The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

https://www.emerald.com/insight/2050-7003.htm

JARHE
13,4 Factors influencing curriculum
implementation in accredited
private universities in Botswana
1062 Norman Rudhumbu
Curriculum Studies, Bindura University of Science Education, Bindura,
Received 10 April 2020
Revised 25 June 2020
Zimbabwe, and
13 August 2020
Accepted 15 September 2020
E.C. (Elize) Du Plessis
University of South Africa, Pretoria, South Africa

Abstract
Purpose – The study investigated factors influencing how the curriculum is implemented in accredited
private higher education institutions (PHEIs) in Botswana.
Design/methodology/approach – The study investigated factors influencing curriculum implementation in
accredited private universities (PUs) operating in a highly regulated higher education environment in Botswana. A
total of six PUs which have been operating in Botswana for at least five years were purposively selected for the
study. The mixed methods approach was used in the study. From the six PUs, a sample of 306 lecturers was
selected from a population of 1,500 lecturers using stratified random sampling strategy for the quantitative phase
of the study, and 25 academic middle managers (AMMs) were also selected from a population of 273 academic
middle managers using purposive sampling strategy for the qualitative phase. A structured questionnaire and a
semi-structured interview guide were used for data collection. Principal component analysis (PCA) was performed
to test the reliability and validity of the measurements. Descriptive statistics, chi-square, one-way ANOVA and
regression analysis were used for quantitative data analysis, while a meta-aggregative approach was used for
analysing qualitative data. Results showed that educational level, characteristics of the curriculum, of the
institution and of the external environment had a significant influence on how curriculum is implemented in PUs
in Botswana, while gender, age and years of teaching experience did not have a significant influence. These results
have implications on educational policy formulation by regulatory authorities as well as practice in universities for
the purpose of enhancing curriculum implementation.
Findings – Results showed that educational level, characteristics of the curriculum, of the institution and of
the external environment had a significant influence on how the curriculum is implemented in PUs in
Botswana, while gender, age and years of teaching experience did not have a significant influence.
Research limitations/implications – Data were collected from lecturers in accredited private higher
education institutions in Botswana only which limited the scope of insight into challenges facing accredited
private institutions. Future research needs to expand the scope and consider private both private and public
higher education institutions in Botswana and beyond so that more insight on the factors affecting curriculum
implementation in higher education institutions can be established and appropriate policies and processes
could be put in place for effective curriculum implementation.
Practical implications – The study provides insight into challenges affecting curriculum implementation in
higher education institutions and how regulatory authorities, institutional authorities and lecturers can
contribute to effective curriculum implementation in these institutions.

The authors wish to thank all the management and academic middle managers from the participating
universities whose contributions made this study possible.
Competing interests: Researchers have no interests to declare in this study.
Funding disclosure: There is no funding source to disclose as the study was not funded by any
organisation.
Disclosure of potential conflicts of interest: The researchers declare no conflict of interest in this study.
Journal of Applied Research in Research involving human participants and/or animals: The research has complied with all relevant
Higher Education guidelines and institutional policies related to research involving human participants.
Vol. 13 No. 4, 2021
pp. 1062-1084 Informed consent: Informed consent was sought from all participants.
© Emerald Publishing Limited Data set: This manuscript is an extraction from the author’s PhD thesis as part of the university
2050-7003
DOI 10.1108/JARHE-04-2020-0083 requirement to publish an article from the thesis. Data can be accessed from: uir.unisa.ac.za.
Social implications – The study offers an opportunity for higher education institutions to implement the Curriculum in
curriculum in a manner that satisfies its primary customers who are the students by taking cognizance of and
satisfying factors that contribute to effective curriculum implementation. accredited
Originality/value – There is no study known to the researcher that has been conducted on factors affecting private
curriculum implementation in accredited private universities in Botswana. This study, therefore, is an eye-
opener on such factors and what actions regulatory authorities, institutional management and lecturers should universities
take to promote effective implementation of the curriculum in higher education institutions in Botswana.
Keywords Curriculum, Curriculum implementation, Curriculum implementation challenges, External
environment, Lecturer factors, Private universities 1063
Paper type Research paper

1. Introduction
The purpose of the study was to establish factors affecting effective implementation of the
curriculum in accredited private universities (PUs). PUs are universities that are established,
owned and managed by individuals and whose funding mostly comes from tuition,
investments and private donors (Burrows, 2018; Garnett, 2019; Growe, 2018). Accredited
private universities are private institutions that have been registered and given approval by
the government education authorities to operate as universities. These universities which
have been implementing their various curricular over the last 40 years are required to always
seek re-accreditation after every five years in line with the set quality assurance criteria.
Effective curriculum implementation is important in universities. Various studies allude to
the fact that there are a number of factors that influence effective implementation of the
curriculum in universities (Ibenegbu, 2019; Tichnor-Wagner et al., 2018). These factors are
linked to issues that include lecturer capacity and motivation, resources, collaboration,
institutional and state educational policies, among others (Taguma and Barrera, 2019).
Separate studies by Yan (2014) and Madondo (2020) also found that the social structure of
institutions, material and human resources, skills development and motivation of lecturers
and provision of support by institutional and state authorities have an effect on how
curriculum is implemented in PUs. Despite the fact that PUs face a number of challenges that
have the potential to affect effective implementation of curriculum, as mentioned above, there
is no study known to the researcher that has been conducted to establish curriculum-related,
lecturer-related, institution-related and government-related factors that affect how
curriculum is implemented in PUs in Botswana. This highlights the need for such a
specific study. As a result therefore, establishing, understanding and addressing these
factors help lecturers in PUs to implement curriculum consistently, effectively and with
confidence (Lochner et al., 2015; McNeill et al., 2016), hence the purpose of this study.
Specific research objectives of the study were to:
(1) Establish factors that influence curriculum implementation in accredited PUs
operating in a highly regulated higher education environment.
(2) Investigate how these factors influence effective curriculum implementation in
accredited PUs in Botswana.
(3) Identify strategies that can be used to enhance curriculum implementation in PUs.

