International Review of Education

, Volume 31, Issue 1, pp 3–18 | Cite as

Teachers' perceptions of the barriers to the implementation of a pedagogic innovation: A South East Asian case study

  • Paul Morris
Main Articles


This paper summarizes the results of a study designed to determine why teachers did not use a teaching approach which was recommended by curriculum planners. The study indicated that teachers assessed the innovation with regard to itsefficiency for covering the syllabus, itscongruency with the expectations of significant others and whether its use entailed anyundesirable consequences. Each of these criteria was directly influenced by the overall need to select pupils in Hong Kong, which was manifested in the importance attached to the public examination. These findings are discussed in the light of available models for explaining how teachers react to innovations and with reference to the strategy of curriculum development utilized in Hong Kong.


Teaching Approach Curriculum Development Public Examination Pedagogic Innovation Asian Case 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Dieser Bericht faßt die Ergebnisse einer Studie zusammen, deren Sinn es war, herauszufinden, warum ein von Curriculumplannern entworfenes Lehrprogramm von den Lehrern nicht benutzt wurde. Die Studie ergab, daß die Lehrer die Innovation hinsichtlich ihrerWirksamkeit bewerteten, den Lehrplan vollständig zu behandeln, ihrerÜbereinstimmung mit den Erwartungen von anderen maßgeblichen Seiten und ob ihre Anwendung irgendwelcheunerwünschte Folgen mit sich brachte. Jedes dieser Kriterien wurde unmittelbar beeinflußt durch das allgemeine Bedürfnis, in Hong Kong Schüler auszuwählen, was sich aus der Bedeutung, die öffentlichen Prüfungen beigemessen wurde, ergeben hatte. Diese Befunde wurden in Hinblick auf verfügbare Modelle diskutiert. Diese sollten der Klärung der Frage dienen, wie Lehrer auf Innovationen und auf Strategien der Curriculumentwicklung in Hong Kong reagieren.


Cet article présente les résultats d'une étude menée pour savoir pourquoi les enseignants n'ont pas fait usage d'une approche d'enseignement recommandée par les planificateurs du curriculum. L'étude a révélé que les enseignants ont évalué l'innovation par rapport à son efficacité à respecter le programme, sa conformité aux attentes des autres, et au fait de savoir si non usage entraînait des conséquences inattendues. Chacun de ces critères a été directement influencé par le besoin général de sélectionner des élèves à Hong Kong, besoin qui se manifestait dans l'importance attachée à l'examen du public. Ces résultats sont examinés en vue de trouver des modèles valables permettant d'expliquer pourquoi les enseignants ont telle ou telle réaction envers les innovations et par rapport à la stratégie de développement du curriculum mise en place à Hong Kong.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Becher, T. and Maclure, S. ‘The state of the art in curriculum development’. In Harris, A. et al. (ed.)Curriculum Innovation. London: Croom Helm, 1975.Google Scholar
  2. Cheng, T. Y.The Economy of Hong Kong. Hong Kong: Far East Publications, 1979.Google Scholar
  3. Ching, S.S. and Sweeting, A. E.Pre School or Prep School? The Dilemma of Kindergarten Education in Hong Kong. Mimeo, 1979.Google Scholar
  4. Crossley, M. ‘Strategies for curriculum change and the question of international transfer’.Journal of Curriculum Studies. 16 (1984), No. 1.Google Scholar
  5. Dore, R. P.The Diploma Disease. London: Allen and Unwin, 1976.Google Scholar
  6. Doyle, W. and Ponder, G. ‘The practicality ethic in teacher decision making’.Interchange. 8 (1977), No. 3, pp. 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Easton, D.A System Analysis of Political Life. New York: Wiley, 1965.Google Scholar
  8. Fullan, M. ‘Overview of the innovative process and user’.Interchange. 3 (1972), No. 2–3.Google Scholar
  9. Guba, E. and Lincoln, Y.Effective Evaluation. San Francisco: Jossey Bass, 1981.Google Scholar
  10. Galton, M. (ed.)Curriculum Change: The Lessons of a Decade. Leicester: Leicester University Press, 1980.Google Scholar
  11. Hawes, H.Curriculum and Reality in African Primary Schools. London: Longman, 1979.Google Scholar
  12. Hurst, P.Implementing Innovatory Projects. London: The British Council/World Bank, 1978.Google Scholar
  13. Hurst, P. ‘Some issues in improving the quality of education’.Comparative Education. 17 (1981), No. 2, pp. 185–193.Google Scholar
  14. Husen, T. ‘Strategies of educational innovation’.Australian Journal of Education. 16 (1972), No. 2, pp. 125–135.Google Scholar
  15. Lewin, Keith.Science Education in Malaysia and Sri Lanka. Curriculum Development and Course Evaluation 1970–1978. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis. University of Sussex, 1981.Google Scholar
  16. Lewin, Keith. In Oxenham, J. (ed.)Education versus Qualifications? London: George Allen and Unwin, 1984.Google Scholar
  17. Lewin, Kurt. ‘Group decision and social change’. In Newcomb, T. and Hartley, E. (eds.)Readings in Social Psychology. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Wilson, 1947.Google Scholar
  18. LLewellyn, J.A Perspective on Education in Hong Kong: Report by a Visiting Panel. Hong Kong: Government Education Department, 1982.Google Scholar
  19. MacDonald, B. and Rudduck, J. ‘Curriculum research and development projects: barriers to success’.British Journal of Educational Psychology. 41 (1971).Google Scholar
  20. McConnelogue. In P. Taylor (ed.)Aims, Influences and Change in the Primary School Curriculum. Slough: NFER, 1975.Google Scholar
  21. Morris, P. ‘Curriculum innovation and implementation: a South East Asian perspective’.Curriculum Perspectives. 4 (1984), No. 1.Google Scholar
  22. Morris, P. ‘Teachers’ perceptions of their pupils: a Hong Kong case study’.Research in Education. 28 (1983).Google Scholar
  23. Olson, J. ‘Three approaches to curriculum change; balancing the accounts’.Journal of Curriculum Theorizing. 4 (1982), No. 2.Google Scholar
  24. Oxenham, J. (ed.)Education versus Qualifications? London: George Allen and Unwin 1984.Google Scholar
  25. Routh, G.Occupation and Pay in Great Britain (1906–1979). 2nd ed. London: Macmillan, 1980.Google Scholar
  26. The Schools Council.The Schools Council. Its Take Up in Schools and General Impact. A Final Report. London: Schools Council, 1981.Google Scholar
  27. Smith, L. M. and Keith, P. M.Anatomy of Educational Innovation: an Organisational Analysis of an Elementary School. New York: John Wiley, 1971.Google Scholar
  28. Taylor, P. ‘A study of curricular influences in a mid-western elementary school system’. In Taylor, P. (ed.)Aims, Influence and Change in the Primary School Curriculum. Slough: NFER, 1975, pp. 170–198.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Martinus Nijhoff Publishers 1985

Authors and Affiliations

  • Paul Morris

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations