Teacher education: interface between practices and policies The Malaysian experience 1979–1997

Teaching and Teacher Education 15 (1999) 193—213

Teacher education: interface between practices and policies The Malaysian experience 1979—1997 Nagendralingan Ratnavadivel Sultan Idris University of Education, Tanjong Malim, Malaysia

Abstract The Cabinet Committee report of 1979 catalysed important changes in all aspects of education, including teacher education, in Malaysia. Subsequently a range of policies and practices, at both the macro and micro levels, have impacted on teacher education in Malaysia. Changes in the political, economic and socio-cultural spheres, both locally and internationally, have helped shape the direction of teacher education policies and practices in Malaysia. Policies have been introduced to ensure both quantitative and qualitative improvements in teacher education. The paper attempts to provide a critical review of some of these policies in the context of actual practices of teacher education in Malaysia.  1999 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

2. An overview of teacher education in Malaysia

The worldwide concern over the quality as well as the quantity of education in schools is imperatively linked to the knowledge, intelligence and professional competence and expertise of teachers. Teacher quality in turn is associated with the quality and character of teacher education. In this paper, I propose to focus on the interface between policies and practices in pre-service teacher education, as orchestrated by the Teacher Education Division of the Ministry of Education, Malaysia only. This will provide an insight into how changes in the political, economic and sociocultural spheres impact on:

Pre-service teacher education in Malaysia is currently organised at two levels:

— the direction of Malaysian education policies and practice, — teacher professional development.

2.1. University level Eight local universities and the International Islamic University are involved in the initial or pre-service training of teachers for Malaysian secondary schools. They conduct either: (a) one year (2 semesters) Post Graduate Diploma in Education, (b) three year (6 semesters) Bachelor of Education Programme, or (c) both of the above-mentioned programmes. The trained teachers are normally assigned to teach in secondary schools. In addition, the

0742-051X/99/$—see front matter  1999 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved. PII: S 0 7 4 2 - 0 5 1 X ( 9 8 ) 0 0 0 5 9 - 6

194

N. Ratnavadivel / Teaching and Teacher Education 15 (1999) 193–213

universities offer postgraduate courses leading to a Masters or Doctorate in education. 2.2. Teacher education college level Currently there are thirty-one teacher education colleges in Malaysia conducting pre-service and in-service teacher education programmes. The main pre-service teacher education programmes are the three year (six semesters) Malaysian Diploma in Education programme and The Post Graduate Teacher Education Course (KPLI being its acronym in the Malay Language). The former focuses on training of teachers for primary and lower secondary schools and the latter on the training of secondary school teachers. Both the programmes are co-ordinated centrally by the Teacher Education Division (TED) of the Ministry of Education, Malaysia (MOEM) Historically, teacher education in Malaysia has been predominantly shaped as a response to accommodate demands brought about by changes of policies in the education system. It can be periodised into various eras, stretching from the preindependence (pre-1957) period to the present one which is aligned closely to national development policies and practices. In fact, the development of teacher education in Malaysia has been orchestrated by the demands of the educational system and policies prevalent during particular periods. The nature, structure, purpose and direction of the educational system has been in turn dictated by the political, economic and socio-cultural considerations and constraints. (Chang, 1973; Lch, 1973; Awang Had, 1980; Ratnavadivel, 1985, 1995, 1996, 1997; Lim, Taharuddin, Mat piah & Ratnavadivel, 1991).

3. The hierarchy The highly centralised structure of MOEM is hierarchically organised into four tiers, national/ federal, state, district/division and school. At the apex of the organisation is the Minister of Education who is assisted by two deputy ministers. The Secretary-General of Education and the DirectorGeneral of Education are assisted by two deputies each and are both directly responsible to the Minis-

ter. The Secretary-General is responsible for external affairs and the Director-General is responsible for professional matters. At the federal level, the Ministry translates the National Education policy into education plans, programmes and projects congruent with national aspirations and objectives. The Ministry also formulates guidelines for the implementation of these programmes and projects. the process is carried out by the relevant professional and administrative divisions of MOEM. The very structure of the system at the various levels is based on a role culture and positional power is the source of power (Handy, 1991). The names of the divisons are indicative of their roles and their functions have been spelt out too. The structure is geared towards stability and predictability. The hierarchical structure with specified functions exist right down the system to the school level. The organisational chart has become a common feature at all levels and positions are nicely put into boxes so that everyone is clear about who gives orders to whom or via whom. The supporting job specifications and manual procedures of work have become a must. One of the professional divisions in MOEM is TED. At the federal level TED is headed by the Director of Teacher Education who is assisted by two deputy directors and seven principal assistant directors who head the seven units of the Division at the federal level. Each unit has its staff and bureaucracy. At the federal level, the objectives of TED are operationalised by the combined efforts of its seven units. The Director of Teacher Education, his two deputies and the seven principal assistant directors form the pediment of the Division at the federal level. They meet regularly to decide on all policies and activities pertaining to teacher education that comes under the jurisdiction of TED. Subsequently, these are presented to the ‘‘Conference of Principals of Teacher Education Institutes and Colleges’’ or to higher levels of the hierarchy of MOEM. Each unit has got its organisational administrative structure. The structure very much depicts the role culture where the elaborate structure of roles and responsibilities are clearly defined. TED also oversees and co-ordinates thirty-one teacher education colleges located through Malaysia. Each college is headed by a principal

N. Ratnavadivel / Teaching and Teacher Education 15 (1999) 193–213

who is assisted by a vice-principal and several heads of academic departments and administratively either by a bursar or an executive officer and his administrative and support staff. The colleges are entrusted with the responsibility for training teachers in line with National Education Philosophy, the Philosophy of Teacher Education and the policies, plans and projects that have been introduced to operationalise teacher education in Malaysia. The organisational and administrative structure at the level of colleges also reflects a role culture. It is again a system of clearly defined and hierarchically structured roles supported by explicit and elaborate job specifications. The pediment at the college level consist of the principal, the vice-principal and the various heads of departments. However, there is more management and less actually decision-making at this level because policy decisions are handed from TED or in the higher echelons of the corridors of power in MOEM. The departments form the columns or pillars of the institution and consist of the lecturers and then at the base are the trainees in the college. The role of departments and the lecturers is also more in the processing category, although they can make decisions pertaining to actual curriculum implementation strategies at the college level. The entire hierarchy depicts and nourishes a command-and-control system which also duplicates as an implementation system. An interesting aspect that needs to be viewed in context is the latitude available to lecturers to innovate in terms of teaching-learning strategies when mediating and implementing teacher education curriculum. The role culture seems to assume that all you need is an elaborate structure, depicted on an organisational flow chart with the system of prescribed role and procedures, for the effective functioning of the organisation and the implementation policies. The validity of such an assumption needs to be ascertained in the context of the actual practice.

4. The impact of political, social and economic pressures Since 1970 the overriding national objectives of education in Malaysia are national integration and

195

national development. Education has a crucial role to play in human resource development to meet the manpower needs of a growing economy. Education is also looked upon to provide social and economic mobility to the disadvantaged. The role of education in instilling positive values too cannot be marginalised. The highly centralised education system has ensured that the national objectives of education dictate the character and direction of teacher education in Malaysia. It took the post election racial riots of May 1969 to shock the Government and people of Malaysia into realising the realities that existed vis-a-vis national unity and national integration which is imperative for national development. This led to the promulgation of the ‘‘Rukunegara’’ (National Ideology), the Constitutional (Amendment) Act of 1971 and the introduction of the New Economic Policy (1971). The Rukunegara embodies the following five principles: (i) Belief in God, (ii) Loyalty to King and Country, (iii) Upholding the Constitution, (iv) Rule of Law, (v) Good Behaviour and Morality. The Rukunegara reflects the universal values acceptable to all sectors of the population of Malaysia. In the context of education, the underlying aspirations of the Rukunegara have been articulated and are being operationalised via the various policies and practices of MOEM. The New Economic Policy (NEP) which was introduced in 1971 is aimed at promoting national unity through the two-pronged strategy of: (i) eradicating poverty by raising income levels and increasing employment opportunities for all Malaysians irrespective of race; and (ii) accelerating the process of restructuring Malaysian society to correct economic imbalance, so as to reduce and eventually eliminate the identification of race with economic functions. (Mid-Term Review of The Second Malaysia Plan, 1971— 1975, p. 1) The education policies and practices are used as one of the prime avenues to achieve the aims of

