History Teachers and Syllabus Change: Examining the Middle Ground of Curriculum

Abstract

This study is about how teachers interpret and enact curriculum. In particular it focuses on the ways in which history teachers have interpreted and enacted the 1998 New South Wales (NSW) 1998 Stages 4-5 (years 7-10) History Syllabus (hereafter, the 1998 syllabus) prior to classroom implementation. The new syllabus is the product of a mandated, top-down syllabus change process. The development of this new syllabus document was highly contested and after much public debate was released to all NSW secondary schools for staged implementation across 1999-2002. How history teachers individually and collectively perceived and enacted this new syllabus document prior to classroom implementation is of interest for a number of reasons. First, this new syllabus has the potential to impact upon the ways in which history is taught, learnt and assessed in NSW secondary schools. Second, what is largely absent from existing curriculum research is an investigation of how teachers interpret and enact new curriculum prior to classroom implementation: that is, an examination of teachers’ enactment of a new curriculum document before they enter the classroom. Goodson (1994) refers metaphorically to this as the ‘middle ground’ of curriculum. Whilst Goodson introduced this term in the early 1990s, further interest in this field has been scarce. This study locates the middle ground of curriculum between the high ground of curriculum (the formal construction of the written curriculum) and its ground-level implementation in the classroom. It acknowledges the dynamic interaction between these varying levels of curriculum and the role of teachers as active participants in the interpretation and enactment of curriculum. The study reconceptualises the middle ground metaphor as a means of examining history teachers’ interpretation and enactment of the 1998 syllabus prior to classroom implementation. A proposed model of the middle ground of curriculum is developed as a conceptual framework through which the following research questions are addressed: • What are the sites, contexts and processes that comprise the middle ground of curriculum? • How have history teachers interpreted and enacted the 1998 syllabus in the middle ground of curriculum? • How and why do the sites, contexts and processes that constitute the middle ground of curriculum influence the ways in which history teachers interpret and enact this new syllabus document before they implement it in the classroom? To address these questions, a series of interpretive case studies was undertaken. It was assumed that the subject department was a logical and relevant site in which to ground the study. Accordingly three history/HSIE departments (Illangara, Northside and St Bernadette’s), from government, independent and Catholic secondary school contexts respectively, were involved in the study over an 18-month period of time. Data collection tools included document analysis, participant observation, interviews and focus groups. This study demonstrates that the history/HSIE department acts as a concrete and conceptual site that shapes the ways in which history teachers individually and collectively interpret and enact new curriculum. Further, the operation of a history/HSIE department as a conduit for syllabus change centres on the interaction of three inter-related contexts – subject sub-cultures, teacher culture and teacher self-identity. The interaction between these three contexts varied across the three history/HSIE departments studied and thus provided history teachers within each of the three departments with different frames though which they could locate themselves in the process of syllabus change. The study found that such variance was due to the different features and dimensions of these three contexts and the ways in which they interacted within specific history/HSIE departments. Most importantly the interaction of these contexts shapes teachers’ perceived curriculum decision-making space. Teachers’ individual and collective perceptions of the nature and number of decisions available to them were evident in the micropolitical processes through which they enacted the 1998 syllabus. These processes are theorised along what Goldman and Conley refer to as the ‘zone of enactment’ and include: rejection, resistance, strategic compliance, individualism and pragmatism. Examination of these processes provides valuable insight into syllabus change processes and why the intended and actual outcomes of syllabus change are often divergent. It also provides greater understanding of the individual, collective, personal, professional and political dimensions of syllabus change and the potential cost of syllabus change to teachers. This study demonstrates the need for revision of formal syllabus development processes to acknowledge and successfully negotiate the contexts through which teachers interpret and enact curriculum. The study also provides a basis for greater research into the middle ground of curriculum. It is suggested that future research needs to cut across traditional school and subject boundaries.