Curriculum implementation

Chapter 2

Curriculum implementation – limiting and facilitating factors1.
Herbert Altrichter,
Johannes-Kepler-University, Linz, Austria

This paper discusses some aspects of curriculum implementation in order to provide
categories and perspectives for building up or refining a strategy of implementing a
curriculum. First, I shall discuss and define the concepts employed. Secondly, I shall contrast
two different strategies of dealing with the implementation problem. Thirdly, I shall
summarize main research findings about critical factors for implementation. Fourthly, I shall
point to process characteristics of successful implementations.

1. Conceptual matters

General curriculum research is nowadays in German speaking countries a fringe activity.
After a boom in interest in the 1970s to which IPN has made trend-setting contributions (e.g.
Hameyer et al, 1983) we see very little recent publication activity in general curriculum
research2. Consequently, there is also very little specific investigation of curriculum
implementation activities. It seems that the study of the processes of curriculum
implementation has virtually dissolved to become one element of the more general field of
innovation research and theory. And it surfaces from time to time when researchers venture
to become practical with their innovative concepts, such as constructivist learning
environments (Reinmann-Rothmeier and Mandl, 1999) or quality evaluation in schools
(Altrichter et al, 1998), and find out that there are many obstacles placed on the path from
concept to reality under practical circumstances.

Let me start with some conceptual clarifications. I understand innovation to be a social
activity which aims at changes in four dimensions: social practices, the beliefs and
understandings underpinning these social practices, its material aspects (e.g. artifacts used in
these practices, materials, instruments, layout of space etc.), and the social and
organizational structures in which these practices are embedded and which themselves are
associated with systems of resources, power and sanction/gratification (see Altrichter and
Salzgeber, 2000).

An innovation is usually characterized through some materialized plan which describes the
intended practices, and the aspired ways of changing them, and argues the theories which
justify the rationale. It uses some material, other resources (time, money) and specific social
structures (e.g. steering groups, peer observation, debriefing sessions, regular appraisal) to
make people act in another way. Its real test lies in being put into practice. Thus, innovation
is a practice to change practices (Fullan and Stiegelbauer, 1991, p. 9).

1
Published in: Peter Nentwig and David Waddington (eds.): Context based learning of science. Waxmann:
Münster 2005, 35 – 62.
2
The only recent book on general curriculum matters is a collection of international papers most of which one
would count as examples of curriculum theorizing (Hopmann/Riquarts 1995). For the US, Goodlad (1994)
claims that there is quite an amount of curriculum related papers at AERA-conferences, but little influence of
academic curriculum specialists on the nation's big curriculum projects: "When one examines the world of
curriculum practice, it appears that 'specialists' are either mute or, at best, engineers following the blue prints of
others." (op. cit., 1265)

1

Consequently, a new curriculum may be described as an attempt to change teaching and
learning practices which will also include the transformation of some of the beliefs and
understandings hitherto existent in the setting to be changed. It is usually strong on the
material side by providing a written curriculum, text books, recommendations for teaching
strategies, working material for students, and probably also new artifacts for learning (e.g. in
science education or in Montessori classrooms). It is usually less explicit on the
organizational side but may also advocate the use of changed time tabling and new social
structures, such as peer group interaction, decision making in the subject group, etc.

To distinguish these dimensions of innovation has two purposes: firstly, it describes
innovation as a multidimensional phenomenon, and thereby, offers some categories for
analysis and construction. Secondly, it draws attention to the empirical finding that
concentration on some dimensions and neglect of other ones usually leads to deficient results
(Fullan 1983, p.490). There are scores of examples of curriculum reform which concentrated
on the material side and the theoretical justification of their approach and assumed that
changes in teaching practice and in the beliefs and understandings of practitioners would
follow from their material input - which frequently turned out to be incorrect. In summary,
those innovations are expected to be more successful which explicitly stimulate development
on all four dimensions and do not assume that changes in one dimension will automatically
follow from changes on other dimensions.

Let me turn to the term implementation. Its history begins with becoming aware that it does
not take place. It is not unfair to say that usually most of the attention and energy of early
curriculum developers was focussed on the production side of their enterprise, on the
materialized "plan" or "product". The idea was: If the product is good and if it is widely
enough disseminated, it will be adopted by the realm of practice. However, history showed
that many – some say: most (e.g. Fullan and Pomfret, 1977) – curriculum projects of the 60s
and 70s have not been put into practice in a way curriculum developers had hoped. And that
practitioners were not even always aware that they violated the developers' intentions (e.g.
Reinmann-Rothmeier and Mandl, 1999, p.297). For innovating classroom practice, attention
must obviously not only be given to the production phase of a curriculum, but also to what
happens after the production. What processes happen under what circumstances if
practitioners are supposed to "adopt" a curriculum?

Fig. 1: A simplified overview of the change process (Fullan and Stiegelbauer, 1991)

Initiation  Implementation  Continuation  Outcome

Thus, the term implementation in a broad sense conceptualizes the process through which a
proposed concept, model, topic, theory etc. is taken up by some practice. Fullan and
Stiegelbauer (1991) distinguished three sub-processes in which an innovation is made work
(or not) in order to produce outcomes (Fig. 1). The processes that eventually lead up to and
end with the decision to take up a specific innovation proposal have been called initiation
phase (also mobilization or adoption). In the implementation phase (i.e. "implementation" in
a more narrow sense) participants attempt to use the innovation proposal (or the curriculum
in our case) in order to change their practice. Frequently, extra support for translating the
innovatory ideas into reality is offered on a project basis. Thus, while the initiation phase is
2

concerned with the nominal use of a curriculum, the implementation phase focuses on the
actual use. The study of implementation processes is concerned "with the nature and extent
of actual change, as well as the factors and processes that influence how and what changes
are achieved." (Fullan, 1994, p.2839) Thereby, it aims to find out what type of extra support
in the 'project phase' is appropriate to promote actual use of the innovation. In the
continuation phase (also called institutionalization, incorporation, or routinization) the
innovation (or what has been made out of the innovation during implementation) is built into
the routine organization, and extra support (if there had been any during the implementation
phase) is withdrawn. Thus, while implementation is concerned with initial use of the
innovation under project conditions, continuation deals with mature use under standard
conditions.

2. General Strategies of Implementation

How to deal with the "implementation problem", i.e. the problem that so many curricula have
not been implemented, or positively: of stimulating a process in which a target group is
changing their practices in a way which is considered as improvement? Following Fullan
(1983, p. 493), two different general approaches may be contrasted:

The programmed approach (or "fidelity approach") aims to solve the implementation
problem by concentrating on flaws in the specification of the "product", e.g.
(a) gaps in the existing specification of innovations practices;
(b) failure to articulate the innovation's implication for teachers behavior, and
(c) theoretical inadequacies with respect to identified means for achieving the intended
outcomes of an innovation. (Leithwood and Montgomery 1980, p.23).

In other words, the specification of the curriculum and of the implementation process is the
problem; had they been clearer, problems of implementation would be fewer.

Fig. 2: Curriculum making in the "programmed approach"

 shaping of the
 innovation
initiation

implementation

continuation

outcome

A contrasting conceptualization of the implementation problem is provided by the adaptive-
evolutionary approach which accepts that the innovation as it has been devised will be
modified in the course of its implementation. This is not only seen as just a feature of
mundane circumstances wise and realistic persons have to accept but as an essential
characteristic of implementation. This resonates a central finding of the Rand Change Agent
Study: "The primary feature of effective implementation could be called 'mutual adaptation'

3

in which the project is adapted to its institutional context and organizational patterns are
adapted to meet the demands of the project." (Berman and McLaughlin 1977, p.5).

