The literature is replete with studies which document curriculum development projects, especially those occurring in North America and the United Kingdom. Few of these accounts of curriculum projects provide an analysis of the diffusion and dissemination strategies incorporated into the respective project designs.
The subject of this paper, the Social Education Materials Project (SEMP), is studied in terms of the formative diffusion strategies used by the project teams operating in all states during 1975–76. By comparing uses made of specific strategies with those proposed in diffusion models, an attempt is made to assess their overall influence upon teachers who have adopted (or intend to adopt) and implement SEMP materials.
References
1.
Curriculum Development Centre. The Social Education Materials Project. Canberra: Curriculum Development Centre, 1974.
2.
FranceG.Formative influences on the content and structure of the Social Education Materials Project. Ethos, 1978, 8, 4, 3–6.
3.
FullanM.PomfretA.Research on curriculum and instruction implementation. Review of Educational Research, 1977, 47, 335–397.
4.
GrobmanH.Developmental Curriculum Projects: Decision Points and Processes. New York: F. E. Peacock, 1970.
5.
HavelockR. G.A Guide to Innovation in Education. Ann Arbor, Mich.: University of Michigan, 1970.
6.
HavelockR. G.The utilisation of educational research and development. British Journal of Educational Technology, 1971, 2, 84–98.
7.
HillP. W.MarshC. J.Teachers' perceptions of the diffusion of an innovation within an authority-decision framework: senior school geography case study. Australian Journal of Education, 1979, 23, 32–44.
8.
HouseE. R.The Politics of Educational Innovation. Berkeley, California: McCutchan, 1974.
9.
HoyleE.Planned Organisational Change in Education. Research in Education, 1970, No. 3, 1–22.
10.
JonesP. (Ed.) Social Education Materials Project [SEMP]. Teachers Handbook & Workshop Leaders Handbook. Manuka, A.C.T.: Curriculum Development Centre, 1977.
11.
MilesM. B. (Ed.) Innovation in Education. New York: Teachers College Press, 1964.
12.
MorrishI.Aspects of Educational Change. London: George Allen & Unwin, 1976.
13.
National Committee on Social Science Teaching. Social Science courses in Australia — a correlation survey. Research Paper No. 2, 6th December, 1973. (mimeo.).
14.
OwenJ. M.TisherR. P.Curriculum adoption: the fate of a National Curriculum Project in Australia. Paper presented at the Annual conference of the American Association of Research in Education, Toronto, 1978.
15.
RogersE. M.ShoemakerF. F.Communication of Innovations. New York: Free Press, 1971.
16.
RosenauF. S.Tactics for the Educational Change Agent. San Francisco: Far West Laboratory, 1973.
17.
SchonD. A.Beyond the Stable State. London: Temple Smith, 1971.
18.
SieberS. D.Images of the practitioner and strategies of educational change. Sociology of Education, 1972, 45, 362–385.
19.
SteadmanS. D.ParsonsC.SalterB. G.A First Interim Report to the Programme Committee for the Schools Council. IMPACT AND TAKE UP PROJECT. Schools Council Publications, May 1978.
20.
TonkinC. B.The Social Education Materials Project: a review. New Directions in Australian Education, Carlton, Vic.: Australian College of Education, 1976, 211–218.
21.
WalkerD. F.Curriculum development in an art project. In ReidW. A.WalkerD. F. (Eds.) Case Studies in Curriculum Change. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1975, 91–135.
22.
ZaltmanG.FlorioD. H.SikorskiL. A.Dynamic Educational Change. New York: Free Press, 1977.