196

N. Ratnavadivel / Teaching and Teacher Education 15 (1999) 193–213

Rukunegara and the New Economic Policy. They are based on the major education and training objectives that are spelt out in the Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Seventh Malaysia Plans (Ratnavadivel, 1985, 1995, 1996, 1997; Lim et al., 1991) All the above-mentioned changes envisaged an increasingly important role for teachers to help realise the national objectives. Hence it became imperative that the aims of teacher education in Malaysia be reviewed and revised to be congruent with the national aspirations. A committee was appointed by the Teacher Education Division, Ministry of Education Malaysia and it came out with its report in May 1971. The aims were categorised as general and specific aims. The general aims focused on the personal and professional development of the teacher and the specific aims articulated the general aims. (See Ministry of Education, 1971; Lim et al., 1991, pp. 67—75.) These aims have also been incorporated into the Philosophy of Teacher Education which was documented in 1982. It aims to produce: ¹he teacher, who is noble in character, progressive and scientific in outlook, committed to uphold the aspirations of the nation, and cherishes the national cultural heritage, ensures the development of the individual and the preservations of a united, democratic, progressive and disciplined society (Ministry of Education Malaysia, 1982, p. 14). The year 1979 was a watershed in the history of education in Malaysia. The recommendations of the Cabinet Committee to Review The Implementation of The Education Policy, 1979, was a turning point for education policy and practice in Malaysia. Besides studying the relationship between the education system and national integration, the Report also emphasised that, ‘‘individuals who emerge frorn the national school system must conform with the purpose of human development’’. (Cabinent Committee Report, 1979, para 452, p. 227).’ Subsequently, the existing primary school curriculum had to be reviewed. In 1980 a national committee was set up to design a new primary school curriculum. This was as a response to the

findings of the Cabinet Committee (1979) that the content of the primary school curriculum was too heavy and some pupils were not able to follow it, resulting in their mastery of only a few skills. The Committee also found that the existing curriculum had been formulated separately, according to subjects and there was little integration between the subjects in the curriculum. As a result the Cabinet Committee recommended that. 2 the Ministry of Education takes certain steps to ensure that education at the primary school level be in the form of basic education, with emphasis on the learning of the 3R’s, that is Reading, ¼riting and Arithmetic. (Cabinet Committee Report, 1979, Recommendation 2a). The New Primary School Curriculum (KBSR being its local acronym) was piloted in 1982 and implemented nationwide in 1983. This was followed by the Integrated Secondary School Curriculum (KBSM being its local acronym) which was implemented on a limited basis in 1988 and wholly in 1989. These curricular changes made new and more pressing demands on teacher education and teachers. Part of the Philosophy of Primary School Education reads as follows: All teaching and learning activities are to be developed on the principle of flexibility; they should match pupils’ abilities and the aims to be achieved. Pupils in the primary school are to be given the opportunity to express their feelings and ideas through various means such as speech, art, dance and movement, music and acting. Adequate opportunities should be provided to nurture the creativity in pupils (Ministry of Education Malaysia, 1990, p. 2) The prime feature of KBSM is the integrated approach which entails the integration of knowledge, skills and values; the integration of theory and practice; the integration of curriculum and co-curriculum; and the school culture (Ministry of Education Malaysia, 1989a, b; Mohd.Najib, 1998). The foundation of KBSR and KBSM is the National Education Philosophy (FPN being its acronym in the Malay Language) which, though

N. Ratnavadivel / Teaching and Teacher Education 15 (1999) 193–213

documented only in 1988, was the underlying spirit of the curricular changes. It reads as follows: Education in Malaysia is an on-going effort towards further developing the potential of individual in a wholistic and integrated manner, so as to produce individuals who are intellectually, spiritually, emotionally and physically balanced and harmonious, based on a firm belief in and devotion to God. Such an effort is designed to produce Malaysian citizens who are knowledgeable and competent, who possess high moral standards, and who are responsible and capable, of achieving a high level of personal well-being as well as being able to contribute to the betterment of the society and the nation at large (Ministry of Education Malaysia, 1988). The Philosophy uses the term ‘God’ in a generic sense to include all religions. It is hoped that the belief in God will help inculcate positive values which will help eliminate social ills. The Philosophy emphasises the integrated and balanced development of the spiritual, intellectual, emotional and physical domains. The education system hopes to achieve this via three curricular strategies: (i) »alues across the curriculum: It implies that the teaching of values have to be infused into every subject of the curriculum. (ii) ¸anguage across the curriculum:. As the Malay Language is the official language the usage of the language in teaching all subjects will help to not only develop the utilisation of that language but also it will elevate its status to that of a language of knowledge and learning. (iii) ¹hinking across the curriculum: It implies that it is the function of the curriculum process to develop the thinking capacity via all disciplines. This will help create a thinking society that will become creative and innovative. In this context thinking is viewed as a skill that can be taught to facilitate the realisation of the full intelligence and potential of the Malaysian people. The demands of KBSR and KBSM on teacher education, therefore, can be broadly summarised

197

as follows: (i) A teacher has to fully understand the national philosophy of education in terms of its rationale, contents, aims and objectives. The understanding must be accompanied by an awareness and realisation, practice and internalisation. (ii) The teacher must also internalise and practice the concept of integration which places knowledge and practice in an inseparable position which balances and interrelates between spiritual, cognitive, physical and emotional aspects. Hence, the teacher must be able to conceptualise the balance and harmony of the aspects in relation to wholistic education. (iii) The teacher must love knowledge and continuously thirst for it and consequently sustain and develop the will to learn. S/he should be a reservoir of knowledge for her/his pupils. S/he should continuously encourage and nurture the value of life-long learning amongst her/his pupils. (iv) The pastoral role of the teacher has to be equally emphasised. The teacher, as parent, helps to guide her/his pupils. (v) The teacher has to serve as a role model to her/his pupils. S/he has to set positive examples. This is to be manifested through the practice of refined language, culture and ethics. (vi) The teacher has to approach teaching in an integrated manner, that is through synchronisation between knowledge and practice. This is to be effected by the use of effective teaching-learning strategies. (vii) In the quest for a learning community, the teacher must make all efforts to use the Malay language (the National Language) a language of knowledge.

5. Philosophies, reforms, innovation and change— towards developing the reflective practitioner In December 1970 a ‘National Seminar On Curriculum Development In ¹eacher Education’ was held in Penang. The Seminar was jointly sponsored

198

N. Ratnavadivel / Teaching and Teacher Education 15 (1999) 193–213

by the Teacher Training Division of MOEM and UNESCO. Among the recommendations of the Seminar was that MOEM should consider changing the following terms related to teacher training: (a) Teacher Training to Teacher Education, (b) Teacher Trainers to Teacher Educators, (c) Teacher Trainees to Student Teachers. This represents an ideological and conceptual shift in the focus and emphasis of teacher education in Malaysia, particularly in relation to the knowledge base and competencies required of teachers. The shift from ‘‘training’’ to ‘‘education’’ is perhaps best understood in the context of Stenhouse’s (1975) opinion that education incorporates the processes of training, instruction, initiation and induction. He elaborates as follows: Training is concerned with the acquisition of skills, and successful training results in capacity in performance 2 Instruction is concerned with the learning of information and successful information results in retention2 Initiation is concerned with familiarization with social values and norms and successful initiation leads to a capacity to interpret the social environment and to anticipate the reaction of to one’s own actions. Induction stands for introduction into the thought system the knowledge—of the culture and successful induction results in understanding as evidenced by the capacity to grasp and to make for oneself relationships and judgements (Stenhouse, 1975, p.80). In the light of this shift it was recommended that the teacher education curriculum for the preparation of both primary and secondary school teachers be revamped. It was also recommended that the duration of the course be extended from two to three years. This would enable student teachers to achieve, ‘‘not only subject matter competency but also to develop better attitudes’’ (Ministry of Education Malaysia, 1979b, p.2.). On the subject of student attitudes, the urgent need to reorientate student teachers’ attitudes towards their profession, extra-curricular activities and the community at large was also stressed. To allow for greater mobility of teachers in the primary and secondary school,

the integration of primary and secondary teacher education programmes was also recommended. It was felt that if the programme was extended to three years it could be further consolidated with the inclusion of professional ethics to enhance a sense of professionalism, educational administration so as to familiarise student teachers with school administration, practical training in the organisation and execution of co-curricular activities, and also vocational guidance and community service. The need to maintain a balance between general and professional education was reiterated. The Seminar also recommended that research in teacher education colleges must become an integral part of the work of teacher educators in order to make proper evaluations for improvement in teacher education curriculum. Finally, it was also recommended that the application of new methods of instruction be utilised to enable more creative teaching and learning situations. The direction of teacher education in Malaysia from 1980 had been predominantly guided by the recommendations of the Cabinet Committee Report (1979). Amongst its recommendations was to extend the period of initial teacher education, for the certificate programme, from two to three years so as to enable a more complete and holistic training which was to include sufficient time. for teaching practice. Also during that time there was already dissatisfaction in schools with the inability of newly trained teachers to apply the theoretical knowledge and skills in the context of actual practice. The effecting of the theory—practice linkage was a matter of urgent concern. It was hoped that an increase in the tenure of school exposure via teaching practice would help to marginalise the problem. In1981, the programme was extended to be a three year programme. Due to certain constraints, in 1986, it was reduced to a two and a half year (5 semester) programme. However with the introduction of the Diploma programme in 1996 it is once again a three year (six semester) programme. In addition in1982, the Philosophy of Teacher Education was documented. It aimed to produce a teacher in Malaysia 2 who is noble in character, progressive and scientific in outlook, committed to uphold the

N. Ratnavadivel / Teaching and Teacher Education 15 (1999) 193–213

aspirations of the nation, and cherishes the national cultural heritage, ensures the development of the individual and the preservation of a united, democratic, progressive and disciplined society (Ministry of Education Malaysia, 1982, p. 14). The emphasis was on national unity, national culture, scientific and technological advancement and individual development. The strategies to be deployed were curricular and co-curricular. Curricular strategies would include foundation courses, professional courses, teaching practice and selfenrichment. Whereas co-curricular strategies would include sporting activities, cultural activities, participation in organisations and community service. To produce effective teachers in line with the Philosophy and desired qualities, it was recommended that the teacher education curriculum make provisions for: (i) developing an insight into the national ideology and aspirations, (ii) developing an insight into the teaching profession as dictated by current and future policies and practices, (iii) developing a broad general education base which would give impetus for further growth, (iv) developing a strong foundation in a specialized school subject area, (v) developing a working knowledge and competence in co-curricular activities which serve to enrich pupils’ learning experience, (vi) developing competency in classroom teaching. The demands of FPN, KBSR, KBSM and the Philosophy of Teacher Education meant that the demands on the teacher was increasing and it required a shift in role from a ‘‘restricted professional’’ to an ‘‘extended professional’’ (Hoyle, 1980). This in turn meant that the task of teacher training was to prepare teachers who could function effectively within the new context and demands. The desired role of the teacher, in terms of teaching—learning, had moved from that of a didactic transmitter of knowledge to that of a facilitator of learning. The term ‘‘teacher as facilitator’’ became a common one in the vocabulary of teacher educa-