2. Factors influencing curriculum implementation

2.1 The concepts of curriculum and curriculum implementation
Studies of curriculum, from conceptual frameworks to actual practice, are not new (Ornstein
and Hunkins, 2014; Wang, 2006), yet coming up with a cogent and universally agreed
definition of curriculum remains elusive. As a result, the term curriculum has assumed many
JARHE different definitions and meanings (Bediaco, 2019; Bovill and Woolmer, 2018; Nevenglosky,
13,4 2018) because it is widely used by students, academics, institutional management and
policymakers across different contexts (Fotheringham et al., 2012).The term curriculum can
be understood in two ways. The first way is to interpret it as fact, practice or social conflict “in
terms of political power thus taking curriculum as a center of conflict” Brown (2014, p. 4). The
second approach to understanding curriculum is by “analysing the nature of what is taught
in schools thus taking curriculum as currere, a race, gender, aesthetic, institutionalised or
1064 poststructuralist texts” Brown (2014, p. 4). Given such a context, curriculum therefore
assumes various meanings as already alluded to above. Using these different perspectives,
curriculum is viewed variously as either a product, content or subject matter (the Tylerian
view) thus taking curriculum as content in documents (Tabaundule, 2014); as programme of
planned activities therefore taking curriculum as course of study (Carl, 2012); as intended
learning outcomes hence taking curriculum as a set of learning objectives (Tabaundule, 2014);
as all the experiences of the learner (the Dewean conception) consequently taking curriculum
as all that students learn inside and outside the classroom (Brown, 2014); as currere as a result
taking curriculum as lived experiences of the learner or a course they must complete (Lee
et al., 2013); as praxis therefore taking curriculum as agenda for social restructuring (Ornstein
et al., 2011) and as change as a result taking curriculum as a response to a change (Glatthorn,
2005). This study assumes the meaning of curriculum as all experiences of the learner as it is a
definition that captures all that students do at universities. It is a definition that alludes to the
fact that what students learn (experience) in schools is “as a result of a complex web of
interactions and transactions between the actors (teachers and students) in the classrooms
and the physical environment, and between actors and the materials such as textbooks, as
well as between actors and the values and social norms adopted by the different actors” (Chin
and Poon, 2014, p. 19).
The above definitions or understandings of curriculum have implications on how
curriculum is implemented in universities as argued by Tabaundule, 2014 who asserted that
the way lecturers understand a curriculum determines how they implement it. As a theoretical
concept, however, implementation is viewed as the carrying out of something or the practical
application of a method, procedure or desired purpose (Nevenglosky, 2018; Yang, 2013).
Nevenglosky et al. (2019, p. 5) define curriculum implementation as “how teachers deliver
instruction and assessment through the use of specified resources provided in a curriculum”.
Curriculum implementation is also defined as the process of translating the intended
curriculum into the operational curriculum (classroom practice) (Fullan, 2001) and is considered
the most crucial and sometimes the most difficult phase of the curriculum development process
(Ornstein and Hunkins, 2014). Effective implementation of the curriculum, therefore, is
implementing a curriculum in ways that ensure student learning outcomes are achieved
(Nevenglosky et al., 2019) or is the putting into operation of a curriculum in a way that leads to
the achievement of intended learning outcomes (Hall and Hord, 2015; Mandukwini, 2016).
Effective implementation of the curriculum, therefore, and according to Margolis et al. (2017),
must be interactive and experiential through the use of enquiry-based approaches.

2.2 Research model and hypotheses formulation

Curriculum implementation is influenced by a number of factors which include
characteristics of the curriculum, of the external environment, of the institution and of the
lecturers (Essays UK, 2018; Ibenegbu, 2019; Luo, 2016). Based on these factors, this study is
therefore informed by the ecological systems theory developed by Bronfenbrenner (1979).
The theory argues that education is a complex system that has layered levels that interact to
influence curriculum implementation. According to the ecological systems theory, decisions,
processes, structures and policies emanating from institutions and government educational
agencies have both a direct and indirect influence on how curriculum is implemented in
learning institutions (Taguma and Barrera, 2019). Arguing from a position that curriculum Curriculum in
implementation in universities occurs in a nested environmental context, the theory accredited
highlights the influence of multiple nested systems that include the microsystem,
mesosystem, exosystem, macrosystem and chronosystem that have factors that either
private
constrain or enable effective implementation of curriculum in learning institutions. This universities
study only focussed on the first three systems which are relevant to the study hence, for the
purpose of the study, Figure 1 is an adaptation of the nested system in which curriculum
implementation takes place. 1065
2.2.1 Microsystem level factors. The microsystem level relates to the classroom in terms of
what is taught (the curriculum) and how it is taught (the instruction) in the classroom.
According to the ecological systems theory, the manner in which students interact with the
curriculum is determined, at this level, by the characteristics of the curriculum, the way
lecturers understand that curriculum as well as their readiness (motivation and
preparedness) to implement it (Taguma and Barrera, 2019). The theory further argues that
interactions that take place in the classroom during curriculum implementation, in terms of
lecturer instruction, learning activities and materials as well as assessment have a direct
impact on how a curriculum is viewed (relevance and practicality) and eventually how it will
be implemented.
2.2.1.1 Curriculum-related factors. Characteristics of a curriculum or curriculum-related
factors can either hinder or promote its successful implementation (Bediaco, 2019; Spreen and
Knapczyk, 2017; Taylor et al., 2016).These characteristics include the need for the curriculum,
clarity, complexity and quality or practicality of the curriculum. In his study, Schagen (2011)
found that many curricula fail at the implementation stage because of the characteristics of
the curriculum. In their separate studies, Abadie and Bista (2018), Chapman et al. (2018) found
that if lecturers feel that the innovation or curriculum has clear goals and implementation
strategies, is implementable and is relevant to their own needs as well as to the students’
needs, they usually will always be more willing and enthusiastic to implement it. Separate
studies by Tichno-Wagner et al. (2018) and Marz and Kelchtermans (2013) found that for
lecturers to be able to effectively implement a curriculum they must have a full understanding
of the curriculum, its goals and objectives. Other studies by Cheung and Wong (2012) and
Smith and Thier (2017) also found that a lack of curriculum clarity makes it difficult for
lecturers to understand and effectively implement it. In their studies also, Abadie and Bista
(2018) and Tikkanen et al. (2017) and found that for a curriculum to be effectively
implemented lecturers need to be given adequate time to understand and appreciate its
relevance as well as develop confidence that they can successfully implement it.

Microsystem factors:
-Characteristics of the curriculum
H1-H5
-Characteristics of the lecturer
Curriculum implementation
Mesosystem factors: H6

-Characteristics of the institution Figure 1.