Particularly with complex innovations, this approach claims that it is conceptually unsound,
socially unacceptable, and empirically impossible to solve the implementation problem by
programming the persons concerned with putting the innovation into reality through detailed
elaborations of the desired practice and step by step specifications for the process of
implementation. Rather, innovators to provide their innovation, e.g. a new curriculum, to
their audience as "intelligent hypotheses" (Stenhouse 1975), but invite practitioners to rethink
it and further develop it for the specific circumstances they are working in. They expect, even
invite negotiation and transaction. They aim to stimulate practitioners to use their practical
situational knowledge for implementation and for modifying the original models according to
the demands and resources of the specific locality.

Fig. 3: Curriculum making in the "adaptive-evolutionary approach"

 shaping
initiation  of
  the
implementation  innovation
 
continuation 

outcome

Excursus: Stenhouse's image of the role of teachers in curriculum development

Let me elaborate the arguments which underpin an adaptive-evolutionary approach by
reference to Stenhouse's (1975) Humanities Curriculum Project which was considered by
Goodlad (1994, p.1264) as one of "only a few instances of well-developed curricula that
provided students experiential encounters with the problems and issues of their world".
Stenhouse argued against the idea to achieve quality changes of educational practice by
"programming" teacher behavior (maybe to the extent of "teacher proof curricula"). To by-
pass collaboration of teachers means to by-pass their rationality and their ingenuity, and this
would not solve the implementation problem, but, on the contrary, make it worse. It is the
practitioners who must bring a curriculum idea to life in their concrete interaction with
specific students under local circumstances.

For Stenhouse (1975, p.142), curricula are attempts to communicate - hopefully intelligent –
specifications of educational ideas and practices to teachers in order to stimulate their
discussion, experimentation and critique. A curriculum is a hypothesis, a starting point for
reflection and development done by responsible professionals (Stenhouse 1975, p.25).
"A curriculum is an attempt to communicate the essential principles and features of an
educational proposal in such a form that it is open to critical scrutiny and capable of
effective translation into practice." (Stenhouse 1975, p.4).

4

Teachers are sometimes sceptical of the innovative products of researchers and curriculum
developers. This maybe unpleasant for the developers, however, as Stenhouse argues,
teachers' "pragmatic scepticism" should be taken as an impulse of questioning, of wanting to
know better, of wanting to develop – in short: as an impulse to research. Even in 1975,
Stenhouse had titled a chapter of his introduction to curriculum research with "teacher as
researcher".

If one aims "quality practice" one cannot wish that practitioners take a curriculum proposal
literally, that they work towards a one-to-one translation of the curriculum proposal into
practice, that they "apply" it the local practice as true as possible to the original intentions,
since it is – as knowledge in general – preliminary, hypothetical, incomplete, more or less de-
contextualized and worth of being scrutinized and developed. Rather, one must wish that
teachers take the specific circumstances of their locality and of their constituencies into
account in order to produce and evaluate a local version of the curriculum which is adapted
to what is productive and feasible under these specific circumstances.
"The mistake is to see the classroom as a place to apply laboratory findings rather than as a
place to refute or confirm them. Curriculum workers need to share the psychologists'
curiosity about the process of learning rather than to be dominated by their conclusions."
(Stenhouse 1975, p.26).

Thus, the main actors of implementation are the practitioners themselves, because they are
responsible for the educational process and they cannot pass on this responsibility to external
agencies (Stenhouse 1985, p.57). External agencies and persons, such as researchers,
curriculum developers, in-service trainers may support and stimulate the development of
practice; decisions about initiating development and the control over its direction are the
realm of practitioners' professional judgment (Stenhouse 1985, p.104).

For Stenhouse, quality curriculum implementation necessitates curriculum research and
evaluation as well as teacher development in the process of implementation and under
practitioners' participation. Implementation must attend to specific local conditions and to
process experiences of the persons involved in the process of implementation (Schön, 1987).
Curriculum development is not just the production of written goals and materials before
classroom practice but, at the end, concrete interaction in the classroom between learners and
teachers aiming to develop situations with high learning potential.
End of excursus

To sum up this comparison of approaches to implementation: While for the programmed
approach curriculum development takes exclusively place before implementation, and
implementation is application of pre-specified models, for the adaptive-evolutionary
approach the curriculum is also made during and through implementation. In the
programmed approach an implementation is evaluated through the correspondence between
the actual use of the innovation and the developers' intentions (e.g. Leithwood and
Montgomery 1980, p.9). An adaptive-evolutionary approach cannot just test the effects of an
innovation against a set of pre-specified objectives, since responsibility for practice will ask
for evaluating the overall effects, i.e. including side-effects (Schön, 1983). Thus, an
evaluation must "provide a comprehensive understanding of the complex reality (or realities)
surrounding the programme" in order to "illuminate" the state of the innovation and the
options for its further development for the different constituencies involved (Partlett and
Hamilton 1977, p.21).

5

The programmed approach has certain strengths: It takes care to communicate its intentions
and ways of implementation as clear as possible and, thus, its evaluation criteria are
unambiguous. However, it has also some weaknesses, the most important of which are, first,
it is only suitable for such innovations which are actually programmable. Many researchers
claim that curricula for more complex educational goals are not easily programmable because
our knowledge about the conditions of application is not sufficient. Secondly, needs and
characteristics of persons and organizations in different regions may vary so much that some
leeway is desirable in order to cope with situational implementation problems.

The adaptive-evolutionary approach is strong in adapting an innovation to situational
characteristics. It also claims that complex changes necessitate relearning and, thus, invites
participants to participate actively in the process of implementation which is seen as a prime
opportunity for internalizing the main characteristics of the innovation. Its main weaknesses
are: first, problems may arise because of ambiguous objectives, variation of ways of
implementation, and shifting evaluation criteria. Secondly, evaluation of success is difficult
and may vary between different persons and constituencies because no common criteria are
available from the outset (Fullan 1983, p. 496).

Similarly, Berman (1980) has argued that both approaches have their merits and that the
implementation approach should be chosen according to its fit to the specific implementation
situation (Fig. 4). Thus, the programmed approach is appropriate if the amount of change
intended is small or orchestrated in a gradual manner, if the curriculum may be specified
according to tested and widely known teaching methods, if the persons concerned by the
implementation agree to objectives and methods, if the school is comparatively integrated
and its environment (e.g. the community) comparatively stable. Where these conditions are
not met, an adaptive strategy may be more appropriate (Fullan 1983, p.498)

Fig. 4: Indication for curriculum approaches (after Berman 1980)

Programmed approach Adaptive-evolutionary
amount of change small, step by step big
curriculum technology fixed, tested and known adaptive, open methods
methods
attitude of participants agreement conflict
integration/ organization high integration diversity
stability of environment stable unstable

In practice, any practical implementation project will be situated somewhere between the
extremes of the dichotomy just introduced. However in my view, it makes sense for
curriculum developers to ask themselves what type of solution of the implementation
problem they - implicitly or explicitly – favor through their organization of the
implementation process, and if this fits to the messages their curriculum implies and to the
localities it has to work in.