199

tors. This term was soon extended to ‘‘the lecturer as facilitator’’. It was felt that if lecturers were to prepare teachers to be facilitators of learning, then they should instill the culture in teacher education colleges by themselves taking on the role of facilitators. Guidelines were drawn up on the process of facilitation, outlining the role of the lecturer prior to, during, and after the lesson. The curricular changes in KBSR and KBSM and their demands on teacher education made it imperative that TED review the curriculum for the five semester programme. This need was further catalysed by the feedback TED obtained from schools, the Inspectorate of Schools and the colleges themselves. Amongst them were subject content overload which restricted the use of interactive strategies in the acquisition of teaching skills, insufficient time for practice that emphasised integration between theory and practice and overlap in subject content between subjects which further impinged on time meant for practice in school subjects. The 1980s also witnessed the increasing involvement of Malaysia in the political, economic and socio-cultural spheres of the international arena. If up till then teacher education had been almost entirely orchestrated by changes in the school curriculum, the1980s saw the increasing influence of international trends in teacher education on teacher education in Malaysia. It ushered in a series of innovations into the arena of teacher education in Malaysia, such as action research, collaborative and cooperative teaching, pair teaching, peer evaluation, clinical supervision, journal writing, self reflection. The introduction of these innovatory concepts was specifically a reflection of the internationalisation of thinking about teaching-learning. It was catalysed by increasing globalisation. Whereas, most of the development up to this point had been more of responses to the internal and existing logic of the system towards improving its functions, the new changes were more outward looking and represented an attempt to break into the international mainstream of teaching-learning and teacher education. However, these concepts and ideas had to be put to a cultural test. They were not responses to known differences within the system operating within the culture. They represented

200

N. Ratnavadivel / Teaching and Teacher Education 15 (1999) 193–213

a global market of free-floating ideas whose feasibility and acceptability is likely to vary from country to country. All these new ideas and concepts brought in fresh ideas that were meant to help reconceptualise and enrich the practicum (teaching practice) experience and set the new teacher on becoming a reflective practitioner through reflective teaching. It became all the more apparent that the traditional forms of teacher education based on the ‘‘masterapprenticeship model’’, which Weber (1948) called ‘‘charismatic education’’, was no longer appropriate (see Furlong, Hirst, Pocklington & Miles, 1988). At this point there seemed to be an attempted leap into Weber’s ‘‘specialized expert training’’, where increased importance was placed on the methods courses, and instrumentality became the underlying rationale of the option or area of specialisation. Coherence between educational theory and the actual practice of teaching became an even more critical issue. The conviction was towards acquiring knowledge, skills and attitudes and then being able to apply them in varied teaching—learning situations. The role of the school was to facilitate application, i.e. the transfer of theory into practice. Theories learned via the academic study of pedagogy, psychology and Education in Malaysia and methods studied in the option subjects were to be fused and translated into practice in the school context. The teacher education curriculum was reviewed at the end of 1987 and a new curriculum implemented in 1988. It emphasised management of teaching—learning, knowledge of the curriculum (KBSR and KBSM), mastery of language usage, the role of the educator and the development of the total personality. It was also recommended that there should be variety and variance in the training strategies and that they should emphasise reflective learning so as to induct the trainees into the culture of the reflective practitioner. The foundation courses in education imparted an understanding of FPN. This was further enhanced through practice through the various professional courses and teaching practice. All aspects of the new teacher education programme emphasised an integrated approach to teaching. Skills for integrating learning across the curriculum were

emphasised, as were the inculcation and integration of values in the teaching—learning process. Universal values pertaining to environmental education were integrated consciously and incidentally in the planning and the implementation of the teaching—learning process both at the college and school levels. Student teachers were encouraged to read. Coursework for the subjects in the programme emphasised process-based work and not productoriented output. It had to reflect reading and resource-based learning. Guidance was encouraged both in colleges and also during teaching practice (practicum). The Code of Teacher Ethics, the Concept of Teaching as a Profession, Discipline and Teacher Accountability were also incorporated into the programme. In terms of teaching-learning strategies, the student teachers were introduced to the necessary knowledge, skills and values required by KBSR and KBSM. Remedial teaching skills and enrichment strategies were included in general and subject specific pedagogies. The need to inculcate positive attitudes, values and resilience among teachers, who were expected to be role models for their pupils (Lim et al., 1991, p.21), was a theme which ran throughout the programme. This curriculum was revamped again in 1991 and 1993 (Ratnavadivel,1995) to bring about more effective methods to effect the theory—practice linkage. The emphasis was on providing pedagogical knowledge via the subjects the student teachers majored in. A major step was taken towards school based teacher education. In 1991 a two-phase practicum was introduced. In 1993, the time allocated for the practicum was increased from 19 weeks to 28 weeks. This constituted 34.1% of the total interaction time as compared with 18.8% under the previous structure. In 1995 TED introduced the Teacher Education ‘‘Conceptual Model For Designing and Implementing Curriculum’’. It emphasised that the teacher education curriculum should be based on the qualities of teacher as articulated in the Teacher Education Philosophy (1982). The three key aspects were God, Self and Society. Within it were the interactions between the spiritual, intellectual, physical and emotional domains which are manifested via knowledge, skills and values to the student teacher.

N. Ratnavadivel / Teaching and Teacher Education 15 (1999) 193–213

The curriculum was organised around the following seven themes: a The teacher and the Education environment, b. The School and Curriculum Implementation, c. Students and their Development, d. Teaching and Learning, e. Assessment in Education, f. Developing Potential of Students with Special needs, g. Reflection, Self-Actualisation and Self-Development, The implementation strategy of the curriculum deployed a developmental approach based on sequenced lecture topics and continuity in the acquisition of expertise, skills and practice which was balanced in terms of theory and practice. In 1996, based on the above-mentioned conceptual model, the three year (6 semester) Malaysian Diploma of Education Programme (DPM being its acronym in the Malay Language) was introduced. The delivery system of the DPM curriculum emphasised the integration between theory and practice as well as a continuity between process and product. The curriculum was based on the spiral curriculum model (Bruner, 1966). It had a flexible schedule and emphasised mastery learning. The delivery must be through experiential learning where the students experience the actual process through student-centred approaches such as discussion, demonstration, practical sessions and reflection in accordance with ‘‘andragogical’’ approaches to fulfil the needs of the student teacher as an adult learner. Teaching-learning approaches must be resource based and the use of multi-media packages is to be emphasised. This experience is to be extended to teaching practice. The development of creative and critical thinking skills are also given priority. DPM will also uplift the status of college trained teachers in that it will offer a higher starting salary and also teachers completing the programme will be placed in the Diploma category as opposed to the previous non-graduate teachers who were placed in the certificate category by the Public Services Department, Malaysia. Earlier, in 1988, an important aspect emphasised was the need for coherence between the educational

201

theories, particularly those pertaining to psychology and pedagogy, and their application in the context of subject methodology. It was also suggested that the role of the school in the management of the practicum be reviewed with a view to increasing the participation of the schools in the supervision of trainees during practicum. Although there was a growing awareness of the need for increased participation of the school in teacher training, particularly in the context of the practicum, the curriculum still paid much emphasis to traditional education theory with its own internal classifications by disciplines such as psychology, pedagogy and Education in Malaysia (Philosophy and sociology based). At the beginning of 1988 a certain measure of integration was attempted by integrating educational psychology with pedagogy. There was also strong emphasis on methodology disciplines in the area of specialisation. Methodology of teaching rather than content mastery was emphasised in the subject-methodology disciplines. Methodology courses were given priority. To prepare teacher educators, TED also conducted a series of short courses engaging foreign educationists who were recognised experts in their particular fields. Some of the areas in which these courses were conducted were action research (1988), Collaborative and Cooperative Teaching (1989), Managing Change (1990), Programme Evaluation (1989), Teaching of Values Across The Curriculum(1990), Clinical Supervision (1990). The hope was that the chosen few would follow through and disseminate the expertise acquired. The basic assumption was that a multiplier or cascading effect would result. Such courses could be characterised in two different ways. On the one hand there was a big emphasis on effecting the theory—practice linkage, a universal problem. On the other hand, some of the new ideas and concepts largely came, not from within the system but from an international circuit of ideas fed by a loose network of educators. There was a need to look into the fate of really quite new ideas, their acceptability; whether they were understood; whether they were practicable. Some of the ideas underpinning particular innovations had not evolved out of the culture itself and therefore were likely to pose great difficulties. The fact that they