Research model
H7 adapted from the
Exosystem factors: ecological systems
2.2.1 Microsystem level
theory
-Characteristics of the external (Bronfenbrenner, 1979)
environment
JARHE H0. There is no significant relationship between curriculum-related factors and
13,4 curriculum implementation in private universities.
H1. There is a significant relationship between curriculum-related factors and
curriculum implementation in private universities.
2.2.1.2 Lecturer-related factors. Lecturer-related factors also called characteristics of
lecturers include those qualities such as level of education, gender, age and years of
1066 teaching experience that have an impact on how lecturers perform their duties (Seehorn,
2012). Lecturers are viewed as instrumental to effective implementation of curriculum in
universities (Nevenglosky et al., 2019), and hence an understanding of these qualities to
curriculum implementation is important. A study by Nevenglosky (2018) found that if
lecturers are adequately prepared through training and resource provision, they tend to
develop positive attitudes and confidence and become more effective in the implementation of
the curriculum. A study by Jess et al. (2016) found that lecturer characteristics that include
level of education, age, gender and years of teaching experience have an influence on the
implementation of a curriculum. This confirmed results of an earlier study by Seehorn (2012)
which found that characteristics of lecturers which include educational level, age, gender and
teaching experience influenced the quality of instruction as well as the quality of the students’
educational experiences and hence had a positive influence on curriculum implementation. In
his study. Bouck (2008) found that lecturers most define and shape how curriculum is enacted
in classrooms because they play a more direct role than textbooks since they are the ones who
make the final decisions about what gets taught and what is not. Lecturer characteristics fall
under the technical dimension of curriculum implementation. The technical dimension relates
to the level of education (knowledge) and skill lecturers have in their area of specialization
(Essays UK, 2018; Roman, 2019).
Availability of adequately and technically qualified and experienced staff is critical to the
successful implementation of a curriculum (Kyndt et al., 2016; Polikoff and Porter, 2014). In a
study by the Education Review Office (2010), it was found that experienced staff had an
extensive and deeper knowledge of both the curriculum and strategies of implementing it and
hence implement the curriculum better than the less experienced lecturers. Rogan and
Grayson (2003) in their earlier study also found that lecturers who have not received adequate
training failed to effectively and sufficiently implement the curriculum in their institutions. In
their separate studies, MacDonald et al. (2016) and Margolis et al. (2017) found that age and
gender of lecturers had significant influence on how lecturers implement curriculum in
universities.
H0. There is no significant relationship between gender of the lecturer and curriculum
implementation.
H2. There is a significant relationship between gender of the lecturer and curriculum
implementation.
H0. There is no significant relationship between educational level of the lecturer and
curriculum implementation.
H3. There is a significant relationship between educational level of the lecturer and
curriculum implementation.
H0. There is no significant relationship between age of the lecturer and curriculum
implementation.
H4. There is a significant relationship between age of the lecturer and curriculum
implementation.
 H0. There is no significant relationship between years of teaching experience of the Curriculum in
lecturer and curriculum implementation. accredited
H5. There is a significant relationship between years of teaching experience of the private
lecturer and curriculum implementation. universities
2.2.2. Mesosystem level factors. The mesosystem level is also referred to as the institutional
level and signifies the arena in which curriculum implementation takes place. Taguma and
Barrera (2019) argue that characteristics of the institution that include attributes such as 1067
collaboration among institutional staff, level of institutional support and adequacy of
appropriate resources have a direct impact on effective implementation of curriculum in
universities.
2.2.2.1 Institution-related factors. Institution-related factors also called institutional
influences or characteristics of the institution that affect curriculum implementation fall into
two categories namely the political and cultural dimensions of the implementation process.
The political dimension relates to power and influence and deals with issues such as
administrative support, leadership, collaboration, negotiation and conflict resolution in the
institutions (Essays UK, 2018; McShane and Eden, 2015; Roman, 2019). In their study,
Morgan and Xu (2011) found that where the political dimension is not conducive and
supportive the staff tend to feel demoralized and demotivated that they find it difficult to
effectively implement the curriculum. On the other hand, a study by Hall and Hord (2015)
found that the cultural dimension which “relates to the values, beliefs and norms, both
consensual and competing in individuals, groups, departments and institutions” (Hall and
Hord, 2015, p. 15)has also an impact on how the curriculum is implemented in learning
institutions. The role of institutional management therefore is critical in ensuring that both
the political and cultural dimensions of curriculum implementation are satisfied. In separate
studies by Budak (2015), Chapman et al. (2018), Cheung and Yuen (2017) and Simons and
MacLean (2018), results showed that strong leadership support, shared vision, provision of
adequate resources and the establishment of a strong collaborative team culture in an
institution are important ingredients for effective curriculum implementation. Also, separate
studies by Hall and Hord (2015) and Park and Ham (2016) found that institutional
management’s attitude towards and their perceptions of the curriculum have an influence on
implementing lecturers’ perceptions of and attitudes towards the curriculum as well as
towards how they eventually implement the curriculum.
H0. There is a significant relationship between characteristics of the institution and
curriculum implementation in private universities.
H6. There is a significant relationship between characteristics of the institution and
curriculum implementation in private universities.
2.2.3. Exosystem level factors. The exosystem level refers to external variables that have an
impact on curriculum implementation. Such variables include issues of policies that local,
provincial and national education agencies promulgate as well as the behaviour of regulatory
authorities that potentially affect issues such as curriculum development, staff recruitment,
training, learning time, resource mobilization that ultimately affect how curriculum is
implemented in PUs (Taguma and Barrera, 2019).
2.2.3.1 External environment-related factors. External environment-related factors also
called characteristics of the external environment relate to regulatory officials and the
educational policies they promulgate that impact how curriculum is implemented in PUs.
Two critical external influences of curriculum implementation in PUs in the context of
Botswana are the government or government regulatory authorities and policies they
develop and expect PUs to implement. These regulators and their policies exert pressure on
JARHE institutions to implement curriculum in a certain prescribed way (Roman, 2019; Toma et al.,
13,4 2015). In highly regulated higher education environments such as in Botswana, a top-down
chain of government command structures is used for determining what and how it must be
taught in PUs. Such a situation according to Taguma and Barrera (2019) leads to
implementing staff and their institutions being left with very little room for flexibility in the
way they prefer to implement the curriculum thus affecting how effectively the curriculum is
implemented. Separate studies by Kwok (2014), Smith and Thier (2017), Taole (2015) as well
1068 as by Taylor et al. (2016) found that if educational policies from government education
regulators are not aligned with the contexts of implementing institutions, effective
curriculum implementation becomes very difficult for implementing institutions and their
lecturers.
H0. There is no significant relationship between characteristics of the external
environment and curriculum implementation in private universities.
H7. There is a significant relationship between characteristics of the external
environment and curriculum implementation in private universities.

3. Methodology
3.1 Research design
The study employed a mixed methods approach that used a parallel or concurrent
triangulation design. A mixed method research approach is “a type of research in which a
researcher or team of researchers combine elements of quantitative and qualitative research
approaches (e.g. use of qualitative and quantitative viewpoints, data collection, analysis,
inference techniques) for the broad purposes of breadth and depth of understanding and
corroboration” (Zandvamari and Daryapoor, 2013, p. 2). In the current study, during the use of
the concurrent triangulation design, both qualitative and quantitative data were collected
and analysed in one single phase to provide confirmatory or conflicting findings that may
enrich the study (Da Guetterman et al., 2017). The triangulation of both quantitative and
qualitative data was done at the analysis phase of the study.

