah. Putrajaya: Kementerian Pendidikan Malaysia. 14. MacLean, J., Mulholland, R., Gray, S., & Horrell, A. (2015). Enabling curriculum change in physical education: The interplay between policy constructors and practitioners. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 20(1), 79-96. Diperolehi daripada http://www. tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/17408989.2013.798406 pada 26 Februari 2017. 15. Mitchell, B. (2016). Curriculum Consruction and Implementation. International Journal of Liberal Art and Social Science, 4(4), 45-56. Diperolehi daripada www.ijlass.org/data/ frontImages/gallery/Vol._4_No._4/7._45-56.pdf pada 27 Februari 2017. 16. Nickols, F. (2016). Change Management101. Diperolehi daripada http://www.nickols.us/ change.pdf pada 10 Mac 2017. 17. Nooreiny Maarof & Malani Munusamy. (2015). Teacher’s Beliefs of the New Standard for Primary Schools (KSSR) in Teaching English as ESL in Malaysian Schools: A Qualitative Approach. Asian Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies, 3(5), 92-98. Diperolehi daripada http://ajms.co.in/sites/ajms2015/index.php/ajms/article/view/1109/816 pada 12 Januari 2017. 18. Rao, R., & Jani, R. (2017). Teacher Allocation and Equity in Malaysian Schools. Institutions And Economies,3(1), m.s 103-112. Retrieved from https://jice.um.edu.my/index.php/ ijie/article/ view/ 4778. 19. Schon, D. (1971). Technology and change. New York: Dell Publishing Co. 20. Zamrus & Mokelas. (2000). Malaysia: Curriculum Planning, Development and Reform. In Globalization and Living Together, 176-179. New Delhi: Discovery Publishing House.