202

N. Ratnavadivel / Teaching and Teacher Education 15 (1999) 193–213

were not home grown really makes it particularly difficult to see how these values could be incorporated and expressed within a particular system. It was not simply a matter of importing concepts and ideas but of importing them from different cultural contexts. They might not take root within the internally evolving professional culture. It was apparent that these changes in the direction of teacher education were geared towards the professional development of teachers and also teacher professionalisation. (Salleh, H, 1997). The basic premise was that there was a specific body of professional knowledge, involving content, skills and values/attitudes, to be acquired in order to function as an effective teacher. Student teachers have to be introduced to and inducted into this body of knowledge. This body of knowledge is not static but dynamic and it has to be developed through continuous dialogue and dialectics. Reflection is the essential tool for developing the professional knowledge base of the teacher. The need to move from ‘‘technical rationality’’ to ‘‘reflectionin-action’’, and ‘‘knowing-in-action’’ (Schon,1983) is emphasised in the practicum. (Salleh, 1997). The practicum also emphasises the need for the teacher to continuously develop their professional knowledge base. ‘‘Knowing-in-action’’ should be able to produce ‘‘knowledge-in-action’’, ‘‘situational knowledge’’ (Eraut, 1994) and the ability to make ‘‘professional judgements’’. Although pre-service teacher education focuses on developing the ‘‘beginning teacher’’, it also aims to equip the teacher to be a ‘‘learning professional’’, one who is able to convert propositional knowledge and ‘‘tacit knowledge’’ (Polyani, 1967) into ‘‘practical knowledge’’. (Eraut, 1994). The skills of ‘‘Pedagogical Reasoning and Action’’ (Shulman et al, 1987) had to be developed. The notion of developing the reflective practitioner was to be predominantly realised through the practicum exercise. Beginning in 1989, efforts were intoduced to develop the reflective practioner via an introduction to skills of reflection during the practicum. The practicum was defined as a series of systematic practical experiences which are school based and aimed at helping student teachers become professional teachers. The important components of the practicum were experience of teaching

in the classroom; experience of teaching outside the classroom and the development of personality in accordance with the demands of the teaching profession. Hence the practicum was to be viewed and implemented in a wholistic and integrated manner, involving the joint efforts of the teacher college and the school. The focus of the practicum is guidance and not training and assessment (Ministry of Education Malaysia, 1990). Among the objectives of the practicum was the need to enable the student teacher to acquire a positive attitude; resilience; skills of selecting and using effective teaching—learning strategies; ability to effect theory—practice linkage and be inducted in the practice of reflecting and doing self-evaluation in all situations with a view to overcoming weaknesses as a teacher. The practicum was also aimed at strengthening the professional ties between teacher education colleges and schools through professional dialogue and sharing of professional expertise. In-built in the practicum were new concepts like clinical supervision; pair teaching; peer evaluation; self-reflection and journal writing (Ministry of Education Malaysia, 1990). In terms of assessment, a weightage of 30% was given to the school and the colleges maintained 70%. This partnership in the practicum involved the use of cooperating teachers whose role was clearly defined in a detailed handbook. The role of the cooperating teacher entailed added responsibilities both administrative and supervisory. They were to supervise and guide the student teachers in accordance with the procedures and principles of clinical supervision and also assess a certain number of lessons conducted by the student teachers. They also needed to have discussions with the lecturer (tutor) so that there would be some coherence in the supervision and guidance offered by the two parties. The co-operative effort aimed at the professional development of teachers via the practicum was further enhanced in 1993 when the role of the cooperating teacher in guiding and assessing student teachers was improved. Seventy percent of the overall assessment was vested in the hands of the co-operating teacher. In addition, the co-operating teachers were also paid an amount ranging from RM60 to RM80 per month. This was formalised by

N. Ratnavadivel / Teaching and Teacher Education 15 (1999) 193–213

the Ministry of Education in 1993. The colleges are also conducting training in mentoring skills for cooperating teachers/mentors. A training package on mentoring for co-operating teachers was developed in April 1994. With the introduction of the spiral model curriculum, a four stage practicum of 25 weeks had been introduced. It involved a process of alternating experiences in teacher education colleges and schools. The emphasis was on developing professional skills, effecting the theory—practice linkage through school-based teacher education and the use of reflection. To facilitate the process of reflection, mentoring based on the principles of clinical supervision, the use of reflective grids and journal writing were employed. Aspects of critical and creative thinking and the development of higher order thinking skills were encouraged in the practicum exercise. 5.1. Emerging trends: visions and missions and the age of I¹ While TED was busy developing its teacher education programme time did not stand still. The process of rapid and continuous change and the phenomenon of globalisation catalysed by the advent of the information age has seen an influx of ideas and innovations on the future directions of Malaysia. This coupled with the need to be an effective player in the global village of the information age has galvanised changes in both the school and teacher education curriculum aimed at taking Malaysians into the next millennium. Malaysia is attempting a quantum leap in that it is simultaneously attempting to become a fully industrialised country and also a leader in the information age. The need to reskill its people, reshape its product portfolio, redesign its processes, and redirect its services, prompted the Prime Minister, Dato’ Seri Dr. Mahathir Mohamad to introduce Vision 2020 in 1991. In this agenda he envisaged a Malaysia that has achieved the status of a fully developed country. The Vision is of: a psychologically liberated, secure and developed Malaysian society with faith and confidence in itself, justifiably proud of what

203

it has accomplished, robust enough to face all manner of adversity 2 a society that is innovative and forward-looking, one that is not only a consumer of technology but also a contributor to the scientific and technological civilization of the future. (Ministry of Education Malaysia, 1990) Vision 2020 has been the catalyst and main context of change in all aspects of national development, including the education system. The zeal in the education sector is evident in the following statement: Malaysia needs to make the critical transition from an industrial economy to a leader in the information age. In order to make this vision a reality, Malaysians need to make a fundamental shift towards a more technologically literate, thinking workforce, able to perform in a global work environment and use the tools available in the information age. To make this shift, the education system must undergo a radical transformation. The schooling culture must be transformed from one that is memory based on one that is informed, thinking, creative and caring, through leading edge technology (Ministry of Education Malaysia, 1997, p.1). It is this vision that has resulted in Smart Schools becoming one of the flagship applications of the Multimedia Super Corridor (MSC). Smart schools will nurture skills of creative problem-solving in the face of novel situations, and students will learn to exercise courage in making decisions and assuming responsibility for them. Students will learn to process and manipulate information. They will be trained to think critically and to reflect on what they have learned, as well as to transfer and apply knowledge from one discipline to another and to daily Iife (Ministry Education Malaysia, 1990, p.2). It is a shift from dependent to independent learning, from learning that is characterised by directedness, access controlled and set boundaries to one which is self-accessible, self-paced and self-directed.

204

N. Ratnavadivel / Teaching and Teacher Education 15 (1999) 193–213

To bring about a quantum leap in the education system the Government of Malaysia has introduced six new legislations to provide the right kind of legal framework by which the new education system will be predicated. They are namely, the Education Act 1996, the National Council on Higher Education Act 1996, the Private Higher Educational Institutions Act 1996, the Universities and University Colleges Act (Amendment) 1996, the National Accreditation Board Act 1996 and the National Higher Education Fund Board Act 1997. (Mohd. Najib, 1998) The overarching purpose is to ‘‘develop a world class quality education which is flexible and innovative that in turn will make Malaysia a regional educational hub and a centre for education excellence’’ (Ministry of Education Malaysia, 1990 p.2). Throughout 1996 and 1997 the Ministry of Education, Malaysia, embarked on a number of infrastructural and curriculum innovations which reflected the changes taking place in the society. Central to the infrastructural changes was making education technologically consistent and seriously exploring the institutionalisation of IT in the education system. This precipitated the emergence of the concept of ‘‘Smart Schools’’, described earlier. Smart Schools are scheduled to be operationalised in 1999 and will employ the use of multimedia technology, computer assisted learning and the internet. In congruence with the revamped focus of education and its implications for teacher education and innovations in pedagogy and pedagogical skills, the Government has upgraded the status of the Sultan Idris Teacher Education Institute to that of a university specialising in pedagogy (Universiti Pendidikan Sultan Idris, UPSI being its acronym in the Malay Language). (Mohd. Najib, pp. 5,6). In 1996 the TED also introduced the Malaysian Teacher Education Diploma Programme to replace, the five semester Pre-Service Teacher Education Certificate. Among others, this diploma entails an increase in the starting salary for teachers and consequently enhances the professional and social status of college trained teachers. The Minister of Education, Malaysia has also reiterated the need to create a ‘knowledge culture society’’ as a prerequisite for the development of

a successful and progressive nation. The teacher should no longer be seen as a provider of knowledge; instead students should be encouraged to undertake reference work and also learn to use the computer and self-instructional modules. The teaching and learning process should be studentcentred or student-focused rather than teacher-centred. It is assumed that student-centred approaches will assist students to develop their interests as well as to stimulate their search for knowledge. The emphasis will be on the quest for excellence, developing positive, work habits and high standards at all levels in schools. Among the qualities that need to be instilled in our children in Malaysia’s quest for excellence are intellectualism, professionalism and self-discipline. There is a need to shift from ‘‘robotic learning’’ and memory-based learning to learning for understanding founded on critical and creative thinking employing Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) as well. Hence the imperative is to review and, research the whole methodology of teaching with the aim of inquiry-based methodologies, thereby encouraging the development of critical minds (Mohd. Najib, 1998, p.10). One of the pedagogical implications of Smart Schools for teacher education is that teachers must be able to develop critical thinking and creative students who can not only acquire but also process and apply knowledge in varying contexts. Since the key concepts involved are empowerment and enablement of students, teachers will now play the role of ‘‘a guide on the side’’, thus doing away with their traditional role of ‘‘the sage on the stage’’. They will give psychological support and encouragement and also be instrumental in creating conditions that will promote self-directed learning which is creative and independent. (Ministry of Education, 1997) These challenges require teachers to adopt a new approach to the management and development of curriculum in classroom contexts. It is not just about technology or putting multimedia in schools, it is about the development of thinking persons who are critical to the success of Vision 2020. It requires a mindset shift, in all aspects of the teaching-learning process. Teachers have to provide a learning environment that will help optimise selfpaced, self-directed, and self-accessed learning. The