3.2 Data collection

A structured questionnaire was used to collect quantitative data from a sample of 306 lecturers
selected using a stratified random sampling strategy from a population of 1,500 lecturers from the
six PUs. The structured questionnaire had four sections excluding biographic data. The four
sections were as follows: characteristics of the curriculum with 16 items, characteristics of the
lecturer with 14 items, characteristics of the institution with 22 items and characteristics of the
external environment with 15 items. The total number of scale items in the questionnaire was 67.
The questionnaire also used a 5-point Likert scale whose scale dimensions ranged from strongly
agree (SA)-5; agree (A)-4; neutral (N)-3, disagree (DA)-2; to strongly disagree (SDA)-1. For ease of
analysis, criterion mean (CM) was calculated as the average of the Likert scale dimension
measures, that is, CM 5 (1 þ 2þ3 þ 4þ5)/5 5 3. Using the CM of 3, any response whose mean
was less than 3 signified a disagreement with a given assertion, while a response with a mean
above 3 signified agreements with a given assertion. A response with a mean of 3 signified a
neutral position. A pilot test was conducted on the questionnaire using 18 randomly selected
lecturers (three lecturers from each of the universities) to measure internal consistency, and expert
opinion was soughtfor content validity of the scale items. Pilot test results showed a high internal
consistency reliability result of a Cronbach alpha value of 0.839 which was above the internal
consistency reliability bench mark alpha value of 0.7 (Goforth, 2015; Griffith, 2015). With regard
to content validity, the questionnaire was subjected to expert opinion using six experts (one from
each of the six PUs), and their recommendations were incorporated into the questionnaire before Curriculum in
administration. Using the stratified random sampling strategy, each stratum (institution and its accredited
academic faculties) had a random sample proportionately selected into the study sample. Of the
six PUs, five had five academic faculties, while one had six academic faculties, and lecturers to
private
participate in the study were selected from all academic faculties in each of the universities. universities
To collect qualitative data, a semi-structured interview guide was used on a sample of 25
academic middle managers selected using purposive sampling strategy from a population of
273 academic middle managers from six PUs. The semi-structured interview guide had four 1069
sections in line with the ecology systems theory levels in the research model designed by the
researcher as well as in line with the questionnaire structure used. The four sections sort
views of lecturers on factors affecting curriculum implementation in PUs. The first part of the
guide was introductory where participants were asked their views about what a curriculum
meant to them. Each participant took between 45 min and one hour to answer questions
during the interviews.

3.3 Data analysis

For the analysis of quantitative data, chi-square, one-way ANOVA and regression analysis
were used to determine whether and to what extent the independent variables contributed to
effective curriculum implementation. PCA was also used for data purification. PCA is a
dimensionality-reduction method that is often used to reduce the dimensionality of large data
sets, by transforming a large set of variables into a smaller one that still contains most of the
information in the large set (Eriksson, 2018; Jaadi, 2019). For the current study, PCA
employed the orthogonal rotation procedure using varimax with Kaiser normalization to
summarise original data with minimum factors and maximum coverage. According to Jolliffe
and Cadima (2016), varimax rotation creates a situation in which factors are orthogonal
(uncorrelated with one another), which can make results easier to interpret and to replicate
with future samples. Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) was used for conducting
PCA on four factors with 67 items to ensure simplified data reduction by identifying a small
set of factors which, according to Jolliffe and Cadima (2016), helps to explain most of the
variance observed in much larger manifested variables. The above is also confirmed by Jaadi
(2019) and Lever et al. (2017) who both argued that PCA is most effective for the purpose of
reducing a relatively large number of variables to a smaller number of variables that captures
the same information (variance and covariance) as the larger number of variables. Descriptive
statistics were also used for summarizing data.
For the analysis of qualitative data, a meta-aggregative approach was used. Since
qualitative data is inherently interpretive (Cohen et al., 2011), a meta-aggregative approach
which employs a three-step process namely extraction, categorizing and synthesizing of
findings as articulated by Hannes et al. (2010) was used for data analysis. Using this three-
step data analysis process ensured that data were accurately captured, categorized and
represented as a true reflection of the findings.

4. Results
With regard to administration of the instrument, 306 questionnaires were hand-delivered to
the respondents, and 258 were returned giving a return rate of 84.3%. To measure the
constructs and for the purpose of data purification, principal component analysis and KMO–
Keiser–Olkin measure of sampling adequacy on independent variables were conducted.

4.1 Demographic characteristics of lecturers

Results in Table 1 show that 62.8% of the lecturers in PUs in Botswana are 40 years and
below in age, while only 37.2% are above 40 years. This shows that the universities have a
JARHE Lecturer characteristic Items Number %
13,4
Age 21–25 34 13.2
26–30 75 29.1
31–35 39 15.1
36–40 14 5.4
More than 40 96 37.2
1070 Gender Male 161 62.4
Female 97 37.6
Educational level Masters 192 74.4
PhD holders 46 17.8
Others 20 7.8
Teaching experience less or equal to 5 40 15.5
6–10 89 34.5
Table 1. 11–15 43 16.7
Demographic 16–20 31 12.0
information More than 20 years 55 21.3

relatively young group of lecturers. 62.4% of the lecturers are male, while 37.6% are female
showing a gender imbalance. Most of the lecturers (74.4%) in the universities have a masters
degrees as highest qualifications, while 17.8% of lecturers have doctor of philosophy (PhD)
degrees showing that the universities in Botswana still have challenges attracting doctoral
staff. In terms of teaching experience, there is a fair balance between those with 10 years and
below (50%) and those with above 10 years (50%) of teaching experience.

4.2 Data purification through principal component analysis (PCA) of independent variables
Table 2 shows the results of the PCA conducted using SPSS version 24, demonstrating the
reliability and validity of the data. Items with factor loadings of less than 0.7 and eigenvalues
of less than 1.0 were omitted from further analysis to improve data clarity in line with the
assertion of Hair et al. (2010). Based on the analysis, 67 items from the four factors were
reduced to 54 items. The percentage variance explained by all factors ranged between 67 and
79%. Since PCA makes the assumption that there is no unique variance (de Bruin and
Buchner, 2010), the total variance was therefore considered as being equal to the common
variance of all item factors. The total variance explained (VE) in this study after conducting

Rotated % Variance
Factors (independent Mean factor explained KMO Cronbach’s Eigen
variables) values SD loading (VE) values alpha values

