IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/sagope/v5y2015i2p2158244015581018.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Testing Times for the Implementation of Curriculum Change

Author

Listed:
  • Judy Smeed
  • Terri Bourke
  • Julie Nickerson
  • Tracy Corsbie

Abstract

School curriculum change processes have traditionally been managed internally. However, in Queensland, Australia, as a response to the current high-stakes accountability regime, more and more principals are outsourcing this work to external change agents (ECAs). In 2009, one of the authors (a university lecturer and ECA) developed a curriculum change model (the Controlled Rapid Approach to Curriculum Change [CRACC]), specifically outlining the involvement of an ECA in the initiation phase of a school’s curriculum change process. The purpose of this article is to extend the CRACC model by unpacking the implementation phase, drawing on data from a pilot study of a single school. Interview responses revealed that during the implementation phase, teachers wanted to be kept informed of the wider educational context, use data to constantly track students, relate pedagogical practices to testing practices, share information between departments and professional levels, and own whole school performance. It is suggested that the findings would be transferable to other school settings and internal leadership of curriculum change. The article also strikes a chord of concern: Do the responses from teachers operating under thecurrent accountability regime live their professional lives within this corporate and globalized ideology whether they want to or not?

Suggested Citation

  • Judy Smeed & Terri Bourke & Julie Nickerson & Tracy Corsbie, 2015. "Testing Times for the Implementation of Curriculum Change," SAGE Open, , vol. 5(2), pages 21582440155, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:sagope:v:5:y:2015:i:2:p:2158244015581018
    DOI: 10.1177/2158244015581018
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/2158244015581018
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/2158244015581018?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Roger E. Kasperson & Ortwin Renn & Paul Slovic & Halina S. Brown & Jacque Emel & Robert Goble & Jeanne X. Kasperson & Samuel Ratick, 1988. "The Social Amplification of Risk: A Conceptual Framework," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 8(2), pages 177-187, June.
    2. Cooksy, Leslie J. & Gill, Paige & Kelly, P. Adam, 2001. "The program logic model as an integrative framework for a multimethod evaluation," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 24(2), pages 119-128, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Loredana Antronico & Roberto Coscarelli & Francesco De Pascale & Giovanni Gull?, 2018. "La comunicazione del rischio e la percezione pubblica dei disastri: il caso studio della frana di Maierato (Calabria, Italia)," PRISMA Economia - Societ? - Lavoro, FrancoAngeli Editore, vol. 2018(3), pages 9-29.
    2. Hung‐Chih Hung & Tzu‐Wen Wang, 2011. "Determinants and Mapping of Collective Perceptions of Technological Risk: The Case of the Second Nuclear Power Plant in Taiwan," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(4), pages 668-683, April.
    3. Emmanuel Songsore & Michael Buzzelli, 2016. "Ontario’s Experience of Wind Energy Development as Seen through the Lens of Human Health and Environmental Justice," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 13(7), pages 1-18, July.
    4. Sara E. Kuhar & Kate Nierenberg & Barbara Kirkpatrick & Graham A. Tobin, 2009. "Public Perceptions of Florida Red Tide Risks," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(7), pages 963-969, July.
    5. Tim Benijts, 2014. "A Business Sustainability Model for Government Corporations. A Belgian Case Study," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 23(3), pages 204-216, March.
    6. Ruth E Alcock & Jerry Busby, 2006. "Risk Migration and Scientific Advance: The Case of Flame‐Retardant Compounds," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(2), pages 369-381, April.
    7. Vivianne H. M. Visschers & Ree M. Meertens & Wim F. Passchier & Nanne K. DeVries, 2007. "How Does the General Public Evaluate Risk Information? The Impact of Associations with Other Risks," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(3), pages 715-727, June.
    8. Rob Goble, 2021. "Through a Glass Darkly: How Natural Science and Technical Communities Looked at Social Science Advances in Understanding Risk," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 41(3), pages 414-428, March.
    9. Evangelia Karasmanaki & Evangelos Grigoroudis & Spyridon Galatsidas & Georgios Tsantopoulos, 2023. "Satisfaction with Media Information about Renewable Energy Investments," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(15), pages 1-15, July.
    10. Yang, Ya Ling, 2020. "Comparison of public perception and risk management decisions of aircraft noise near Taoyuan and Kaohsiung International Airports," Journal of Air Transport Management, Elsevier, vol. 85(C).
    11. Paul Slovic & James Flynn & Robin Gregory, 1994. "Stigma Happens: Social Problems in the Siting of Nuclear Waste Facilities," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 14(5), pages 773-777, October.
    12. Susan Mello & Robert C. Hornik, 2016. "Media Coverage of Pediatric Environmental Health Risks and its Effects on Mothers’ Protective Behaviors," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(3), pages 605-622, March.
    13. J. A. Giesecke & W. J. Burns & A. Barrett & E. Bayrak & A. Rose & P. Slovic & M. Suher, 2012. "Assessment of the Regional Economic Impacts of Catastrophic Events: CGE Analysis of Resource Loss and Behavioral Effects of an RDD Attack Scenario," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(4), pages 583-600, April.
    14. Yu‐Ru Lin & Drew Margolin & Xidao Wen, 2017. "Tracking and Analyzing Individual Distress Following Terrorist Attacks Using Social Media Streams," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(8), pages 1580-1605, August.
    15. Jinshu Cui & Heather Rosoff & Richard S. John, 2018. "Public Response to a Near‐Miss Nuclear Accident Scenario Varying in Causal Attributions and Outcome Uncertainty," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(5), pages 947-961, May.
    16. Mathew P. White & J. Richard Eiser & Peter R. Harris & Sabine Pahl, 2007. "Who Reaps the Benefits, Who Bears the Risks? Comparative Optimism, Comparative Utility, and Regulatory Preferences for Mobile Phone Technology," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(3), pages 741-753, June.
    17. Samuel A. Markolf & Kelly Klima & Terrence L. Wong, 2015. "Adaptation frameworks used by US decision-makers: a literature review," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 35(4), pages 427-436, December.
    18. Willem Van Rensburg & Brian W. Head, 2017. "Climate Change Scepticism: Reconsidering How to Respond to Core Criticisms of Climate Science and Policy," SAGE Open, , vol. 7(4), pages 21582440177, December.
    19. Adam Rose & Tyler Kustra, 2013. "Economic Considerations in Designing Emergency Management Institutions and Policies for Transboundary Disasters," Public Management Review, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 15(3), pages 446-462, March.
    20. Vinícius P. Rodrigues & Daniela C. A. Pigosso & Jakob W. Andersen & Tim C. McAloone, 2018. "Evaluating the Potential Business Benefits of Ecodesign Implementation: A Logic Model Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(6), pages 1-26, June.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:sagope:v:5:y:2015:i:2:p:2158244015581018. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.