N. Ratnavadivel / Teaching and Teacher Education 15 (1999) 193–213

teacher will become the facilitator of learning and the acquisition of knowledge. It calls for more flatter cultures: a shift from vertical to horizontal cultures of curriculum management and development, and a more dialectical process in which there is collaborative learning. This has cultural, psychological and pedagogical implications for teacher education (Ratnavadivel, 1995). 2 there needs to be a careful mix of intensive training and counselling to help teachers to adapt to the new environment. This will be critical in order to dispel the natural insecurity and fears of redundancy that arise from this radical paradigm shift in teaching methodology and hence the role of the teachers. This training will have to devote considerable attention to changing the mindset of teachers to understand that Smart Schools must provide the best environment for self-paced, self-directed and self-accessed learning (Ministry of Education Malaysia, 1997b, p. 4). Initial training will be provided for 6000 teachers for the implementation of the Smart Schools in 1999. By the year 2005, another 70 000 teachers will have to be trained. The full implementation of Smart Schools throughout the country will require the training of about 450 000 teachers by the year 2010. This will involve thoroughly revamping training programmes, significant additional infrastructure and the mobilisation of expertise, both local and foreign. (Ministry of Malaysia, 1990, pp. 4, 5) However, due to the economic crisis that has hit this part of the world, the scale of implementation has been scaled down. For 1999, the Smart Schools Programme is to be lodged in ninety schools and for this purpose 500 teachers have been given in-service training.

6. Implications for and the response of teacher education Up to this juncture, I have attempted to give an account of the context and history and the current concerns of Teacher Education in Malaysia. Now let us take a peek into certain realities.

205

In this section my discussion and arguments are based on notes taken from: (i) supervision of trainee teachers on their teaching practice, (ii) discussion with my students who are trained teachers undergoing a degree programme at the University, (iii) teaching a course on Philosophy of Education and Curriculum; and (iv) reflecting on the findings of my doctoral thesis, ‘‘The Management of Innovation: An Evaluation of Curriculum Change In Malaysian Teacher Education’’.(Ratnavadivel, 1995). The thesis involved the analytical use of data obtained from interviews with teacher educators (including policy makers and curriculum designers and student teachers as well as observation of classroom processes conducted or facilitated by lecturers in teacher education colleges and student teachers in schools, during their practicum.

7. The ‘‘doctrine of transferability’’ Changes in the school curriculum and teacher education curriculum necessitate changes in the culture of curriculum management and development. The proposed shift is from a culture of individualism and privatism to ‘‘fully collaborative and co-operative cultures’’. It calls for a more ‘‘interactive pedagogy’’ in classroom processes and ‘‘interactive professionalism’’ between teachers (Fullan & Hargreaves, 1992). It requires teachers to question their own existing practices and to be receptive and open to new ideas and potentially better approaches to curriculum management and development. Stenhouse’s definition of curriculum mentions that the curriculum has to be open to scrutiny and be capable of effective translation into practice. In relation to this, my findings have convinced me that teachers need the necessary competencies that will enable them to critically scrutinise the curriculum and translate it into effective practice. Teachers are required to deepen their insights into the educational values of FPN and also develop the ability to

206

N. Ratnavadivel / Teaching and Teacher Education 15 (1999) 193–213

create and recreate the curriculum to achieve the aspirations of FPN. To what extent are teachers able to translate FPN into classroom practice? How do they interpret and operationalise the curriculum specifications in line with the explicit and implicit aspirations of FPN? Are they able to continuously reconstruct the forms in which they represent knowledge or are they merely conforming to suggestions given in the guidebooks and curriculum implementation packages designed and distributed by the Curriculum Development Centre or Teacher Education Division? Due to limitations on the length of this paper, I will only explore some of the issues that emerged.

8. The student teachers’ predicament: between mandates and menus My study of and experience with student teachers, during their practicum, reveals that, first and foremost they fail to realise that what they have prepared is a lesson plan and not a tested and fool-proof manual which has got to be strictly adhered to. Almost all student trainees observed, viewed their lesson plans as mandates and not menus and deem it mandatory to follow the lesson plan to the letter. They did not even contemplate adapting or altering the plan according to the developments in the classroom. The overriding purpose appears to be the need to complete the scdedules set in the lesson plan, according to the steps and time, planned. Even the methods, activities and examples are not changed although the interaction in the classroom called for a change. This is what some may consider to be strict adherence to technical rationality and an inability to use reflective-in-action (Schon, 1983, 1987). The reflection that was carried out was purely technical reflection and not practical or critical reflection (Kemmis, 1985). This situation was in no way helped by some lecturers who insisted that the student teacher strictly follow the lesson plan. For example, a student teacher who spent an extra five minutes to explain something clearly so that her students could grasp it was criticised by her lecturer for poor time management. It appears that the overriding concern is not whether learning takes

place but whether the lesson plan has been fully adhered to. The notion that there is always the best way to do things and that way has been set out and must be followed appears to be deeply rooted in the minds of the student teachers. Most of them appeared to be oblivious to the reality that there is room for experimentation in the classroom which is the laboratory for pedagogical experimentation. The failure to realise that the best way depends on situational understanding, the development of situational knowledge and the ability to make situational judgements which contribute to the professional development of the teacher, was apparent. This raises the issue of developing the reflective skills of trainee teachers in a manner that would enable them to reflect for action, reflect-inaction, know-in-action, develop the capacity for situational understanding and situational knowledge to make situational judgements or employ the required pedagogical strategies. All these pedagogical innovations are provided for in the teacher education curriculum in the theoretical context. Activities are also designed to develop this capacity but when operationalised there appears to be a disjuncture or lack of congruence between intents, processes and outcomes. Student teachers do plan their lessons, they do reflect for action. Elaborate lesson plans outlining the content/information to be imparted, the skills to be developed and values to be inculcated, complete with the methods and techniques to be employed in the teaching—learning processes are formulated. But, what happens during the actual classroom processes? They are unable to explain their lesson in relation to FPN. For example, they are unable to explain the epistemlogical basis of their lessons. They are unable to explain why they chose a particular method, technique or teaching-learning resource. Some could not even explain how they perceive their role as teachers in relation to the students as learners, whether philosophically, psychologically, sociologically, culturally, or pedagogically. When the lesson did not develop according to plan they panicked or froze and often persisted in carrying out the lesson plan, choosing to ignore the practical realities of the ongoing classroom processes. They lacked adversity quotient (Stoltz,1997),

N. Ratnavadivel / Teaching and Teacher Education 15 (1999) 193–213

the ability to turn obstacles to opportunities. This is a clear indication of their lack of ability to reflect-in-action, to develop situational understanding and make situational judgements.

9. To try or not to try: between training and education Student teachers during the teaching practice (practicum), are very concerned about their marks. Although TED has introduced innovative measures to develop teachers as reflective practitioners via the introduction of clinical supervision and the writing of professional journals and a system of mentoring involving both the college lecturers and the mentor—teacher in school, there appears to be certain contradictions between the innovations and the philosophy of evaluation/assessment of teaching practice. For example, the pre- and post-conferencing sessions of clinical supervision call for an open dialogue between the student and lecturer with a view to improving the practice of the student teacher. However when lecturers utilise the feedback given by students to grade the students, the students reveal as little as possible regarding their weaknesses in teaching. Some even mentioned that they do not fancy committing ‘‘harakiri’’(Japanese term for suicide) or ‘‘digging their own grave’’. The less they revealed about their weaknesses, the better their marks were going to be. So the best thing is to ‘‘appear to be smart’’. At times they do not even understand the comments given by the lecturers but are ever ready with a ‘‘yes’’ for the ‘‘do you understand?’’ so often posed by the lecturer. Hence, in such a situation the teaching practice degenerates to the level of a sham. In relation to the four domains which form the focus of FPN the trainees do not appear to encounter problems regarding the physical and spiritual development of their students. However, in terms of inculcation of universal values they were not able to infuse them in their delivery of content. The values stick out like a ‘‘sore thumb’’, separated from the rest of the lesson. There also appeared to be an over emphasis on the imparting of content/information which appeared to be confused with knowledge. The ability to translate information

207

into knowledge was lacking because the process of reflection and reconstruction did not appear to be taking place. The transfer was rather mechanistic, there was a lack of critical and creative thinking. Student teachers did not ‘‘dare to be different’’, to construct new meanings with their pupils through a dialectical process. In terms of emotional development, they themselves appeared to experience a sense of emotional insecurity in conducting their lesson, there is that sense of uncertainty in what they do that gives their sense of emotional insecurity away. In terms of developing the emotional capacity of their students, most of them were unable to utilise their knowledge of psychology and sociology.

10. Teacher educators at a labyrinth The curriculum changes also impacted on the role of teacher educators as teachers. The findings of my doctoral thesis (Ratnavadivel, 1995) illuminate the fact that a major problem that hinders the curriculum literacy required of teachers is their inability to manage change. This inability is due to various problems. Two of them are described below. 10.1. Organisational structures and cultures One of the problems in managing change is related to the existing organisational structures and cultures that now become incompatible with the requirements of the curricular innovation. This is a point that Fullan (1991) makes, that there are certain organisational preconditions to curriculum change. The management is part of the organisational context and if it is attempting to implement an innovatory curriculum without changing the organisational context, it would understandably run into problems. (The nature of the traditional organisation has been fairly hierarchical, departmental and discipline based.) The curriculum espouses a new relationship that is to be based on collaboration, cooperation and collegiality. The problem is how do you shift from a bureaucratic or hierarchical culture to a professional culture which is flatter, more collegiate and more client oriented.