Characteristics of the 4.15 0.742 0.819 67.372 0.828 0.805 3.715

curriculum
Characteristics of the 3.79 0.650 0.755 71.169 0.763 0.729 4.804
lecturer
Characteristics of the 3.91 0.616 0.833 68.301 0.910 0.815 2.781
institution
Characteristics of the 4.28 0.581 0.904 79.366 0.759 0.904 3.447
external
Table 2. environment
Principal component Total variance 71.379
analysis explained (VE)
the PCA was 71.38% demonstrating good construct validity. The positive correlation matrix Curriculum in
between scale items demonstrated good convergent validity. For content validity, expert accredited
opinion was sought, and recommendation was incorporated into the scale. The reliability of
collected data was measured through Cronbach’s alpha as a measure of internal consistency
private
reliability. Reliability coefficients in this study showed high values of alpha (0.805 for universities
characteristics of the curriculum, 0.729 for characteristics of the lecturer, 0.815 for
characteristics of the institution and 0.904 for characteristics of the institution). The
Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (MKO) measure of sampling adequacy showed high values as 1071
demonstrated by the values between 0.763 and 0.910 generated by the four dimensions.
The eigenvalues which are a measure of the variation of the total sample accounted for by
each factor (Neill, 2017) are all above the bench mark of ≥1 and hence explained more
variance than a single observed variable (Neill, 2017).
4.2.1 Hypotheses testing.
H0. There is no significant relationship between the characteristics of curriculum and
curriculum implementation in private universities.
H1. There is a significant relationship between the characteristics of curriculum and
curriculum implementation in private universities.
Results in Table 3 show that there is a significant relationship between characteristics of the
curriculum and curriculum implementation in PUs (F (4, 203) 5 3.434; p 5 0.000; p < 0.05).
These results show that the way curriculum is developed has an impact on how it is
implemented in PUs.
The above quantitative results are confirmed by qualitative results. AMMs believed that
clear curriculum goals and objectives are critical for effective implementation of the
curriculum as they act as guides to what should be achieved. It also emerged from interviews
with AMMs that a curriculum that has well-organized content that is not too loaded makes its
implementation effective. Other AMMs also spoke about the relevance of the curriculum as a
critical factor in its effective implementation since the tendency of people is to expend effort
on something this relevance from. There was therefore consensus among AMMs on the fact
that if curriculum goals and objectives are clear and content is not tool loaded but is well
organized, curriculum will be effectively implemented. A summary of some of the responses
is as shown below:
. . .if a curriculum is characterized by poor design with unclear goals and objectives and loaded
content such as is the case with the one we are currently using; this makes curriculum
implementation difficult AMM1
If the characteristic of the curriculum is that its goals and objectives are not clear from the word go,
then your curriculum implementation is not going to be able to achieve desired results or outcomes as
lecturers will be conceiving the curriculum in so many different and confusing ways. AMM4

ANOVAb
Source Sum of squares df Mean square F Sig.
Table 3.
Effective curriculum implementation One-way ANOVA on
Between groups 798.911 4 192.228 3.434 0.000a characteristics of the
Within groups 11364.271 203 55.982 curriculum and
Total 12163.182 207 curriculum
Note(s): Sig. p < 0.05 implementation
JARHE In my department lecturers have a good and clear conception of the curriculum as relating to all
experiences of the learners and also the characteristics of the curriculum are that it has clear
13,4 objectives and goals as well as good content. AMM3
Table 4 tests the relationship between the biographic factors of lecturers (lecturer-related
factors) and curriculum implementation in PUs.
H0. There is no significant relationship between gender of lecturers and curriculum
1072 implementation in PUs.
H2. There is a significant relationship between gender of lecturers and curriculum
implementation in PUs.
Results in Table 4 show that there is no significant relationship between gender of a lecturer
and curriculum implementation in PUs (χ 2 (1) 5 3.15; p 5 0.072; p > 0.05). These results show
that is no significant difference on how curriculum is implemented by male and female
lecturers in PUs.
Most of the AMMs who were interviewed were of the view that gender has no influence on
how curriculum is implemented in PUs thus confirming results from the quantitative phase.
AMMs believed that gender is just a socially assigned characteristic which on its own has no
influence on how men and women perform their functions, all being equal. According to most

Agree/
Variable Characteristics Disagree Total χ2 p-value Decision

Gender Male 92/69 161/ 3.15 0.072 Reject; p > 0.05

57.1/42.9% 62.4%
Female 53/44 97/37.6%
58.2/41.8%
Age (Years) 21–25 20/14 34/13.2% 0.206 0.581 Reject p > 0.05
58.8/41.2%
26–30 51/24 75/29.1%
68/32%
31–35 23/16 39/15.1%
59/41%
36–40 9/5 14/5.4%
64.3/35.7%
Above 40 59/37 96/37.2%
61.5/38.5%
Educational level Masters 102/90 192/ 6.454 0.036* Accept
53.1/46.9% 74.4% p < 0.05
Doctoral 30/16 46/17.8%
71.4/28.6%
Other 13/7 20/7.8%
65/35%
Years of less or equal to 5 21/19 40/15.5% 1.365 0.813 Reject p > 0.05
experience 52.5/47.5%
6–10 53/36 89/34.5%
59.6/40.4%
11–15 26/17 43/16.7%
60.5/39.5%
Table 4. 16–20 18/13 31/12%
Descriptive statistics 58.1/41.9%
and cross-tabulation of More than 20 years 31/24 55/21.3%
chi-square test on 56.4/43.6%
lecturer factors Note(s): *Significant p < 0.05
of the AMMS, what can only distinguish how female lecturers implement curriculum from Curriculum in
how male lecturers implement curriculum are levels of training and teaching experience and accredited
not gender. Among some of the responses from AMMs were the following:
private
I don’t think so that gender has an influence on how we implement curriculum. What is important is universities
having a solid understanding of the curriculum and how to implement it. (AMM2)
It doesn’t matter that you are a female or male, performance during curriculum implementation is the
same. (AMM15) 1073
My view is that gender is not an issue as effective curriculum depends on the personality and drive
one has got. I know there are always those biases and female lecturers have to go an extra mile with
regards to how they teach but I am convinced they perform the same as male lecturers with regards
to curriculum implementation, if we remove any biases against them. (AMM18)

H0. There is a significant relationship between age of lecturers and curriculum

implementation in PUs.
H3. There is a significant relationship between age of lecturers and curriculum
implementation in PUs.
Results in Table 4 show that there is no significant relationship between the age of lecturers
and curriculum implementation in PUs (χ 2 (4) 5 0.206; p 5 0.581; p > 0.05). These results
therefore indicate that there is no significant difference between how lecturers of different
ages implement the curriculum in PUs.
Results from interviews with AMMs showed that age does plays a significant role on how
curriculum is implemented in PUs thereby disconfirming earlier results from lecturers. This
could be because most of the AMMs were older lecturers who felt that age enabled them to
perform their curriculum implementation responsibilities better than the younger lecturers.
Most AMMs believed that as the lecturers becomes older they grow in tacit knowledge and
ability to handle students as well as become more patient and more focussed on their jobs
when compared to younger lecturers, hence implement the curriculum better. Among some of
their responses were the following:
Age also matters as students may perceive young lecturers as not being knowledgeable enough to be
able to competently implement the curriculum. (AMM7)
I believe the more mature you become in terms of age, the more positioned you also become to be a
better lecturer when compared to a younger lecturer. Age is very pertinent for one to be able to apply
oneself with patience, calmness and wisdom. (AMM8)
Yes, age has an influence in terms of focus as an older person is more focused on his/her job when
compared to a younger person. (AMM10)
Yes. I would say yes because age contributes to accumulation of knowledge and
experience. (AMM12)

H0. There is no significant relationship between educational level of lecturers and

curriculum implementation in PUs
H4. There is a significant relationship between educational level of lecturers and
curriculum implementation in PUs.
Results in Table 4 show that there is a significant relationship between educational level and
curriculum implementation in PUs (χ 2 (2) 5 6.454; p 5 0.036; p < 0.05). These results therefore
show that there is a significant difference in the way curriculum is implemented by lecturers
of different levels of education in PUs.
JARHE It was unanimously agreed among AMMs in the interviews that educational level had an
13,4 influence on how curriculum is implemented in PUs. AMMs believed that higher educational
levels improves lecturers’ mental and thinking process that helped them implement
curriculum in more structured ways and effectively than lecturers with lower educational
levels. Most AMMS also believed that higher educational levels led to the development in
lecturers of more confidence and motivation to implement a curriculum. Among some of their
responses were the following:
1074
Absolutely educational level can influence the way a person implements curriculum. Education is
structured such that you start from the simpler levels of concepts and as you go up the highest
echelons of education, you begin to deal progressively with more complex concepts and ways of
doing things which help you to comprehend and implement the curriculum better. AMM16
If your level of education is high, for example, a masters or doctoral qualification, the way you
approach your teaching, your teaching methods, and your curriculum planning, will demonstrate
high order thinking and processing skills as well as higher order knowledge levels critical for
effective implementation of the curriculum. AMM9