3. Facilitating and limiting factors for implementation

Whatever the general strategy of implementation might be, it makes sense to know more
about factors affecting implementation. Although there are a lot of individual and often
contradictory research results in different implementation localities, there is, nevertheless,

6

some convergence of research findings about key factors (Fullan 1994, p.2840; see Appendix
"Factors affecting implementation" for a summary). I shall use a heuristic distinction by
Fullan (1991, 1994) and first, present some groups of factors affecting implementation and in
the following section, I shall turn to more comprehensive "key themes" or process
characteristics of implementation processes.

A. Characteristics of the innovation itself

Characteristics of the innovation itself, in our case of the curriculum, affect the process of
implementation. It is not surprising that the higher a (perceived or felt) need for the solutions
the innovation proposes is, the better the chances for implementation are. Usually, a general
feeling of need or the expression of need by some political body or by academia is not
enough, rather this need must be perceived by the constituencies directly involved in the
implementation. It follows that "careful examination of whether or not [the changes] address
priority needs" (Fullan 1994, p.2840) lays important groundwork before and during the
production phase of a curriculum; and that frequent communication and open discussion of
the curriculum's merit for coping with felt need must maintain and develop an awareness of
this topic during the implementation process.

However, there are three complications with straightforwardly addressing needs (Fullan
1994, p.2840): First, there is a need for the solutions offered by a curriculum must not just
be 'one among many others'. Among the "overloaded improvement agendas" of today's
schools there is often competition between various innovation proposals which leads not too
rarely to vague development agendas within which no critical mass of improvement energy
can be accumulated behind any of the projects. "Developing a vision" (Section 4) could be
used as an instrument to prioritize among a set of desirables. Secondly and especially in the
case of complex changes, both precise needs and solutions offered by the curriculum are not
clear from the beginning. Thirdly, need interacts with other factors (see below).

Another crucial factor is the innovation's clarity (about goals and means). Curriculum
research unearthed examples of educational innovations where practitioners were not clear
about what they were expected to do differently – what change meant for them in practice. At
least in initial implementation phases teachers relish concreteness and tangibility. They
expect that teaching strategies are clearly described and material is well-thought of. The
proposal should be clear about ways of doing, but not too linear and restricting in the sense
that just one way of doing is advocated and no alternatives are possible. This need for clarity
has been interpreted as expression of a feeling of role ambiguity in a situation of uncertainty
produced by the new challenges of the innovation on one side and by the partly lacking
competencies on the teachers' part. It was also found that a more flexible approach may be
appropriate in later phases of implementation when teachers have strengthened their feeling
of competence with respect to the innovation (Lütgert and Stephan, 1983).

What does this finding mean for an adaptive-evolutionary approach? Wasn't it saying to be
not too clear about ways of teaching to allow teachers' experimentation? In my view "no".
Stenhouse advocated the curriculum as an 'intelligent proposal' and he certainly meant by this
to be as clear as possible about what the proposal is. But at the same time, he thought,
teachers should be encouraged and supported by resources and structure to evaluate this
proposal under specific circumstances and to develop it further.

A third factor is complexity which reflects the amount of new skills, altered beliefs und
different materials etc. required by an innovation. "… simple changes may be easier to carry

7

out, but they may not make much of a difference. Complex changes promise to accomplish
more, but they also demand more effort, and failure takes a greater toll. The answer seems to
be to break complex changes into components and implement them in a divisible and/or
incremental manner." (Fullan 1994, p.2841; Thomas 1994, p.1852).

A fourth factor lies in the (perceived) quality and practicality of the innovation proposal.
Again, it is not (only) the quality a panel of curriculum developers would attribute to the
curriculum proposal, but the quality as it is perceived by the relevant actors supposed to
implement the curriculum. One might distinguish several aspects of quality in this respect.
Firstly (but not always foremost), there is conceptual quality flowing from plausibility and
coherence of the conceptual elements employed. There is formal or communicative quality
coming from the language, graphical and social design of the presentation of the innovation
before and during the implementation process. And there is practical or logistic quality
stemming from the availability of materials and other resources, such as, for example, time
for development work or the consultation of external experts. As most innovation address
'urgent and ambitious needs', it happens that "decisions are frequently made without the
follow-up or preparation time necessary to generate adequate materials" (Fullan 1994,
p.2841).

It must be stressed that "quality" with respect to implementation points to the perceptions of
the different stakeholders: Thus, an essential feature of quality is contextual suitability: It has
been frequently demonstrated that imported programs rarely work equally well in all contexts
(e.g. Huberman and Miles, 1984). Innovation proposals must fit to available funds, specific
student characteristics, the communities' language patterns, teachers' abilities, parents'
expectations, cultural values and much more (Thomas 1994, p.1853).

"Quality" also means that a curriculum can pass the test of the 'practicality ethic of teachers'
(Doyle and Ponder, 1977-1978): Teachers appreciate these ideas, proposals or teaching
methods which have proven to "work" in practice or which promise by their appearance of
practicality to do so. Those proposals are considered as 'practical' which "address salient
needs, that fit well with the teacher's situation, that are focused and that include concrete
how-to-do-possibilities. 'Practical' does not necessarily mean 'easy' but it does mean the
presence of next steps." (Fullan 1994, p.2841)

Fig. 5: Overview of factors affecting implementation

A. Characteristics of the innovation itself
(perceived or felt) need
clarity (about goals and means)
complexity
quality, contextual suitability and practicality

B. Local characteristics
regional administration (e.g. school district)
history of negative experiences
adequate follow-through
active knowledge and understanding
active support
community characteristics
contextual stability

8

C. Organization
C1. Actors
management (e.g. principal and school management team)
level of commitment
obtaining resources
shielding from interference
encouraging staff / recognition
adapting standard procedures
teachers
competencies and attitudes
decision-making participation
quality of collegial relationships
students' and other participants' competencies and attitudes

C2. Organizational characteristics
compatibility of the innovation goals with the strategic goals of the organization
organizational structures and processes
system of incentives and career patterns
characteristics of the existing curriculum and assessment procedures
organizational culture

D. Government and external agencies
quality of relationships between central and local actors
resource support and training

B. Local characteristics

A second set of factors focuses on local decision processes and local characteristics of the
implementation: First, there is the regional administration (e.g. school district): The attitude
of regional administrators, inspectors and the like towards the local implementation process
is essential if change is meant to be serious. Without support of regional administrators
change may happen with individual teachers or single schools but it will most likely remain
isolated in some innovative pockets without affecting the broader system. Just 'moral support'
- in the sense of being given good words without any concrete implementation follow-
through - will no be enough. "Teachers and others know enough not to take change seriously
unless local administrators demonstrate through actions that they should." (Fullan, 1994, p.
2842)

There have been too many educational innovations without adequate follow-through. In
some regions there is a history of negative experiences with previous implementation
attempts which in itself is an unfavorable condition for change since system members may
have built up a cynic or apathetic attitude towards change. Local administrators must show
specific forms of active support including enduring (not just initial) support for school
management and teachers (e.g. through offers of process coaching, expert consultation,
demonstrations or excursions to alternative practices, in-service training etc.), through
realistic time plans and resourcing, and through an adequate information system about the
innovation and its implementation (Fullan 1983, p.492). And they must demonstrate active
knowledge and understanding both of the attempted change and the processes of putting it
into reality in order to provide conducive conditions for the implementation.
9

Another factor are community characteristics (as well as characteristics of the 'school board'
where it has some influence on the management of the school). Even where communities are
"not directly involved in implementation … they can become activated against certain
innovations" (Fullan 1994, p.2842) if the planning and implementation process does not
attend to the political undercurrents in the school's surrounding community. On the other
hand, the inclusion of non-professional, such as parents and the public, – at least in settings
where community members are used to influence educational practice - can uncover
objections and helps to accommodate to specific circumstances (see Thomas 1994, p.1855).
Then, parents may be "one of the most powerful leverages to better implementation" (Fullan
1994, p.2842) if they are actively included in the implementation strategy through an
adequate information system or realistic offers to participate in key phases of development
and implementation.