208

N. Ratnavadivel / Teaching and Teacher Education 15 (1999) 193–213

That is a central issue. It is about organisational cultures and power relationships. Change involves the prevailing institutional values of privacy, territory and hierarchy giving way to a more open collegiate culture (Simons1987). It rests upon the possibility of: 2 dismantling the value structure of privacy, territory and hierarchy, and substituting the values of openness, shared critical responsibility, and rational autonomy. (Simons, 1987, p. 243). 10.2. Cultural dimensions of the teacher/teacher educator In view of the preceding argument, a dimension that needs to be explored is the cultural and psychological dimension of the teacher/teacher educator. In as much as the teachers identify with particular disciplines within the subject, they presume themselves to be experts in those disciplines. The shift towards an inter-disciplinary approach requires them to use their disciplines and make connections with other disciplines within the subject and even with other subjects. This calls for a whole new range of expertise necessary to facilitate working within an inter-disciplinary team and context. This further necessitates a change in identity and roles. Innovation de-skills people, it asks them to do things that they have not done before, when they prefer to do things that they are good at doing. 10.3. Curriculum leadership Each teacher also has to function as a curriculum leader. The concept of professionalism implies a responsibility to continuously update knowledge and skills in striving for improvement. Teachers who view themselves as professionals and want to be curriculum leaders need to improve their professional practice through a process of monitoring and reviewing (Day, Hall, Gammage & Coles, 1993). ¹he improvement of teaching is a process of development2 it is not to be achieved by

a change of heart but by the thoughtful refinement of professional skill 2 the refinement of professional skill is generally achieved by the gradual elimination of failings through the systematic study of one’s own teaching. Both curriculum development and research into teaching should provide a base for this professionalism. (Stenhouse, 1975, p. 39). Integration requires teachers to emerge from the cocoons of their disciplines and enter into social relationships which would facilitate the operationalisation of the curriculum according to the recommended framework. There is a need to move from discipline based loyalties and allegiances to common work situations and practices. The teacher is also required to move into the role of a facilitator of learning and no longer as one imparting knowledge in a didactic or transmissive manner. The recommended pedagogy emphasises interactive learning and the giving of more responsibility to the students for their own learning. This means a change in the power equation between the teacher and the student. It means a role shift from the guru—disciple relationship to co—learners. It does not fit with the authority structures that are prevalent. Interactive learning and inquiry based learning necessitate time for the development of understanding through inquiry and discovery and this means that there would be insufficient time to cover content in detail. This means that there might be a conflict between developing new values and covering content which could only be done through existing pedagogy and values. The recommended pedagogy, FPN, KBSR and KBSM, all emphasize the role of the teacher as a facilitator.

11. Conclusion The Smart School represents the most current innovation and is also driven by socio-economic considerations. Like any other innovation, success depends on how the teachers react and what they do in the confines of their classrooms/laboratories. Most innovations have attempted to stimulate teacher professional development through mandates and legislations which represent a subtle from

N. Ratnavadivel / Teaching and Teacher Education 15 (1999) 193–213

of coercion. Smart Schools also profess autonomy learning for students and professional autonomy for the teachers but it has to be careful of the pitfalls that go with coercion. The command-and-control system is so deeply rooted in culture and psychology and it is obvious that there can be no such thing as the ‘‘quick-fix’’. As stated earlier, the success of the Smart School depends on the shift of the mindset, it requires a paradigm shift involving cultural change and the dismantling of existing bureaucratic and values structures. What are the alternatives? What needs to be done? At what levels and by whom? There are no quick fix solutions because the challenge represented requires a total cultural change. For the teachers to obtain curriculum literacy (Ratnavadivel, 1997) the barriers to change need to be overcome. MOEM, particularly TED is continuously researching and monitoring the situation and is undertaking various measures to empower the teachers, including teacher educators, to facilitate this paradigm shift in curriculum literacy. ‘‘Curriculum literacy’’ refers to the management of ideas by the teachers (Shulman, 1987’). It refers to the teachers’ ability to respond intelligently and wisely to teaching—learning situations as they unfold on the basis of discernment, discrimination and insights (Elliott, 1993a, b), as well as being able to realise the aspirations and values of the underlying philosophy or philosophies of education. It not only involves the ability of teachers to commute from being able to comprehend subject matter to developing the ability to elucidate curriculum content in new ways, so that it can be grasped by students (Shulman, 1987). but also the capacity of teachers to provoke the critical and creative faculties of the students that will enable them to process their own understanding and knowledge. Essentially, curriculum literacy depends on the ability and commitment of teachers and teacher educators to function as reflective practitioners who continuously reflect for practice, reflect in practice, reflect on practice and research their practice. This is well emphasised by Stenhouse (1988): The responsibility of teachers, at all levels, is to free students from the insularity of their

209

own minds, prevent them from lodging in the comfortable branches of the teacher’s thought, and try instead to foster a less cautious and confined exploration of knowledge: one that confers on those who seek it, in a spirit of critical enquiry, the power of its use (Rudduck and Hopkins, 1988, p. 3). Since the process of curriculum management and development involves the process of mediation, interpretation, creation and recreation of meanings it therefore involves both the functional and organic aspects of curriculum literacy. However, change takes time. It involves a period of destabilisation and restabilisation. It involves experimentation and the taking of risks. If the curriculum changes do not offer the latitude and opportunities for teachers to make this shift and develop curriculum literacy, many useful changes, in due course, will be lost through assimilation into existing practices or may even becoming nonstarters. Alternatives have got to be continuously explored at all levels of the system. This requires the contribution of each and every teacher from the Ministry to the classroom. This calls for collegiality as well as collaborative and co-operative cultures — a need for a change in existing mind-sets and cultures. In its eagerness to facilitate the realisation of Vision 2020, the education agenda must not unwittingly frustrate the very policy it is designed to support, the development of a psychologically liberated society which is not only a consumer but also a producer of knowledge. Vision 2020 demands rapidity of response and cultural change. It is often possible to have either one, but not both together. References Awang Had, S. (1980). Pelajaran dan Perguruan Melayu di Malaya: ZamanBritish. Kuala Lumpur: Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka. Bernstein, B.B. (1971). On the classification and framing of educational knowledge. In M. F. D. Young, (Ed.), Knowledge and control. pp. 47—69. New York: Crowell Collier and Macmillan. Blenkin, G.M., Edwards, G., & Kelly, A.V. (1992). Change and the curriculum. London: Paul Chapman Publishing.

210

N. Ratnavadivel / Teaching and Teacher Education 15 (1999) 193–213

Bridges, D. (1993). School-based teacher education. In D. Bridges, & T. Kerry, (Eds.), Developing teachers professionally: Reflections for initial and in-service trainers. London: Routledge. (pp. 51—66). Bruner, J.S. (1960). ¹he Process of education. Massachusetts: Harvard University Press. Bruner, J.S. (1966). ¹oward a theory of instruction. Massachusets: Harvard University Press. Calderhead, J. (1991). The nature and growth of knowledge in student teaching. ¹eaching and ¹eacher Education, 7 (5/6), 531—535. Chang, P. (1973). Education development in a plural society: A Malaysian case. Petaling Jaya: Malayan Publishing. Dalin, P. (1978). ¸imits to educational change. London: Macmillan. Dalin, P. (1982). Strategies of innovation. In T. Horton, & P. Raggart (Eds.), Challenge and Change in the Curriculum. London: Hodder and Stoughton. Day, C., Hall, C., Gammage, P., & Coles, M. (1993). ¸eadership and curriculum in the primary school: ¹he roles of senior middle management. London: Paul Chapman Publishing. Dewey, J. (1902). ¹he child and the curriculum. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Elliott, J. (1988). ¹eachers as researchers: Implications for supervision and teacher education. Paper presented at the Annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans. Elliott, J. (1991). A model of professionalism and its implications for teacher education. British Educational Research Journal, 17 (4). Elliott, J. (1993a). Three perspectives on coherence and continuity in teacher education. In J. Elliott, (Ed.), Reconstructing teacher education: ¹eacher development. London: Falmer. Press. Elliott, J. (1993b). Professional education and the idea of a practical educational science. In J. Elliott, (Ed.), Reconstructing teacher education: ¹eacher development. London: Falmer. Elliott, J. (1994). ‘‘The teacher’s role in curriculum development: an unresolved issue in English attempts at curriculum reform’’. Curriculum Studies, 2 (1). Eraut, M. (1994). Developing professional knowledge and competence. London: Falmer. Fullan, M. (1982). ¹he meaning of educational change. New York: Teachers’ College Press. Fullan, M. (1993) Change forces: Probing the depths of educational reform. London: Falmer. Fullan, M., & Hargreaves, A. (1992). ¼hat’s worth fighting for in your school? Buckingham: Open University Press. Fullan, M., & Stiegelbauer, S. (1991). ¹he new meaning of educational change. (2nd ed.). London: Cassell. Furlong, V. J., Hirst, P. H., Pocklington, K., & Miles, S. (1988). Initial teacher training and the role of the school. Milton Keynes: Open University Press. Furlong, V. J., Hirst, P. H., Pocklington, K., & Miles, S. (1961). Education Act 1961. Federation of Malaya. Act of Parliament No. 83 of 1961. Kuala Lumpur: Government Printers.