H0. There is no significant relationship between years of teaching experience of lecturers

and curriculum implementation in PUs.
H5. There is a significant relationship between years of teaching experience of lecturers
and curriculum implementation in PUs.
Results in Table 4 also show that there is no significant relationship between years of
teaching experience and curriculum implementation in PUs ((χ 2 (4) 5 1.365; p 5 0.813;
p > 0.05). These results indicate that there is no significant difference on the way curriculum is
implemented by lecturers of different years of teaching experience in PUs.
Responses from AMMs during interviews contradict results from the quantitative phase
of the study as AMMs believed that years of teaching experience have an influence on how
curriculum is implemented in PUs. Most of the AMMs argued that background knowledge of
teaching that lecturers acquire over the years enables them to effectively plan and
implementation curriculum. Interview results also showed that most AMMs believed that
years of experience bring in a wealth of teaching knowledge, lessons learnt that are critical for
effective curriculum implementation. Among some of the responses of AMMs were the
following:
With more years of experience, you become more aware of those things that make you implement
curriculum better and better all the time. So, I really believe that years of experience have a big
bearing on curriculum implementation. AMM2
Yes, years of experience is very important because you begin to have confidence, have background
knowledge of teaching that you acquire over the years that enable you to effectively plan and
implementation curriculum. AMM7
Years of experience bring in a wealth of teaching knowledge, lessons learnt and teaching skills that
helps a lecturer implement a curriculum more effectively. AMM15

H0. There is no significant and statistical relationship between characteristics of the

institution and curriculum implementation in private universities.
H6. There is a significant and statistical relationship between characteristics of the
institution and curriculum implementation in private universities.
Results in Table 5 show that there is a significant relationship between characteristics of the
institution and curriculum implementation in PUs (F (4, 207 5 2.409; p 5 0.008; p < 0.05).
These results therefore show the ecosystem of the institutions with regard to issues such as Curriculum in
resource provision, leadership style and collaboration among some of the factors have a accredited
significant impact on how curriculum is implemented in PUs.
The above results were also confirmed in interviews with AMMs. Most of the AMMs were
private
of the view that the institutional environment is very important for effective implementation universities
of the curriculum. Most AMMs believed that if an institution is characterized by a
collaborative culture, opportunities for staff development, a supportive institutional
management and teaching resources provided on time, then the curriculum will be 1075
effectively implemented. Among some of the AMMs’ responses were the following:
In my current organisation I would say a big yes that the institutional environment is very important
for effective curriculum implementation. The work environment in an institution should be very
conducive by allowing staff to share knowledge and to interact with management every time. AMM7
At my institution unfortunately, management support is very little, and this affects effective
curriculum implementation. AMM11
To me characteristics of an institution relate to the ecosystem of the institution, ie, everything that
goes on within the institution. My institution is an institution that has systems and processes that
enable staff to effectively implement curriculum from ICT to processes and procedures that facilitate
effective curriculum implementation. Leadership at my institution is very supportive in terms of
resources, professional growth of staff, research publications, and conferences. AMM22

H0. There is no significant relationship between characteristics of the external

environment and curriculum implementation in private universities.
H7. There is a significant relationship between characteristics of the external
environment and curriculum implementation in private universities.
Results in Table 6 show that there is a significant relationship between characteristics of the
external environment and curriculum implementation in PUs (F (4, 205) 5 2.084; p 5 0.015;
p < 0.05). These results show that the external environment as defined by the education

ANOVAb
Source Sum of squares df Mean square F Sig.
Table 5.
Effective curriculum implementation
a One-way ANOVA on
Between groups 501.774 4 125.443 2.409 0.008 characteristics of the
Within groups 10,781.034 207 52.082 institution and
Total 11,282.808 211 curriculum
Note(s): Sig. p < 0.05 implementation

ANOVAb
Source Sum of squares df Mean square F Sig.
Table 6.
Effective curriculum implementation One-way ANOVA on
Between groups 617.181 4 154.295 2.084 0.015a characteristics of the
Within groups 15,029.952 205 74.039 external environment
Total 15,647.133 209 and curriculum
Note(s): Sig. p < 0.05 implementation
JARHE regulatory agencies and the education policies they promulgated have a significant influence
13,4 on whether curriculum is effectively implemented or not in PUs.
The above results are also confirmed in interviews with AMMs. Most AMMs were in the
agreement with the view that while the external regulatory environment was too strict on the
PUs and limited flexibility in the way these institutions implemented their curricular, that
level of regulation was good to ensure the PUs produced quality services. Most AMMs also
believed that interaction between regulatory authorities and PUs during policy formulation
1076 was important to ensure the institutions took ownership of and also understood the policies
that govern how curriculum should be implemented in PUs AMMs felt such interaction,
which was not currently happening, would lead to effective implementation of the
curriculum. Among some of the responses from AMMs were the following:
While I agree that the PUs operate in a highly regulated environment, I feel that the government has a
right to protect its citizens, to protect learners, and to protect the investments (time and money)
people are putting in education. Government therefore needs to regulate PUIs to ensure that people
get quality education. AMM25
Yes, it is true that PUs are highly regulated and operating in a very strict external environment. I take
this in a positive sense because when the PUs are able to abide by what the regulators say, the issue
of quality in these institutions will be assured since regulatory bodies are there to deal with issues of
quality particularly in the implementation of curriculum. AMM4

4.3 Multiple regression model

Table 7 shows that the independent variables namely characteristics of curriculum,
characteristics of external environment, characteristics of the institution and characteristics
of lecturer and conception of curriculum accounted for 78.1 % of variation in the effective
implementation of curriculum in accredited PUs. The Durbin Watson value which was used
for supporting the adjusted R2 had a value of 2.816, hence also provided parallel support to
the assertion espoused above.