Finally, contextual stability makes a difference. It is much easier to successfully advance an
implementation within a stable environment. "Marked social change usually disrupts reform
projects that are already on the way." (Thomas 1994, p.1853)

C. Organizational characteristics
C1. Actors

Another crucial factor for implementation is the characteristics of the organization (e.g. the
school) which is the venue for implementation, and, in particular, the role of the
management, i.e. in the case of a school: the principal and the school management team.
There is broad research evidence that principals, headpersons and school management teams
cannot change schools just on their own, but that they are the single most influential group of
persons to make change processes fail. "The principal is the most likely person to be in a
position to shape the organizational conditions necessary for success such as the development
of shared goals, collaborative work structures and climates, and procedures for monitoring
results." (Fullan 1994, p.2842) Change processes are in need of the management's active
support and participation – not necessarily as curriculum experts, but as initiators, as 'change
leaders' (Fullan 1983, p.492).

Thus, the school leaders' level of commitment is a crucial feature: "The degree to which
people are committed to a reform is reflected in the time and energy they devote to its
implementation and in the extent to which they remain faithful to their role in the face of
opposition and operational difficulties." (Thomas 1994, p.1852), Commitment is important
at all levels of an educational hierarchy but particularly among the personnel at the top, so
e.g. among school principals or top administrators of districts or ministers of education. They
are in the position to give resources and impose both rewards and penalties, and they provide
well-observed images for how seriously the innovation is to be taken.

Firestone and Corbett (1988) have identified four leadership functions which facilitate
educational change:
Obtaining resources (e.g. for equipment, supplies, training, clerical support and free time)
Shielding the project from outside interference (e.g. disruption of teachers' working time,
resolving problems; protecting from attacks by opponents and from many competing
demands)
Encouraging staff members and furnishing recognition from peers, experts and
supervisors

10

Adapting standard operating procedures to the needs of the project at an early stage in the
reform process and, as Huberman and Miles (1984) suggested, stabilise and codify the
new practices in school house operating rules, revised curricula, training programs,
evaluation procedures and routine funding (Thomas 1994, p. 1854). In other words, the
earlier – even in the 'project phase' of implementation – the curriculum is partially built
into the routine operations of the school, the better.

In reality, headpersons frequently do not play an active role in implementation – not always
because they do not like the innovation itself – but sometimes because they find it difficult to
transform their traditional, more passive role (at least in the school systems of German
speaking countries) into a new and more active role as 'facilitator of change'. Thus, some
implementation programs provide specific offers for principals and school management, e.g.
specific workshops or optional coaching. These are to help them transform and maintain a
conducive role among implementation processes which frequently do not pass without some
conflict and pressure on the leader's role (Altrichter and Posch, 1999).

Teachers, their commitment and attitudes, competences, and interaction patterns make up
another crucial group of factors for implementation. Both individual and collegial aspects are
important. Teachers are a constant factor in the education system and thus have a key role for
classroom innovation (Havelock, 1970). If they are not motivated to engage with an
innovation, then nothing will happen. In the German discussion, Havelock's position has
been criticised in binding curriculum development to the "weakest element of the chain" (see
Haller 1983, 527). However, this involves, in my view, overstating Havelock's argument in
the way that teachers have to accept fully the innovation at any time of the implementation
process. Certainly, this cannot be expected. Certainly, every real innovation will involve
some aspects which are new for teachers and which will encounter some sceptical reaction.
Such discrepancies between claims of the innovation and acceptance of teachers may be
important starting points for further development. However, the relationship between
"irritation" (provided through the challenging elements of the curriculum and its
implementation) and "acceptance" must be in such a balance that participants are prepared to
embark and continue with the implementation process. Curriculum research shows that it is
possible to deal constructively with such discrepancies in implementation processes, but it
also shows that it is easier in situations of face-to-face-contact and that, again, it is much
more difficult to generalise results of those face-to-face negotiations to a broader group of
users (Haller, 1983, p.527).

Participation in decision-making: Traditionally educational innovation has tended to follow a
top-down pattern. However, it was frequently shown that including local personnel fosters
more effective implementation. "Early participation increases teachers' willingness to
continue new practices after the initial incentives have been withdrawn. Engaging teachers in
their planning process also helps to equip them with skills required by the innovation and
enhances the likelihood that the reform will be adapted to local circumstances." (Thomas
1994, p.1855) Thus, one of the mottoes of organisational development has been taken up also
by implementation projects, i.e. to make persons affected by change to persons involved in
change (e.g. Reinmann-Rothmeier and Mandl, 1999, p.68).

Certainly, the individual teacher's competencies and attitudes towards change itself and
towards the specific innovation intended are important factors contributing to the quality and
direction of the change process. Some schools, however, have more change-oriented teachers

11

on their staff than others. This is not only due to recruitment but also – as school quality
research has shown – an effect of specific school cultures (e.g. Purkey and Smith 1991; Eder
and Altrichter 2005).

Change involves the development of new practices and beliefs, i.e. it involves learning.
Where these new practices and beliefs are not trivial we must assume that these processes
extend over time and that they are fraught with feelings of being de-skilled, not knowing what
to do, lacking instruments, competencies, and resources, etc. Since it is an innovation the
learning process will refer to practices already established, i.e. it will involve re-learning.
Thus, the process of taking up an innovation may also be described in terms of a learning
process of individuals, groups, and organizations, and actually implementation projects only
can profit from what Mandl (in this volume) has explained as a constructivist view of
learning.

As alluded to above, teachers seem to have changing interests during different phases of
implementation. Initially, concrete proposal and non-paternalistic support seem to be
important in order to counteract the feelings of being de-skilled and of time pressure which
are connected with the innovation challenge. Later, a more comprehensive view on the
substantive and methodical implications of the innovation proposal becomes possible. No
wonder if the implementations process is seen as a "dynamic process of appropriating
curricular concepts" (Lütgert and Stephan 1983, p.508).

Individual teachers' learning is socially situated in a network of co-teachers, managers,
administrators, and other relevant participants. It will be easier if it is situated in a such
network which is both sympathetic and competent with respect to the changes aspired since it
will be possible to collegially fill in individual's gaps of motivation and qualification. "New
meanings, behaviors, skills, and beliefs depend significantly on whether teachers are working
as isolated individuals or are exchanging ideas, support, and positive feelings about their
work. The quality of working relationships among teachers is strongly related to
implementation. Collegiality, open communication, trust, support, and help, learning on the
job, getting results, and job satisfaction and morale are closely interrelated." (Fullan 1994,
2843) Thus, some researchers equal successful implementation with succeeding in building
up a 'community of learners' with respect to the innovation, Such a 'community' invests in
different occasions and instruments of collaborating, sharing, and synthesizing individual
knowledge and research in order to make full use of the expertise which is 'distributed' within
the relevant community and outside of it (Reinmann-Rothmeier and Mandl 1999, pp. 306 and
310; Altrichter 2005).