Government of Malaysia (1965). First Malaysia Plan 1966 — 1970. Kuala Lumpur: Government Printers. Government of Malaysia (1969). The May 13 Tragedy — A report of the national operation council. Kuala Lumpur: Government Printers. Government of Malaysia (1971). Second Malaysia Plan 1971— 1975. Kuala Lumpur:Government Printers. Government of Malaysia (1973). Mid-¹erm Review—Second Malaysia Plan 1971—1975. Kuala Lumpur: Government Printers. Government of Malaysia (1976). Third Malaysia Plan 1976—1980. Kuala Lumpur: Government Printers. Government of Malaysia (1978). Mid-¹erm Review of ¹he ¹hird Malaysia Plan 1976—1980. Kuala Lumpur: Government Printers. (1980) Fourth Malaysia Plan 1981—1985. Kuala Lumpur: National Printing Department. Government of Malaysia (1984). Mid-¹erm Review of ¹he Fourth Malaysia Plan. 1981—1985. Kuala Lumpur: National Printing Department. Government of Malaysia (1986). Fifth Malaysia Plan 1986— 1990. Kuala Lumpur: National Printing Department. Government of Malaysia (1991). Sixth Malaysia Plan 1991—1995. Kuala Lumpur: National Printing Department. Government of Malaysia (1996). Seventh Malaysia Plan 1996 —2000. Kuala Lumpur:National Printing Department. Government of Malaysia (1994). 1993/94 Economic Report. Kuala Lumpur: Ministry of Finance. Government Printers Malaysia Handy, C. (1985). ºnderstanding organisations, (3rd ed). Harmondsworth: Penguin. Handy, C. (1991). Gods of management: The changing work of organisations (3rd ed.). London: Business Books. Hargreaves, A., & Fullan, M.G. (Eds.). (1992). ºnderstanding teacher development. London: Cassell. Hargreaves, A. (1992). Contrived collegiality. In N. Bennett, M. Crawford, & C. Riches, Managing change in education: Individual and organizational perspectives. (pp. 80—94). London: Paul Chapman Publishing Ltd. in association with The Open University Press. Hargreaves, A. (1994). Changing teachers, changing times: ¹eachers’ work and culture in the postmodern age. London: Cassell. Harith, M. (1993). Implementation of the KP¸I Ilmu Pendidikan Curriculum at ¹he ¸anguage Institute, Kuala Lumpur. A paper presented at the Coordination Workshop for Implementation of The KPLI Ilmu Pendidikan Curriculum. Islamic Teacher Education College, Bangi, Malaysia, 17—18 September 1993. (Maznah Harith (1993) ‘‘Pelaksannan Kurikulum Ilmu Pendidikan KPLI di Institut Bahasa, Kuala Lumpur’’ Bengkel Penyelarasan Pelaksanaan Ilmu Pendidikan KPLI. Maktab Perguruan Islam. Bangi. 17—18 September 1993. Hoyle, E. (1970). Planned organizational change in education. Research in Education, 3, 1—22. Hoyle, E. (1974). Professionality, professionalism and control in teaching. ¸ondon Educational Review, 3 (2), 21—37. Hoyle, E. (1980). Professionalization and deprofessionalization in education. In: E. W. Hoyle, & J. Meagarry, (Eds.), ¼orld

N. Ratnavadivel / Teaching and Teacher Education 15 (1999) 193–213 yearbook of education 1980: Professional development of ¹eachers. (pp. 42—54). London: Kogan Page. Kemmis, S. (1986). Seven principles for programme evaluation in curriculum development and innovation. E.R. House, (Ed.), New directions in educational evaluation. (pp. 117—140). London: Falmer. Lawton, D. (1973). Social change, educational theory and curriculum planning. London: University of London Press. Lim, G. S., Taharuddin, S. N. A., Mat Piah, A. R., & Ratnavadivel, N. (1991). ¹eacher education: practices and prospects.—A paper presented at the Regional Seminar on Teacher Education: Challenges in the 21st Century, Penang. Malaysia, 18—20 November 1991. Loh, P. (1975). Seeds of separatism: Educational policy in Malaya 1879—1950. Kuala Lumpur: Oxford University Press. MacDonald, B., & Walker, R. (1976). Changing the curriculum. London: Open Books. Marimuthu, T. (1991). Perceptions of the roles of co-operating teachers in primary school practicum: An evaluative study. M.Ed. thesis, University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur (unpublished). Ministry of Education (1970). Seminar Report. National seminar on curriculum development in teacher education. Penang, 3—6 December 1970. Ministry of Education Malaysia (1971). General and specific aims of teacher training in Malaysia—A paper prepared by the Jawatankuasa Mengkaji Tujuan-tujuan Latihan Perguruan Kementerian Pelajaran: Teacher Training Division Malaysia. Ministry of Education Malaysia (1979). Cabinet committee report on the review of the implementation of the education policy. Kuala Lumpur: Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka. [Kementerian Pelajaran Malaysia (1979) Laporan Jawatankuasa Kabinet Mengkaji Pelaksanaan Dasar Pelajaran. Kuala Lumpur: Dewan Bahasadan Pustaka] Ministry of Education Malaysia (1982). The philosophy of teacher education in Malaysia (Report of the National Workshop and Survey) Kuala Lumpur: Teacher Education Division Malaysia. Ministry of Education Malaysia (1986). Asian and Pacific program of educational innovation for development (APIED) Report on Teacher Education Survey in Malaysia. Kuala Lumpur: Teacher Education Division Malaysia. Ministry of Education Malaysia (1988). ¼orking Paper: Central Curriculum Committee Meeting 8/1988 Post-Graduate Teacher Education Programme. Teacher Education Division. (Kertas Kerja Mesyuarat Jawatankuasa Pusat Kurikulum 8/1988.Kursus Perguruan Lepas Ijazah. Kuala Lumpur: Bahagian Pendidikan Guru, Kementerian Pendidikan Malaysia. Ministry of Education Malaysia (1989a). ¹he integrated curriculum for secondary school(ICSS). Kuala Lumpur: The Curriculum Development Centre Malaysia. Ministry of Education Malaysia (1989b). Education in Malaysia. Kuala Lumpur: Educational Planning and Research Division Malaysia. Ministry of Education Malaysia (1990a). ¹he new primary school curriculum — Aims, rationale, areas of study and teaching and

211

learning strategies. Kuala Lumpur: The Curriculum Development Centre Malaysia. Ministry of Education Malaysia (1990b). ¹raining module for the integrated curriculum for secondary school (ICSS). Kuala Lumpur: The Curriculum Development Centre Malaysia. [Pukal Latihan Kurikulum Bersepadu Sekolah Menengah (KBSM) KualaLumpur: Pusat Perkembangan Kurikulum] Ministry of Education Malaysia (1990c). Ilmu Pendidikan syllabus for KPLI (Sukatan Pelajaran Ilmu Pendidikan, Kursus Perguruan Lepas Ijazah). Ministry of Education Malaysia (1992a). Report on the performance of candidates from teacher Education colleges postgraduate teacher education course. (KPLI)(1991 Intake) Kuala Lumpur: Examinations and Evaluation Unit. Teacher Education Division. Ministry of Education of Malaysia. December 1992. (Laporan Prestasi Calon-Calon Maktab Perguruan Kursus Perguruan Lepas Ijazah (Pengambilan Julai 1991) Unit Peperiksaan dan Penilaian, Bahagian Pendidikan Guru, Kementerian Pendidikan Malaysia. Disember 1992. Ministry of Education Malaysia (1992b). Curriculum unit teacher education division, Ministry of Education Malaysia 1992. A booklet for internal use. (Unit Kurikulum Bahagian Pendidikan Guru, Kementerian Pendidikan Malaysia.) Ministry of Education Malaysia (1992c). Study on the effectiveness of the curriculum for the five semesters basic teacher education course. (Primary Teacher Education) Executive Brief presented at the Special Meeting of The Principals of Teacher Education Institutes and Colleges. Crown PrincessHotel Kuala Lumpur. 9—11 November 1992. (Kajian Keberkesanan Kurikulum Kursus Perguruan Asas Lima Semester (Perguruan Sekolah Rendah) Ringkasan Eksekutif. Mesyuarat Khas PengetuaInstitut dan Maktab Perguruan Malaysia. Crown Princess Hotel Kuala Lumpur.9—11 November 1992. Unit Kurikulum, Bahagian Pendidikan Guru, Kementerian Pendidikan Malaysia. Ministry of Education Malaysia (1993a). Education in Malaysia. Kuala Lumpur: Educational Planning and Research Division Malaysia. Ministry of Education Malaysia (1993b). ¹he post-graduate teacher education programme. KP¸I: Ilmu Pendidikan Syllabus: Rational and Implementation Strategy. Kuala Lumpur: Curriculum Unit, Teacher Education Division. An internal paper. (Kursus Perguruan ‘‘Perguruan Lepas Ijazah (KPLI) Sukatan PelajaranIlmu Pendidikan’’ Rasional dan Strategi Pelaksanaannya.’’ Unit Kurikulum,Bahagian Pendidikan Guru, Kementerian Pendidikan Malaysia.) Ministry of Education Malaysia (1993c). ¹he post-graduate teacher education programme (KPLI). Kuala Lumpur: Teacher Education Division, Ministry of Education Malaysia. An internal paper. (Kursus Perguruan Lepas Ijazah (KPLI) Bahagian Pendidikan Guru, Kementerian Pendidikan Malaysia.) Ministry of Education Malaysia (1993d). Chapter 8—KBSM and teacher education. Evaluation of KBSM 93. Kuala Lumpur: Educational Planning and Research Division. (Bab8—KBSM dan Perguruan. Penilain KBSM 93).

