As a steady stream of recent papers indicates, ELT curriculum reform projects are not always as successful as they might be. One overall reason for this situation appears to be a failure to adequately take into account concepts and practices from the world of innovation management. This paper describes an attempt to contribute towards ameliorating this problem by detailing the content, activities, learning processes and outcomes of a short in-service training course on managing innovation in language education, delivered ‘on-site’ to a cross-section of change agents involved in a major educational reform initiative currently being undertaken in the Philippines. Data from the course are used to throw light on its value as an innovation management awarenessraising vehicle. Although illustrated in terms of a particular innovation context, the course is felt to be also of potential relevance to similar situations elsewhere. In recent years, innovation in English language teaching, either on its own or as part of a programme of wider curriculum reform, has become increasingly widespread. However, as a growing part of the literature on the subject indicates (e.g. Li 1998; Karavas-Doukas 1998; Carless 1998, 2002; Bruton 2002a and b; Nunan 2003; Weddell 2003), innovation projects of this kind have not always succeeded as hoped. Taken as a whole, © 2005 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution. at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on April 12, 2008 http://rel.sagepub.com Downloaded from 118 Regional Language Centre Journal 36.2 (2005) it appears that a chief underlying cause of this problem has been a failure to employ appropriate innovation implementation strategies. Innovations of the kind reported in these studies appear too often to have been conceived of in idealized rather than localized terms, and the primary focus has tended to be on the design of the innovation product rather than the management of the implementation process. In other words, there seems to have been something of a failure in such projects to learn and successfully apply the lessons of innovation theory and practice, both from outside the ELT field (see, e.g., Fullan 2001) and from within it (see, e.g., Markee 1997). This paper is concerned with trying to contribute, in a small way, to reducing this problem. It describes the design and implementation of a short, introductory in-service training course for ELT change agents, intended to raise their awareness of both theoretical and applied aspects of language education innovation management, in the hope of stimulating better practice in this area of ELT. The focus in what follows is on illustrating the kind of content and training processes which can be included in such a course, based on the authors’ experiences in delivering a version of it to a cross-section of senior language teaching change agents involved in the implementation of a major curriculum renewal project in the Philippines. The innovation situation is first of all outlined. Then, in the main part of the paper, the training course as it unfolded is described, through an intertwined account of its content and processes. Finally, evidence for its potential value is discussed, and overall conclusions are drawn. The Innovation Situation The training course in question was developed and piloted in 2002 in connection with the ‘2002 Basic Education Curriculum’ (BEC) project, a large-scale educational reform initiative currently being undertaken by the Department of Education (DepEd) of the Philippines. In the English language teaching component of the new curriculum, one of the main instructional strategies being introduced is ‘Content-Based Instruction’, characterized in the curriculum documentation as follows: Content-Based Instruction (CBI) is the integration of content learning with language teaching aims. It refers to the concurrent study of language and subject matter, with the form and sequence of language presentation dictated by content material. The language curriculum is centered on the academic needs and interests of the learner, and crosses © 2005 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution. at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on April 12, 2008 http://rel.sagepub.com Downloaded from WATERS AND VILCHES Innovation in Language Education 119 the barrier between the language and subject matter courses. The approach aims at developing the learner’s academic language skills (DepEd undated: 31). In certain ways, the introduction of CBI can be seen as a further development of a long-standing tradition in Philippines’ ELT. From the introduction of the 1974 Bilingual Education Policy onwards, English, in addition to being a subject area in its own right, has acted as the medium of instruction for certain school subjects, such as mathematics and science, from Grade I upwards. The main current secondary-level ELT textbook, stemming from the late 1980s/early 1990s, reflects these traditions, being composed partly of subject-matter specific to the study of English and partly relating to other subject areas. English teaching materials have therefore shown relevance for some time to the language requirements of study in other curriculum subject areas. However, analysis of the materials reveals they have nevertheless had a largely internal, ELT-centric reference point in the framing of teaching content, with texts from other subject areas being used as a vehicle for the contextualization of language points. Under CBI, however, as explained above, the intention is to reverse this procedure, ‘with the form and sequence of language presentation dictated by content material’ (DepEd undated: 31). In addition, classroom observations carried out by the authors as part of their involvement in the 1995–1999 Philippines English Language Teaching (PELT) Project indicated that the teaching approach of Philippine secondary school teachers of English tended to be predominantly whole-class and textbook-based, and to favour teaching-learning activities which were expository in nature and aimed at establishing and evaluating understanding of a set body of knowledge; pupil behaviour was characteristically passive and teacher-dependent (Waters 1995, 1996). However, the new curriculum envisages a more participatory, interactive and collaborative approach: This curriculum promotes more mutual interaction between students and teachers, between students themselves (collaborative learning), between students and instructional materials, between students and multi-media sources, and between teachers of different disciplines (collaborative teaching). (DepEd undated: 9) Thus, the BEC can be seen as involving teachers and learners in a significant shift in orientation at the level of teaching-learning methods as well. © 2005 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution. at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on April 12, 2008 http://rel.sagepub.com Downloaded from 120 Regional Language Centre Journal 36.2 (2005) It was in order to raise awareness of innovation management issues related to the introduction of CBI in this situation that the authors were invited by the National Educators Academy of the Philippines (NEAP) and British Council Philippines to provide a two-day training course (‘workshop’), entitled ‘Managing Innovation in Language Education’, for senior ELT personnel involved in implementing the new curriculum. In order to provide national coverage, the workshop was repeated in three different locations throughout the country. It was attended on each occasion by c. 45 participants, comprising regional basic education administrators, regional language education advisors, teacher trainers, school principals, heads of department, ‘master teachers’, and so on. Course Content and Process Because the nature of an innovation and the task of managing its implementation are closely connected (Fullan 2001: 8), and because of the consequent importance of gaining an understanding of concepts and procedures related to both aspects, it was decided that the course should focus on attempting to explore answers to two main innovation management questions, viz: ‘what is there to be managed?’ and ‘how might it be managed?’. It therefore covered the following four overlapping and interlocking areas of content: Understanding the innovation (i.e. attempting to answer the question: ‘What is the true nature of the innovation in question?’) Identifying potential changes (i.e. ‘What kinds of changes is the innovation likely to involve, and for whom?’) Appraising the management task (i.e. ‘How big/difficult/complex are the changes likely to be?’) Formulating an implementation management approach (i.e. ‘What kind of change management strategies are needed?’). The course training approach was to provide a small amount of input for each of these topics, and then relate it to a series of problem-solving tasks, in order to stimulate discussion among the workshop participants and between them and ourselves, with the main learning outcomes being elicited from these interactions. What occurred in each of these parts of the course is described and discussed in the sections which follow, based on the regular and detailed field-notes the authors made on the workshop processes and learning outcomes as they emerged, and the frequent discussions they held with each other and members of NEAP about them. © 2005 SAGE Publications.