Lave and Wenger (1991) have insisted that learning - by virtue of its social situatedness -
also involves developing a specific identity in and vis a vis the respective 'community'.
Similarly, to implement an innovation means for the practitioners involved in a long-term
commitment to practice the innovation and to give it some centrality in their image of the
profession and the organization. Thus, implementation will be connected with some pressure
to transform professional identity, and it will only be considered successful if this
transformation is not just an individual one but is accompanied by other individuals' (i.e.
members of the organization to be transformed or of the 'community of learning') likewise
transformation, or to put it in other words: some by some transformation of (what is to count
as) the respective community of practice.

Certainly, innovations necessitate also other non-professional participants' learning. In the
case of curricular innovations it is obvious that students' relevant competencies and attitudes

12

are an important factor in implementation. If the innovative proposal is unclear, against their
perceived needs, over- or under-demanding etc. it may lose students' active participation (see
the example in Doyle and Ponder, 1977-1978). Also janitors, clerical staff and other
participants may be affected by the innovation, and in a position to actively support or block
implementation.

C2. Organizational characteristics

Compatibility of the goals of the innovation and its implementation with the strategic long-
term goals of the organization into which the innovation is to be implemented is crucial, too
(Sonntag et al, 1998, p.341; Euler and Sloane, 1998, p.325). The same holds true for
situational characteristics: Organizational structures, instruments and processes are
important factors for implementation. An innovation usually aims at directly transforming
some organizational structures and processes (e.g. new material for collaborative learning)
and in the process of doing so, also indirectly puts pressure on other organizational structures
and processes (e.g. teachers' work organization, time tabling, decision making procedures).
The system of incentives and the career patterns valid in the organization to be changed must
be re-thought in order to be in consonance with the innovation (Sonntag et al, 1998, p.343).
For curricular innovations the structure of the existing curriculum and assessment procedures
are particularly relevant: Attempting to change teaching and learning styles while syllabi and
assessments remain unaltered will most likely run into difficulties (Reinmann-Rothmeier and
Mandl 1999, p.294).

Thus, implementation must work towards a fit between the culture of the organization and
both the culture of the innovation proposal and its implementation process. Intensive
collaboration, collegial reflection and sharing of individual knowledge are features which to
some extent, run counter to the culture of traditional schools (at least in German speaking
countries) which may e.g. characterized by a frame of mind called "autonomy-parity-pattern"
by Lortie (1975). This pattern is characterized by two rules which are considered crucial for
smooth interaction between teachers: First, no grown-up person should interfere in a teacher's
classroom ("autonomy"). Secondly, all teachers are to be treated equally, regardless of their
actual competencies, energy invested, and qualities displayed. It has been shown that new
challenges, such as school development or quality evaluation, tend to interfere with these
rules since they usually opt for more coordination and sharpening profiles of the organization
(which interferes with autonomy). And they are in need of delegation and differential taking
up of development roles, and of evaluation which is necessary for rationally steering more
autonomous organizations (which interferes with "parity"; Altrichter, 2000). In a recent study
in vocational upper secondary schools we found that the relative weight of teachers who
discard "autonomy" and "parity" as guiding principles for collegial life in schools is decisive
for successful engagement in school development (Eder and Altrichter 2002).

The culture of learning valid in an organisation is particularly important because it does not
only refer – in the case of curriculum implementation - to central content aspects of the
innovation, but also to conditions of learning during the process of implementation. Using
Weinert’s definition, we see the organizational culture of learning as the totality of forms of
learning and styles of teaching which are typical for an organisation at a given time including
the anthropological, psychological, societal and educational orientation on which they are
based (Weinert, 1997, p.12). It is considered conducive for implementation
if learning is awarded a high profile in the goals, vision, resources, and instruments of an
organization (Sonntag et al, 1998, pp. 344ff)

13

if there are forums for learning and information exchange in the regular operation of the
organisation (e.g. the cases in Willke 1995, pp.58ff ; Mingers, 1998)
if there are conducive images of learning continuously represented in the organisation by
management and other participants; i.e. that the competent learner is valued, not just the
full expert who is right in any case (Reinmann-Rothmeier and Mandl 1999, p.307).

It follows that innovation also involves or necessitates an innovation of school as an
organization, i.e. a process of system change or organizational learning (Euler and Sloane
1998, p.320). Organizational learning is – as has been frequently described (Altrichter et al,
1998) – not a straightforward process because it deals with transforming structures which
have been and are continuously partially self-produced and reinforced by the actors in the
organization to be changed (Giddens 1988). Consequently, we will expect some 'resistance'
in the course of the implementation process and adverse reaction to innovation does not
always aim at the characteristics of the innovation itself but sometimes at the pressure to
transform one's way of working and relating to colleagues in schools.

D. Government and other agencies

Priorities for education which arise from political forces, lobbying of interest groups and
public concerns channel resources and gratification, "put pressure on local districts
(sometimes to the point of mandates) and also provide various incentives for changing in the
desired direction." (Fullan, 1994, p.2843) Its instruments are legislation, regional guidelines,
incentives, sponsored projects etc. Fullan (ibid.) is critical of government agencies which all
too often "have been preoccupied with policy and program adoption, and have vastly
underestimated the problems and processes of implementation. The policy maker and the
local practitioner inhabit different worlds, each side ignorant of the subjective world of the
other."

In fact, the quality of relationships between central and local actors is a key issue of
implementation. However, all too often it has come "in the form of episodic events rather
than processes: for example, submission of requests for money, intermittent progress reports
on what is being done, external evaluations, all amounting to paper work, rather than people
work." (Fullan, 1994, p.2843)

Through resource support and training (Lütgert and Stephan, 1983, p.510) external agencies
can promote curriculum implementation. "… through resource support, standardization, and
closer monitoring, state departments of education have sometimes directly influenced
implementation of specific objectives, especially when local conditions were favorable.
Mostly, however, lack of role clarity, ambiguity about expectations, absence of regular
interpersonal communication, ambivalence between authority and support roles of external
agencies, and solutions that do not work have combined to frustrate implementation."
(Fullan, 1994, p.2843)

4. Process characteristics of successful implementation

A more holistic and dynamic conceptualization is provided by a formulation of key process
characteristics in successful improvement efforts (e.g. Louis and Miles, 1990). According to
Fullan (1994, p.2843) there is a small number of powerful themes which - in combination -
make a difference." What are these themes?

14

Preparation, initiation and participation
Reform needs some impetus to gets started. Some preparatory collection and analysis of
data about the state of the system to be innovated will help to focus energy (see Sonntag et
al,. 1998, p.335; Euler and Sloane, 1998, p.325). A 'project architecture' will have to be
built up which includes formal and informal power centers and assigns specific roles to
different constituencies involved and which is organizing social places and instruments for
participation (op.cit., p.334ff; Königswieser and Exner 1999, p.45ff).

Although 'participation and empowerment' are key themes of the whole implementation
process, that does not mean that widespread involvement at initial stages is "either feasible or
effective". To introduce an innovation at the same time to the whole target group may not be
the wisest strategy (e.g. Sonntag et al, 1998, p.344). "It is more likely the case that small
groups of people begin and, if successful, build momentum. Active initiation, starting small
and thinking big, bias for action, and learning by doing are all aspects of making change
more manageable, by getting the process under way in a desirable direction." (Fullan 1994,
p.2846)

Vision building
If an organization or a project has a vision, it permeates the (project) organization with value
and purpose which give direction and driving power for development (see Fullan 1994,
p.2844). According to Louis and Miles (1990) vision has two aspects, an image of the
organization to be changed, what it could or should look like, and an image of the change
process, for the strategy for getting there. "While virtually everyone agrees that vision is
crucial, the practice of vision building is not well understood." (Fullan 1994, p.2844) Most
literature talks about what should or could be, however, there are only a few more thorough
empirical studies of actual processes of vision building in education (e.g. Krainz-Dürr,
2001).