5. Discussion
The above results show that the following factors, characteristics of the curriculum,
characteristics of the institution, characteristics of the external environment and
characteristics of the lecturer have an influence on curriculum implementation in PUs.
With regards to the characteristics of the curriculum, results showed that if a curriculum is
well developed with clear goals and implementation plans, it will be effectively implemented
by lecturers in PUs. Results further showed that how a curriculum is understood or conceived
by the implementers had an effect on how it is implemented. If for example, according to
Tabaundule, 2014, lecturers understood or conceived a curriculum as a syllabus, product or
content instead of as experiences for the learners, such lecturers would tend to implement that
curriculum using lecturer-centred approaches affecting the curriculum implementation
process and the achievement of student outcomes. Such a view was supported by Hamilton
(2014) who argued that understanding a curriculum as content, syllabus or subject matter
(the rationalization or Tylerian view) meant that the focus of a lecturer would only be on
content to be taught with emphasis being on intellectual growth, hence the use of lecturer-
centered approaches.
With regard to the relationship between the characteristics of the institution and
curriculum implementation, results showed that the ecosystem of an institution that includes
the leadership style, the work conditions, resources available, availability of trainings and
issues of teamwork and knowledge sharing was critical for effective implementation of
 Change statistics
Adjusted Std. Error of R square Sig. F Durbin–
Model R R square R square the estimate change F change df1 df2 change watson

Model summaryb
dimension 1 0.887a 0.786 0.781 1.47862 0.786 150.560 4 205 0.000 2.816
Note(s): a. Predictors: (Constant), CHACURR, CHAEXTENV, CHAINST, CHALEC
b. Dependent Variable: CURRIMPLEM
accredited
universities
private

1077
Curriculum in

showing the nexus of

dependent and
relationship between
Table 7.
Regression model

independent variables
JARHE curriculum in accredited PUs. When the lecturers feel that they are adequately supported
13,4 through the leadership style employed by top management, provision of adequate resources
and opportunities for professional growth and knowledge sharing, they will effectively and
successfully implement the curriculum (Essays UK, 2018; Roman, 2019). This is supported by
Morgan and Xu (2011) who argued that institutional factors as part of the mesosystem
(Chapman et al., 2018; Cheung and Yuen, 2017) have an influence on curriculum
implementation. In their study, Simons and MacLean (2018) found that administrative
1078 support, effective leadership, collaboration, negotiation and conflict resolution in the
institution as well as shared values, beliefs and norms were important for effective
curriculum implementation in universities. A delicate balance of these dimensions according
to Morgan and Xu (2011) could create a conducive and supportive environment for effective
implementation of curricula in PUs.
It also emerged from the study that characteristics of the external environment (the
exosystem) play a critical role in the effective implementation of the curriculum. The external
environment relates to regulatory authorities and the regulations or policies they promulgate,
which have an influence on how curriculum is implemented in PUs (Roman, 2019; Taguma
and Barrera, 2019; Toma et al., 2015). Results of the current study showed that regulations
promulgated by regulatory authorities particularly had a major impact on the effective
implementation of the curriculum if they are aligned to context of institutions. In their
separate studies, Oloo (2010) and also Hitendra and Megan (2009) found that if regulations
focus mostly on monitoring where the emphasis is on ensuring fidelity of implementation of
processes and less on how the institutions could be assisted to improve in their provision of
higher education, then curriculum implementation will not be effective.
Separate studies by Smith and Thier (2017) and Taole (2015) found that effective
curriculum implementation required regulations that are flexible enough to allow institutions
to do some mutual adaptation so that within the constraints of their contexts, institutions are
still able to effectively implement their curricula. In many cases in Botswana, it is found that
regulatory authorities attempt to enforce one-size-fit-all policies and regulations in the
accredited PUs, and this affects how curriculum is implemented.
Finally, results also showed that with regard to characteristics of the lecturer, only
educational level had a significant influence on how curriculum is implemented in PUs while
age, gender and years of teaching experience did not. A study by Cetin (2016) found that if a
lecturer is not adequately trained in the curriculum area to be implemented, then he or she will
have difficulties implementing the curriculum due to less knowledge levels. A study by
Margolis et al. (2017) also found that highly trained lecturers tended to use interactive
teaching approaches such as enquiry-based teaching approaches which are important for
effective curriculum implementation. Fullan (2007) also in his works found that professional
adequacy (adequate training and knowledge) was critical for effective implementation of
curriculum by lecturers.

6. Conclusion and recommendations

The paper examined factors that influence curriculum implementation in accredited PUs.
Based on the results, a number of conclusions were drawn. It established that characteristics
of the external environment, of the institution, of the lecturer and of the curriculum were the
factors that influenced curriculum implementation in PUs. It was also established that the
influence of all these factors on effective implementation of the curriculum in accredited PUs
is significant. The study further established that the significant role that all these factors play
on curriculum implementation was being affected by the nature of educational policies
promulgated by regulatory authorities, a lack of institutional support and a lack of training in
curriculum development among others. Based on these results, a number of
recommendations to improve the implementation of curriculum in PUs in the context of the Curriculum in
four factors are proposed. With regard to the curriculum itself, it is recommended that for accredited
effective curriculum implementation the curriculum goals and objectives needed to be clear
and achievable for lecturers to be able to view them as realistic and achievable and also that
private
the curriculum content needed to be well organized. It is also recommended that the external universities
environment as exemplified by the regulators and regulations they promulgate should be
more supportive of and flexible to the PUs by ensuring the alignment of regulations with
contextual realities of institutions instead of using one-size-fit-all regulations. The regulators 1079
also needed to invest more in providing training opportunities and resources to the PUs for
effective implementation of the curriculum. It is further recommended that PUs themselves
needed to invest in upgrading the academic qualifications of their lecturers through
professional development programs as the level of education had a significant influence on
how lecturers implemented the curriculum in PUs. The PUs as learning institutions also
needed to cultivate a more supportive culture by providing lecturers with adequate and
timely materials as well as by promoting a spirit of collaboration in the institution for the
curriculum to be effectively implemented.

6.1 Limitations of the study

The study only focussed on PUs in Botswana with regard to factors affecting curriculum
implementation. The study could perhaps have been more informative if more higher
education institutions in the country that include state universities participated in the study.

6.2 Opportunities for future studies

A study that uses all universities in Botswana or that also considers other universities outside
Botswana will provided more insightful findings with regard to factors influencing
curriculum implementation in universities. The study can also include colleges as part of
higher education institutions.