212

N. Ratnavadivel / Teaching and Teacher Education 15 (1999) 193–213

Ministry of Education Malaysia (1993e). Briefing notes on education in Malaysia. Kuala Lumpur: Teacher Education Division. Ministry of Education Malaysia (1993f). Report on the Meeting of the Management Committee of ¹he Ministry of Education. Incentives Payments To Cooperating Teachers of Practicum II Programme for The Five Semesters Basic Teacher Education Programme. A document for internal circulation. (Mesyuarat Jawantkuasa Pengurusan Kementerian Pendidikan Malaysia. Pemberian Ganjaran Kepada Guru Pembimbing Program Praktikum II Kursus Perguruan Asas Lima Semester Bahagian Pendidikan Guru, Kementerian Pendidikan Malaysia. Ministry of Education Malaysia (1994a). Report: Study on Effectiveness of ¹eachers who graduated from the Post-Graduate ¹eacher Education Programme (¹ES¸). 1994.Kuala Lumpur: Curriculum Development Centre and The Specialist Teacher Education College. (Kementerian Pendidikan Malaysia Laporan Kajian Keberkesanan Guru Kursus Perguruan Lepas Ijazah (TESL). 1994. Pusat Perkembangan Kurikulum dan Maktab Perguruan Ilmu Khas. Ministry of Education Malaysia (1994b). (untitled) Mission of ministry of education. Kuala Lumpur: Teacher Education Division. (Misi Kementerian Pendidikan)(unpaged) Ministry of Education Malaysia (1994c). (untitled) Customers charter of ministry of education. Kuala Lumpur: Teacher Education Division. pp (unpaged) (Piagam Pelanggan Kementerian Pendidikan). Ministry of Education Malaysia (1994d). (untitled) Customers charter of teacher education division. Kuala Lumpur: Teacher Education Division. p. 1. (Piagam Pelanggan Bahagian Pendidikan Guru) Ministry of Education Malaysia (1994e). ‘Payment of Incentives To Cooperating Teachers. Practicum Programme II. Five Semesters basic Teacher Education Programme. ‘‘Teacher Education Division. A document for internal circulation. Pemberian Ganjaran Kepada Guru Pembimbing Program Praktikum II Kursus Asas Lima Semeter. Bahagian Pendidikan Guru. Februari 1994. Ministry of Education Malaysia 1995. Model Konseptual Pendidikan Guru Dalam Pembinaan Guru, Kementerian Pendidikan Malaysia, September 1995. Ministry of Education Malaysia 1996. The smart school concept. Ministry of Education Malaysia (1996b). Panduan Praktikum I dan II. Kursus Diploma Perguruan Malaysia Institut/ Maktab Perguruan Malaysia, Mei1996. Ministry of Education Malaysia (1997a). ¹he conceptualization of smart schools in Malaysia. Paper presented at ‘‘Building the Multimedia Super-Corridor To Vision 2020: Smart Schools Project Team Kick-Off Meeting’’, Kuala Lumpur. February 19, 1997. Ministry of Education Malaysia (1997b) Panduan Praktikum III dan IV. Kursus Diploma Perguruan Malaysia Institut/Maktab Perguruan Malaysia, September 1997. Mohd. Najib, Dato Sri, Tun Abdul Razak, Minister of Education, Malaysia (1998). Keynote Address, Reforms in educa-

tion: ¹he next stage at the National Education Conference, Sunway Lagoon, Subang Jaya, 26 February 1998. Nixon, J. (1992). Evaluating the whole curriculum. Buckingham: Open University Press. Raja Melawar Teacher Education College (1993). Implementation of ¹he Ilmu Pendidikan Curriculum, KP¸I At Raja Melawar ¹eacher Education College. Seremban: Raja Melawar Teacher Education College. A paper presented at the Coordination Workshop for Implementation of The KPLI Ilmu Pendidikan Curriculum. Islamic Teacher Education College, Bangi Malaysia. 17—18 September 1993. (Pelaksanaan Kurikulum Ilmu Pendidikan, KPLI Di Maktab Perguruan Raja Melawar Seremban) Ratnavadivel, N. (1985). ¹he social origins of the educational system in peninsular Malaysia (1957—1980). M.Ed dissertation, University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur. (unpublished). Ratnavadivel, N. (1994). ¹owards school based teacher education In Malaysia: problems and prospects. A paper presented at West Sussex Institute of Education, Bognor Regis: Conference on Researching School Based Teacher Education. 15th July 1994. Ratnavadivel, N. (1995). ¹he management of innovation: An evaluation of curriculum change in Malaysian teacher education. Ph.D. thesis University of East Anglia. (unpublished) Ratnavadivel, N. (1996). ¹owards literacy in teacher education: Perspectives on curriculum reforms and innovations in Malaysian teacher education. A paper presented at National Literacy Seminar, Penang, Malaysia, 26—27th October 1996. Ratnavadivel, N. (1997a). Pengurusan dan Perkembangan Kurikulum Dalam Pendidikan Guru: Program Praktikum dan¸iterasi Profesional — Satu Refleksi. A paper presented at Seminar Praktikum Pendidikan Guru, Malacca, 19—21 June 1997. Ratnavadivel, N. (1997b). ¸iteracy and the curriculum: Some concerns and issues in teacher education. Paper presented at International Conference On Literacy. Penang, 8—10 December 1997. Rudduck, J., & Hopkins, D. (1985). Research as a basis for teaching: Readings from the work of ¸awrence Stenhouse. Oxford: Heinemann Educational Books. Slleh, H. (1997). Pemuafakatan Dalam Program Praktikum ¸atihan Perguruan. Paper presented at ‘‘Seminar Praktikum Pendidikan Guru 1997’’, Malacca, 19—21 June 1997. Schon, D.A. (1971). Beyond the stable state: Public and private learning in a changing society. London: Maurice Temple Smith. Schon, D.A. (1983). ¹he reflective Practioner: How professional think in action. USA: Basic Books. Schon, D.A. (1987). Educating ¹he reflective practioner: ¹oward a design for teaching and learning in the professions. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Shulman, L. S. (1987). ‘‘Knowledge and teaching: Foundations for a new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57, pp. 1—22 Simons, H. (1971) ‘‘Innovation and the case study of schools’’ Cambridge Journal of Education, Vol. 1, p.118. Simons, H. (1987). Getting to know schools in a democracy. London: Falmer.

N. Ratnavadivel / Teaching and Teacher Education 15 (1999) 193–213 Simons, H. (1994). ¹he paradox of case study. A paper presented at the British Educational Research Association Annual Conference. September. Specialist Teacher Education College (1993). ¹he Implementation of ¹he KP¸I Ilmu Pendidikan Curriculum at ¹he Specialist ¹eacher Education College. Kuala ¸umpur. A paper presented at the Coordination Workshop for Implementation of The KPLI Ilmu Pendidikan Curriculum. Islamic Teacher Education College, Bangi. Malaysia. 17—18 September 1993. Presented by Ng Chiew Mei. Stenhouse, L. (1971), The humanities curriculum projects R. Hooper, R. (Ed.), ¹he curriculum: Context, design and development. (pp. 336—334). Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd and The Open University Press. Stenhouse, L. (1975). An Introduction to curriculum research and development. London: Heinemann. Stenhouse, L. (Ed.). (1980a). Curriculum research and development in action. ¸ondon. Heinemann. Sulaiman, M. Y. (1993). ¹he experience of the Islamic teacher education college. Paper presented at the Coordination Workshop for Implementation of The KPLI Ilmu Pendidikan Curriculum. Islamic Teacher Education College. Bangi, Malaysia. 17—18 September 1993. (Pengalaman Maktab Perguruan Islam) Sultan Idris Teacher Education Institute. (IPSI) (1993). ºpgrading teacher professionalism in KP¸I. A paper presented at the Coordination Workshop for Implementation of The KPLI Pendidikan Curriculum. Islamic Teacher Education College. Bangi, Malaysia. 17—18 September 1993. (IPSI:Peningkatan Professionalisme Keguruan KPLI)

213

Syed Zin, S. M. (1990). Curriculum innovation—Case studies of man and the environment in the Malaysian primary school curriculum. Ph.D. thesis, University of East Anglia, Norwich (unpublished). Tan, H. L. (1993). Why should cooperating teachers cooperate? Jurnal Pelita Pendidik, Kuala Bil, 2, 71—79. Kuala Lumpur: Jabatan Pendidikan, Maktab Perguruan Ilmu Khas. Technical Teacher Education College (1993). Report on Implementation of ¹he KP¸I Ilmu Pendidikan Curriculum. Kuala Lumpur: Pendidikan Pendidikan, Technical Teacher Education College. A paper presented at the Coordination Workshop for Implementation of The KPLI Ilmu Pendidikan Curriculum. Islamic Teacher Education College. Bangi, Malaysia. 17—18 September 1993. (Laporan Pelaksanaan Kurikulum Ilmu Pendidikan KPLI oleh: Jabatan Pendidikan Maktab Perguruan Teknik Kuala Lumpur.) Wan Zahid Mohd. Noordin (1993). Fulfilling the vision of education. A paper presented at Persidangan Pendidikan Nasional Pertama, 8—11 April 1993 at Seri Layang, Genting Highlands. Wan Zahid Mohd. Noordin (1996). Creating contexts of change: ¹he Malaysian experience. Paper presented at the 8th International Conference of Commonwealth Council For Educational Administration (CCEA). Seri Layang, Genting Highlands, 19—24 August 1996. Weber (1948). From Max ¼eber, essays in sociology. (Trans. and Edited by H. H. Gerth and C. W. Mills) London: Routelage and Kegan Paul.