Evolutionary Development
"For major change, highly specified planning is unwise. 'Have a plan, but learn by doing.'"
(Fullan 1994, p.2844). Successful schools, e.g. in the Louis and Miles (1990) study, "adapted
their plans as they went along to improve the fit between the change and conditions in the
school to take advantage of unexpected developments and opportunities." (Fullan 1994, p.
2844). The art of implementation lies in blending top-down initiatives and bottom-up
participation. Obviously, some pragmatic flexibility is needed "that permits a reform program
to accommodate unexpected, uncontrollable events while still attempting to preserve the
main trust of the plan." (Thomas 1994, p.1853)

Initiative-taking and empowerment
In Louis and Miles' (1990) study, "leaders in successful schools supported and stimulated
initiative-taking by others; set up cross-hierarchical steering groups consisting of teachers,
administrators, and sometimes parents and students; and delegated authority and resources to
the steering group, while maintaining active involvement with the groups." (Fullan 1994,
p.2844)
For organizational leaders it is obviously essential to get people to act and interact in
purposeful directions, and if they do so, also to support them, to give them resources and to
delegate power - without themselves (as a leading persons) fully pulling out of the process.
Collaborative work cultures which may develop out of these networks of interaction provide
support for the individuals, but also continuous motivation and pressure to go ahead.

15

Pressure and support
Innovation research teaches us that it is not as simply as 'pressure' equals bad and 'support' is
good. The reason is that in organizations there are "many forces maintaining the status quo.
When change occurs it is because some pressure has built up that leads to action." (Fullan
1994, p.2846) 'Pressure' is not to be equated with brute power and oppression, and in fact,
such type of 'pressure' would rarely work effectively. Various arrangements of interaction
between the implementers, such as meetings, collaborative working groups, presentation
meetings etc., serve "to integrate both pressure and support. One of the reasons that peer
coaching works so effectively is that it combines pressure and support in a seamless way."
(ibid.)

As I said: 'pressure' is not simply bad and 'support' is good. Rather it seems that one without
the other is bad for implementation. "Pressure without support leads to resistance and
alienation; support without pressure leads to drift or waste of resources." (ibid.) An
elaboration of this idea has been proposed by Strittmatter (2001). He argues that in order to
sustain change processes in schools there must be both motives of ability (can), necessity
(must) and volition (wish). They are in a multiplicative relationship: If one of these three
motivational areas is nil, the sum will be nil, i.e. the overall motivational energy will not be
sufficient to sustain an extended change process.

Staff development and resource assistance
Innovation necessitates (partially) new expertise. Educational establishments would rarely
attempt to acquire this expertise by hiring additional personnel. Thus, innovation involves a
process of relearning competencies and attitudes for the existing personnel. Many formats for
training staff have been developed, such as e.g. written directions, periodicals, teachers'
guidebooks, live or videotaped lectures and demonstrations, in-service workshops, on-site
supervision (Thomas 1994, p.1856). However, whenever relearning is to mean not only
acquisition of new verbal power but of new and stabilised skills and action patterns, then
relearning must be based on action and interaction over an extended time span (see Gruber
and Renkl 2000, p.169; Stenhouse 1975).

Many attempts at change fail because they underestimate the individual and social energy
that is necessary for re-learning. Staff development is too often designed as a one-off
initiative at too early a stage of the change process (Breuer and Höhn, 1998; Reinmann-
Rothmeier and Mandl, 1999, p.68). Pre-implementation training may be helpful for orienting
people towards new aims and practices, however, support is most crucial when participants
actually try to implement new approaches, i.e. during implementation, and in particular,
during early stages of implementation (e.g. Reinmann-Rothmeier and Mandl 1999, p.67).
"Learning by doing, concrete role models, meetings with resource consultants and other
implementers, practice of the behavior, the fits and starts of cumulative, ambivalent, gradual
self-confidence are all crucial. Training approaches to implementation are successful when
they combine concrete teacher-specific training activities, ongoing continuous assistance and
support during the process of implementation, and regular meetings with peers and others."
(Fullan 1994, p.2845)

Monitoring, evaluation and problem-coping
All serious improvement programs will encounter problems. However, it makes a difference
whether innovators are prepared to identify them quickly and develop coping measures or
whether they avoid to face them. Thus, self-reflection, self-evaluation and monitoring both
the outcomes and the process of change is an essential element of every effective
implementation strategy (Sonntag et al, 1998, p.342ff; Reinmann-Rothmeier and Mandl,

16

1999, p.307). Monitoring does not just fulfil a 'critical function' in identifying problems and
failure. It has also a 'constructive' function in multiple respects: Certainly, it is meant to
orient adaptation measures. Organized effectively, it may provide some emotional support
when implementation problems arise and when participants are in danger of falling into the
"implementation dip", into the feeling that situational control is lost among changing
circumstances and 'everything is getting worse'. Further, it may give access to good practical
ideas which in traditional school cultures too often remain unknown and isolated as
individual teachers' knowledge (Altrichter et al, 1993, p.176). Thus, monitoring may fuel
exchange of implementation experience and collaborative planning of next steps by users and
curriculum makers (Lütgert and Stephan, 1983, p.510).

Although most innovation researchers would agree to the importance of evaluation and
monitoring of progress, it is "probably one of the most difficult and complex strategies for
change 'to get right'. … Accountability and improvement can be effectively interwoven, but it
requires great sophistication." (Fullan and Stiegelbauer, 1991, p.87) Evaluation is very often
planned too late. People in initial phases of an innovation are pre-occupied with the "more
practical" issues of making the innovation work. As they feel that not everything is working
as smoothly as they had hoped, they become more wary of evaluation because they fear that
mistakes will become visible. Evaluation also threatens the long-standing culture of
autonomy and parity in traditional schools by intruding into the privacy of the classroom and
producing information which allows to differentiate between teachers (Altrichter, 2000).

However, innovative schools do not only monitor progress, they also act upon the
information collected in order to redirect their change process. Louis and Miles (1990) found
that "unsuccessful sites used shallow coping strategies such as avoidance, denial,
procrastination, people-shuffling, while successful sites engaged in deep problem-solving
such as redesign, creating new roles, providing additional assistance and time and the like."
(Fullan 1994, p.2845)

Restructuring
"Structure" is meant to "include organizational arrangements, roles, finance, governance, and
formal policies which explicitly build on working conditions that support improvement."
(Fullan 1994, p.2845) Our definition emphasized that innovation is always restructuring to
some extent. In practice, the need e.g. for revised time tabling, shuffling resources, time for
individual and team planning, time for visiting other colleagues or joint teaching, staff
development policies and practices, new roles such as mentors and coaches etc. may surface
during implementation. Where this task of restructuring is taken up explicitly and pro-
actively in the course of the implementation (instead of waiting for the pressure to be so high
that rearrangements cannot be avoided any longer), the chance of producing sustainable
results will be higher.

