Constituency Building and Resource Provision in Curriculum Change in Post-Independence Zimbabwe

##plugins.themes.academic_pro.article.sidebar##

Published Aug 23, 2024
https://doi.org/10.55677/ijhrsss/02-2024-Vol01I2
Download
PDF
Statistic
Vol. 1 No. 2 (2024): VOLUME 01 ISSUE 02 AUGUST

##plugins.themes.academic_pro.article.main##

Manasa Munashe Madondo
Department of Educational Foundations, University of Zimbabwe, Zimbabwe.
Hedwick Chigwida
Department of Educational Foundations, University of Zimbabwe, Zimbabwe.
Wilson Banda
Department of Educational Foundations, University of Zimbabwe, Zimbabwe.

Abstract

This article examines the role of constituency building and resource provision in the process of curriculum change in post-1980 Zimbabwe. It mainly utilises data from existent literature and documents to explore the role of these factors in curriculum change in the 1980 to 2014 and the 2015-2022 Zimbabwe Curriculum Framework for Primary and Secondary Education (ZCF 2015-2022). Based on an understanding that the curriculum change process encompasses phases of; initiation and conceptualisation, design, and implementation, the study examines how constituency building and resource provision impacted and can impact on these processes. The focus on constituency building and resource provision is on the realization that of the many variables that determine the nature and fate of curriculum change most are closely linked to these two factors. The study shows that in the period prior to 2015, curriculum change was spearheaded by the Curriculum Development Unit (CDU) Subject Panels (SP). In contrast, the ZCF (2015-2022) process was preceded by a new practice in constituency building in the form of a nationwide consultation exercise. With regards to resource provision, similar challenges were experienced in both the pre- and post-2015 periods. Overall, the level of constituency building, and resource provision efforts were far from being ideal. Main recommendation of the study is that attention to constituency building and resource provision in the various phases of the curriculum process would go a long way to ensure successful curriculation.

##plugins.themes.academic_pro.article.details##

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

How to Cite
Manasa Munashe Madondo, Hedwick Chigwida, & Wilson Banda. (2024). Constituency Building and Resource Provision in Curriculum Change in Post-Independence Zimbabwe. International Journal of Human Research and Social Science Studies, 1(2), 51–62. https://doi.org/10.55677/ijhrsss/02-2024-Vol01I2

References

  1. Ansell, C., Sørensen, E., & Torfing, J. 2017. Improving policy implementation through collaborative policy-making Policy and Politics DOI: 10.1332/030557317X14972799760260
  2. Bishop, G. 1986. Innovation in education. London: McMillan Publishers Ltd.
  3. Carl, A. (2009). Teacher empowerment through curriculum development theory into practice. Juta & Company Ltd.
  4. Chapman, D.W., Mahlck, L.O., & Smulders, A.E.M. 1997.Improving school practice: towards multi-level planning, monitoring and support, Chapter 12, 293-303.
  5. Chivore, B.R.S. 1992. Curriculum evaluation in Zimbabwe. Harare: Books for Africa.
  6. Cuban, L. 2013. Inside the black box of classroom practice change without reform in American education. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard Education Press.
  7. Curriculum Development Unit (CDU) 1990. Curriculum Development Unit Policy Document. Harare: CDU.
  8. Fernandez, T., Ritchie, G. & Barker, M. 2008. A sociocultural analysis of mandated curriculum change: The implementation of a new senior physics curriculum in New Zealand schools. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 40(2), 187-213.
  9. Fullan, M. & Stiegelbauer, S. 1991. The new meaning of educational change. London: Cassell.
  10. Fullan, M.G. 1993. Why teachers must become change agents. Educational Leadership, 50(6), 41-53.
  11. Harris, A. et al. (eds) 1975. Curriculum Innovation, London, Croom Helm.
  12. Havelock, R.G. 1973. The change agent’s guide to innovation in education. New Jersey: Educational Technology Publications.
  13. Hudson, B., Hunter, D., Peckman, S., 2019. Policy failure and the policy-implementation gap: can policy support programs help? Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor Francis Group.
  14. Kanyongo, G.Y. 2005. Zimbabwe’s public education system reforms: Successes and challenges. International Education Journal, 6(1), 65-74. Shannon Research Press. http://iej.cjb.net 65.
  15. London, N.A. 1997. A National strategy for systems-wide curriculum improvement in Trinidad and Tobago in 133-147. Chapter 6 in D. W. Chapman, Mahlck, L.O. & Smulders, A. E.M. eds. 1997. From planning to action: government initiatives for improving school-level practice, International Institute for Educational Planning (IIEP – UNESCO) Pergamon, Paris.
  16. Makamure, C. & JojoZ.M. 2023 The Role of Continuous Assessment Learning Activities (CALA) in Enhancing Mathematics Competency and Proficiency in Secondary School Learners. Mathematics Education Journals Vol. 7 No. 1(Online)
  17. Maphosa, C., Mutekwe, E., Machingambi, S., Wadesango, N., Ndofirepi, A. 2013. School Clusters in Zimbabwe: What Issues Do Clusters Tackle? International Journal of Edu Science, 5(3): 293-300.
  18. Maravanyika, E.O. 2018. Possibilities of enhancing efficacy in the current curriculum review exercise through curriculum analysis. Zimbabwe Journal of Educational Research, 30 (1), 68-75.
  19. MoPSE, 2016. Narrative report 2014-2015: Curriculum review process. Harare: Government Printers.
  20. MoPSE, 2018. Aide memoir of the 2017 Education Sector Review Report-presentation.
  21. Harare. MoPSE Moodley, G. 2013. Implementation of the curriculum and assessment policy statements: Challenges and implications for teaching and learning (Unpublished M.Ed. dissertation). UNISA, Pretoria.
  22. Mtembo, R.M.D. 2009.Role of subject panels: presentation; Primary Agriculture.
  23. Mufanechiya, T. 2015 Community participation in curriculum implementation in Zimbabwe Primary Schools Unpublished Thesis UNISA, Pretoria.
  24. Munowenyu, E.M. 1997. The curriculum change process: The case of ‘O' level geography in Zimbabwe. The Zimbabwe Bulletin of Teacher Education, 5(2), 1-19.
  25. Ndawi, O.P. (1996). Education For All by the Year 2000 (EFA 2000): Its Feasibility in Some Countries in Africa, Can Teacher Education Ensure Quantity, Quality and Relevance for Education in the Year 2000? Zimbabwe. Journal of Educational Research. 8 (1), 55-74. Harare: HRRC.
  26. Pratt, D. 1980. Curriculum Design and Development HBJ Inc. New York.
  27. Ramadhani, M. 2017. Curriculation and Competence Based Education Training (CBET) in Tanzania: A Critical Assessment of Public Administration and Management.
  28. Riley J.L. 2005. Learning in the Early Years (A Guide for Teachers of Children 3 – 7).
  29. Sarason S.B. 1982. The culture of the school and the problem of change. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
  30. Shaeffer, S. 1994. Participation for educational change: a synthesis of experience.
  31. Spillane, J.P., Reiser, B.J. & Reimer, T. 2002. Policy implementation and cognition: Reframing and refocusing implementation research. Review of Educational Research, 72(3), 387–431.
  32. Stenhouse, L. 1975. An introduction to Curriculum Research and Development. London: Heineman.
  33. Tabulawa, R. 1998. Teachers' perspectives on classroom practice in Botswana: Implications for pedagogical change. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 11(2), 249-268.
  34. Zindi, F. 2018. Zimbabwean teachers’ concerns regarding the implementation of the new curriculum in Zimbabwe. Journal of Educational Research, 30(1), 68-75.