Intensive communication und relationships to external agencies
In the perspective of systems theory organizations are special social systems which are made
up of a special form of communication, of decisions (Luhmann 1988, p.92; Willke 1994,
p.114 and p.150ff). Organizational innovations aims at changing the decisions which are
characteristic of the organization. In order to achieve this, phases of innovation must intensify
the richness and variety of communication in an organization (Reinmann-Rothmeier and
Mandl, 1999, p.73). Practically, a pro-active in-house information policy is meant to feed in
communication with relevant information, and the establishment of forums of information
exchange and collaboration are supposed to intensify innovation-relevant communication

17

(Sonntag et al, 1998, p.342). Also cross-departmental communication and exchange with
external experts are supported in order to enhance the chance of seeing alternative solutions.
But also clear and pro-active information and communication with the organization's
environment and the interested public is important in order to avoid adverse reactions, to
make the innovative changes understood, and, at times, to invite alternative perspectives
(Reinmann-Rothmeier and Mandl 1999, p.307; 1999, p.76).

5. Conclusion

In this paper I have presented descriptions of implementation from three different angles,
from the view of two broad 'philosophies' of implementation, from an analytic view on
important factors contributing to successful implementation which have identified by
innovation research, from the perspective of organizational developers formulating critical
themes or process characteristics. Out of the overlaps between these perspectives an image of
implementation is emerging which may be characterized by the following elements:

Implementation involves changes in behaviors and beliefs and, thus, involves processes
of learning: If these new practices and beliefs are not trivial, these processes will extend
over time and will be fraught with feelings of being de-skilled, not knowing what to do,
lacking instruments, competencies, and resources, etc.
Innovation requires both changes in action and attitude. Contrary to the usual
assumption, "it seems that most people do not discover new understandings until they
have delved into something. In many cases, changes in behavior precede rather than
follow changes in belief." (Fullan 1994, p.2846) It follows first, that concrete
instructions, materials, examples and coaching or peer interaction which help to develop
and modify practices are essential for implementation. Secondly however, changes in
belief are not futile. Rather, they are essential to make sense of the new practices,
organize them and hold them together in a system of meaning which is a precondition for
extended practice and flexible adaptation to varying circumstances.
Implementation involves development and evaluation: To implement these new practices
into a fairly complex new environment will not be done by just copying a master-plan or
a model from some other place, but will involve some process of selection, construction,
problem-solving, interpretation, and (re-)invention which 'situates' and changes the
original model (Euler and Sloane 1998, p.319ff). This feature necessitates that the
implementation process and its products is monitored as it proceeds, and that the
information produced thereby is used for fine-tuning or re-directing the implementation
process.
Implementation is obviously complex: "Even if the need and the idea is right, the sheer
complexity of the process of implementation, has, as it were, a sociological mind of its
own, which frequently defies management even when all parties have the best of
intentions." (Fullan 1994, p.2847)
Implementation is an extended and dynamic process: Learning extends over time and will
change the situation in which it is to be learned (Reinmann-Rothmeier-Mandl 1999,
p.66). "Deeper meaning and solid change must be borne over time. With particular
changes, especially complex ones, one must struggle through ambivalence before being
sure that the new vision it workable and right …" (Fullan 1994, p.2841; my emphasis)
Factors affecting successful implementation are in a systemic relationship: Set of factors
"form a system of variables that interact to determine success of failure" (Fullan 1994,
p.2840) "Single-factor theories of change are doomed to failure. … Effective
implementation depends on the combination of all the factors ... " (Fullan 1994, p.2846)

18

More than that, implementation will involve systemic change and, thus, necessitate some
organization development (Euler and Sloane, 1998, p.320). It follows that
implementation will involve learning processes on different levels (Reinmann-Rothmeier
and Mandl 1999, p.66ff): Individual learning processes (as have been described above)
will be complemented by group learning (e.g. exchange of knowledge and findings,
mutual support, collaborative problem-solving) and organizational learning which aims
for changing relevant structures, processes, and cultures in a way which resonates with
the main thrust of the innovation.
Implementation involves participation, ownership and development of professional
identities. Innovators will want to stimulate persons involved to more comprehensive
participation. This is seen as a necessary precondition for successful innovation which
asks for practitioners' commitment and "ownership". Ownership in the sense of clarity,
skill and commitment is not acquired easily; it is a progressive process which must be
supported by the arrangements of the implementation process.
As social and cultural learning theories stress (Lave and Wenger, 1991; Bielaczyz and
Collins 1999, p.275) learning new practices is interwoven with other actors' learning
processes in a social setting, and is connected with processes of identity formation. Thus,
implementation will always involve some transformation of the professional identities of
the persons involved.
Implementation of complex innovations does not lend itself to a strict separation of
phases of research, development and implementation: On one hand, issues of
implementation must be anticipated in early phases of conceiving an innovation
(Reinmann-Rothmeier and Mandl 1999, p.75). On the other hand, implementation itself
must be seen as a process of further developing the innovation proposal and of
researching its effects and transformations under specific local conditions. In this
perspective, implementation is understood as an element of a circular process of
conceiving implementing reflecting, and re-conceiving innovations proposals, or of
theory building, theory application, and testing of theories (Euler and Sloane, 1998,
p.322). If this argument makes sense, then research in implementation processes would
hold more theoretical relevance than usually is attributed to it.
To tighten the relationship between development, implementation, and research – this is
the shared message of Stenhouse's 'teacher as researcher'-model (Section 2) and the idea
of 'modus 2-research' which is advocated by Reinmann-Rothmeier and Mandl (1999,
p.71ff) as a complement to traditional (modus 1) research. They argue that knowledge
should increasingly be developed in the context of its use; processes of problem
formulation and solving should be based on heterarchic teams of persons from different
disciplinary and professional backgrounds in a complex application-oriented
environment. Modus 2-research opts against a strict separation between basic and
application-oriented research: "Research becomes a cyclical process, in which theories
and practical recommendations will be continuously analysed, tested in practice and
revised, when necessary" (op. cit., p.73)

The complexity of the implementation process makes predictions of success risky. However,
it makes it very profitable for curriculum makers to actively engage in this elusive process of
supporting implementation. And it also makes it very "profitable to monitor implementation
with care at each stage of the process, so that remedies may be applied periodically toward
coping with unanticipated difficulties." (Thomas 1994, p.1852; my emphasis)

19

References

Altrichter, H. (2000) Konfliktzonen beim Aufbau schulischer Qualitätssicherung und Qualitätsentwicklung.
Zeitschrift für Pädagogik, 41. Beiheft, 93-110.
Altrichter, H. (2005) The role of the "professional community" in teacher research. In Educational Action
Research) 13, 1, 11 -25.
Altrichter, H. and Posch, P. (1999). Wege zur Schulqualität. Innsbruck: StudienVerlag .
Altrichter, H., Posch, P. and Somekh, B. (1993) Teachers Investigate their Work. London: Routledge.
Altrichter, H. and Salzgeber, St. (2000) Some Elements of a Micro-Political Theory of School Development. In
H. Altrichter and J. Elliott (eds.), Images of Educational Change (pp.99-110). Buckingham : Open
University Press.
Altrichter, H./Schley, W./Schratz, M. (eds.): Handbuch zur Schulentwicklung. StudienVerlag: Innsbruck 1998.
Berman, P.: Thinking about Implementation Design: matching Strategies to Situations. In: Mann, D./Ingram, H.
(eds.): Why Policies Succeed or Fail. Sage: Berkeley 1980.
Berman, P./McLaughlin, M.: Federal Programs Supporting Educational Change, Vol. VII: Factors Affecting
Implementation and Continuation. US Office of Education, Dpt. of Health, Education and Welfare:
Washington, D.C. 1977.
Bielaczyz, K./Collins, A.: Learning Communities in Classrooms: A Reconceptualisation of Educational Practice.
In: Reigeluth, C.M. (ed.): Instructional Design Theories and Models. Vol. II. Erlebaum: Mahwah, N.J. 1999,
269-292.
Breuer, K./Höhn, K.: Die Implementation eines Qualitätsförderungssystems für berufliche Abschlussprüfungen.
In. Unterrichtswissenschaft 26(1998)4, 348 – 364.
Doyle, W. & Ponder, G.: The practicality ethic in teacher decision-making. In: Interchange 8(1977-1978)3, 1-12.
Eder, F./Altrichter, H.: Das „Autonomie-Paritäts-Muster― als Innovationsbarriere? Referat beim DfGE-
Kongressm München 2002.
Euler, D./Sloane, T.F.E.: Implementation als Problem der Modellversuchsforschung. In: Unterrichtswissenschaft
26(1998)4, 312 – 326.
Firestone, W.A./Corbett, H.D.: Planned organisational change. In: Boyan, N.J. (ed.): Handbook of research on
educational administration: Longman: New York 1988.
Fullan, M.: Implementation und Evaluation von Curricula: USA und Kanada. In: U. Hameyer/K. Frey/H. Haft
(Hrsg.): Handbuch der Curriculumforschung. Beltz: Weinheim 1983, 489 – 499.
Fullan, M.: Implementation of Innovations. In: Husen T, Postlethwaite T N (eds.) The International
Encyclopedia of Education. 2nd edition. Pergamon, Oxford 1994, 2839 – 2847.
Fullan, M./Pomfret, A.: Research on Curriculum and Instruction Implementation. In: Review of Educational
Research 47(1977)1, 335 – 397.
Fullan, M./Stiegelbauer, S.: The New Meaning of Educational Change. Cassell: London 1991.
Giddens, A.: Die Konstitution der Gesellschaft. Campus: Frankfurt/Main 1988.
Goodlad, J.I.: Curriculum as a Field of Study. In: Husen T, Postlethwaite T N (eds.) The International
Encyclopedia of Education. 2nd edition. Pergamon, Oxford 1994, 1262 – 1267.
Gruber, H./Renkl, A.: Die Kluft zwischen Wissen und Handeln: Das Problem des trägen Wissens. In: Neuweg,
G.H.: Wissen – Können - Reflexion. StudienVerlag: Innsbruck 2000, 155 - 174.
Haller, H.-D.: Implementation und Evaluation von Curriculumprozesse. In: In: U. Hameyer/K. Frey/H. Haft
(Hrsg.): Handbuch der Curriculumforschung. Beltz: Weinheim 1983, 521-529.
Hameyer, U./Frey, K./Haft, H. (Hrsg.): Handbuch der Curriculumforschung. Beltz: Weinheim 1983.
Havelock, R.G.: Guide to innovation in education. University of Michigan: Ann Arbor 1970.
Hopmann, St./Riquarts, K. (Hrsg.): Didaktik und/oder Curriculum. In: Zeitschrift für Pädagogik (1995)33.
Beiheft [English edition: Hopmann, St./Riquarts, K. (Hrsg.): Didaktik and/or Curriculum. IPN: Kiel 1995]
Huberman, A.N./Miles, M.B.: Innovation up close: How school improvement works. Plenum: New York 1984.
Königswieser, R./Exner, A.: Systemische Intervention. Klett-Cotta: Stuttgart 19993.
Krainz-Dürr, M.: Zusammenfassung. In: IFF Projekt Schulprogrammentwicklung an berufsbildenden Schulen an
II. Ms. Klagenfurt 2001, 95-99.
Lave, J./Wenger, E.: Situated Learning. Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge University Press:
Cambridge UK 1991.
Leithwood, K.A./Montgomery, D.J.: Evaluating program implementation. In: Evaluation Quaterly 4(1980),
193—214.
Lortie, D. C.: Schoolteacher. A Sociological Study. University of Chicago Press: Chicago 1975.
Louis, K./Miles, M.B.: Improving the Urban High School: What Works and Why. Teachers College Press: New
York 1990.
Luhmann, N: Soziale Systeme. Grundriss einer allgemeinen Theorie. Suhrkamp: Frankfurt/M. ²1988.
Lütgert, W./Stephan, H.-O.: Implementation und Evaluation von Curricula: Deutschsprachiger Raum. In: In: U.
Hameyer/K. Frey/H. Haft (Hrsg.): Handbuch der Curriculumforschung. Beltz: Weinheim 1983, 501-520.

20

Mingers, S.: Systemische Beratungsunternehmen. In: Willke, H.: Systemisches Wissensmanagement . Lucius &
Lucius: Stuttgart 1998, 126-151.
Partlett, M./Hamilton, D.: Evaluations as Illumination: A New approach to the Study of Innovatory Programmes.
In: Hamilton, D.: Beyond the Numbers Game. McCutchan 1977, 6 – 22.
Purkey, S. C./Smith, M. S.: Wirksame Schulen - Ein Überblick über die Ergebnisse der Schulwirkungsforschung
in den Vereinigten Staaten. In: Aurin, K. (Hrsg.): Gute Schulen - Worauf beruht ihre Wirksamkeit?
Klinkhardt: Bad Heilbrunn 21991, 13 - 45.
Reinmann-Rothmeier, G./Mandl, H.: Implementation konstruktivistischer Lernumgebungen – revolutionärer
Wandel oder evolutionäre Veränderung? In: Renk, H.-E. (Hrsg.): Lernen und leben aus der Welt im Kopf.
Luchterhand: Neuwied 1999, 61-78.
Schön, D.A.: The Reflective Practitioner. Temple Smith: London 1983.
Schön, D.A.: Educating the Reflective Practitioner. Jossey-Bass: San Francisco 1987.
Sonntag, K./Stegmair, R./Jungmann, A.: Implementation arbeitsbezogener Lernumgebungen – Konzepte und
Umsetzungserfahrungen. In: Unterrichtswissenschaft 26(1998)4, 327 – 347.
Stenhouse, L.: An introduction to curriculum research and development. Heinemann: London 1975.
Stenhouse, L.: Research as a Basis for Teaching. Heinemann: London 1985.
Strittmatter, A.: Bedingungen für die nachhaltige Aufnahme von Neuerungen an Schulen. In: journal für
schulentwicklung 5(2001)4, 58 – 66.
Thomas, R.M.: Implementation of educational reforms. In: Husen T./Postlethwaite, T.N. (eds.): The
International Encyclopedia of Education. 2nd edition. Pergamon: Oxford 1994, 1852-1857.
Weinert, F.E.: Lernkultur im Wandel. In: Beck, E./Guldimann, T./Zutavern, N. (Hrsg.): Lernkultur im Wandel.
UVK: St. Gallen 1997, 11-29.
Willke, H.: Systemtheorie II: Interventionstheorie. Gustav Fischer: Stuttgart 1994.
Willke, H.: Das intelligente Unternehmen – Wissensmanagement der Organisation. In: Beratergruppe
Neuwaldegg (Hrsg.): Intelligente Unternehmen – Herausforderung Wissensmanagement. Service Fachverlag:
Wien 1995, 49-70.

21

Curriculum implementation

More Related Content

What's hot (20)

Viewers also liked (6)

Similar to Curriculum implementation (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

Curriculum implementation