References
Abadie, M. and Bista, K. (2018), “Understanding the stages of concerns: implementation of the
common core state standards in Louisiana schools”, Journal of School Administration Research
and Development, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 57-66.
Bediaco, A. (2019), Models and Concepts of Curriculum Implementation, Some Definitions and Influence
of Implementation, available at: https://www.researchgate.net/project/curriculum-researchers
(accessed 23 March 2020).
Bouck, E.C. (2008), “Exploring the enactment of functional curriculum in self-contained Cross-
categorical programs: a case study”, The Qualitative Report, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 495-530.
Bovill, C. and Woolmer, C. (2018), How Conceptualisations of Curriculum in Higher Education Influence
Student-Staff Co-creation in and of the Curriculum, available at: https://link.springer.com/
article/10.1007/s10734-018-0349-8 (accessed 13 March 2020).
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979), The Ecology of Human Development, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
Brown, G.T.L. (2014), “Conceptions of curriculum: a framework for understanding New Zealand’s
curriculum framework and lecturers’ opinions”, Curriculum Matters, Vol. 2, pp. 164-181.
Budak, A. (2015), “The impact of a standards-based mathematics curriculum on students’
mathematics achievement: the case of investigations in number, data, and space”, Eurasia
Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, Vol. 11 No. 6, pp. 1249-1264.
Burrows, B. (2018), What is the Difference between a Public and Private University?, available at:
https://www.studyusa.com/en/a/1290/what-is-the-difference-between-a-public-and-private-
university (accessed 10 August 2020).
JARHE Carl, A.E. (2012), Teacher Empowerment Through Curriculum Development: Theory into Practice,
Junta & Company, Cape Town.
13,4
Cetin, N. (2016), “Effects of a teacher professional development program on science teachers’ views
about using computers in teaching and learning”, International Journal of Environmental and
Science Education, Vol. 11 No. 15, pp. 8026-8039.
Chapman, S., Wright, P. and Pascoe, R. (2018), “Arts curriculum implementation: ‘adopt and adapt’ as
policy translation”, Arts Education Policy Review, Vol. 119 No. 1, pp. 12-24.
1080
Cheung, A.C.K. and Wong, P.M. (2012), “Factors affecting the implementation of curriculum reform in
Hong Kong, China: key findings from a large-scale survey study”, International Journal of
Educational Management, Vol. 26 No. 1, pp. 39-54.
Cheung, A.C.K. and Yuen, T.W.W. (2017), “Examining the perceptions of curriculum leaders on
primary school reform: a case study of Hong Kong, China”, Educational Management
Administration and Leadership, Vol. 45 No. 6, pp. 1020-1039.
Chin, T. and Poon, C. (2014), Design and Implementation of the National Primary Science Curriculum:
A Partnership Approach in Singapore, available at: www.springer.com/cda/content/document/
cda/9789814585774-c2.pdf?sgwid50 (accessed 16 August 2016).
Cohen, L., Manion, L. and Morrison, K. (2011), Research Methods in Education, 7th ed., Routledge,
New York.
Da Guetterman, T.C., Creswell, J.W., Wittink, M., Barg, F.L., Castro, F.G., Dahlberg, B., Watkins, D.C.,
Deutsch, C. and Gallo, J.J. (2017), “Development of a self-rated mixed methods skills assessment:
the national institutes of health mixed methods research training program for the health
Sciences”, Journal of Continuing Education in the Health Professions, Vol. 37, pp. 76-82.
De Bruin, G.P. and Buchner, M. (2010), “Factor and item response theory analysis of the protean and
boundaryless career attitude scales”, South African Journal of Industrial Psychology, Vol. 36
No. 2, pp. 1-11.
Education Review Office (2010), Preparing to Give Effect to the New Zealand Curriculum, available at:
http://thehub.superu.govt.nz/project/readiness-implement-new-zealand-curriculum-2-2 (accessed
30 November 2017).
Eriksson, L. (2018), “What is principal component analysis (PCA) and how it is used?”, available at:
https://blog.umetrics.com/what-is-principal-component-analysis-pca-and-how-it-is-used
(accessed 6 June 2020).
Essays, U.K. (2018), Factors Which Make Implementation of the New Curriculum a Challenge, available
at: https://ukdiss.com/examples/challenges-to-implementing-curriculum-change.php?vref51
(accessed 21 May 2019).
Fotheringham, J., Strickland, K. and Aitchison, K. (2012), Curriculum: Directions, Decisions and Debate,
The Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education, available at: http://www.
enhancementthemes.ac.uk/docs/publications/curriculum-directionsdecisions-and-debate.pdf?
sfvrsn58 (accessed 20 October 2016).
Fullan, M. (2001), “Implementing change at the building level. Paper prepared for”, in Owings, W. and
Kaplan, L. (Eds), Critical and Emerging Issues in Educational Leadership, available at: www.
Michaelfullan.ca/wp-content/uploads/pdf (accessed 17 May 2015).
Fullan, M. (2007), The New Meaning of Educational Change, 4th ed., Lecturers College Press, New York.
Garnett, G. (2019), What’s the Difference between a Public and Private University?, available at: https://
www.edmit.me/blog/whats-the-difference-between-a-public-and-private-university (accessed 10
August 2020).
Glatthorn, A.A. (2005), Curriculum Leadership: Development and Implementation, available at: www.
goodreads.com/book/show/783570 (accessed 17 October 2016).
Goforth, C. (2015), Using and Interpreting Cronbach’s Alpha, available at: http://data.library.virginia.
edu/using-and-interpreting-cronbach’s-alpha/on (accessed 9 June 2020).
Griffith, M. (2015), Item Analysis with Cronbach’s Alpha for Reliable Surveys, available at: http://blog. Curriculum in
minitab.com/blog/meredith-griffith/item-analysis-with-cronbachs-alpha-for-reliable-surveys
(accessed 14 October 2017). accredited
Growes, A. (2018), What Is a Private University?, available at: https://www.thoughtco.com/what-is-a-
private
private-university-788439 (accessed 10 August 2020). universities
Hair, J., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J. and Anderson, R.E. (2010), Multivariate Data Analysis, 7th ed., Pearson
Education International, Upper saddle River, New Jersey.
1081
Hall, G. and Hord, S. (2015), Implementing Change: Patterns, Principles, and Potholes, 4th ed., Pearson,
Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Hamilton, D. (2014), Towards a Theory of Schooling, Routledge, East Sussex.
Hannes, K., Lockwood, C. and Pearson, A. (2010), “A comparative analysis of three online appraisal
instruments’ ability to assess validity in qualitative research”, Qualitative Health Research,
Vol. 20, pp. 1736-1743.
Hitendra, P.K. and Megan, K. (2009), “Quality assurance in higher education: for whom and of what?”,
International Journal of Management in Education, Vol. 3 Nos 3-4, pp. 270-281.
Ibenegbu, G. (2019), Factors Affecting Curriculum Implementation in Nigeria, available at: https://
www.legit.ng/1167582-factors-affecting-curriculum-implementation-nigeria.html (accessed 10
April 2020).
Jaadi, Z. (2019), A Step by Step Explanation of Principal Component Analysis, available at: https://
builtin.com/data-science/step-step-explanation-principal-component-analysis (accessed 5
June 2020).
Jess, M., Carse, N. and Keay, J. (2016), “The physical education curriculum process: more complex than
you think!!”, Education, Vol. 4 No. 5, pp. 502-512.
Jolliff, I.T. and Cadima, J. (2016), Principal Component Analysis: A Review and Recent Developments.
doi: 10.1098/rsta.2015.0202 (accessed 5 June 2020).
Kwok, P. (2014), “The role of context in teachers’ concerns about the implementation of an innovative
curriculum”, Teaching and Teacher Education, Vol. 38, pp. 44-55.
Kyndt, E., Gijbels, D., Grosemans, I. and Donche, V. (2016), “Teachers’ everyday professional
development”, Review of Educational Research, Vol. 86 No. 4, pp. 1111-1150.
Lee, J.C., Zhang, Z., Song, H. and Huang, X. (2013), “Effects of epistemological and pedagogical beliefs
on the instructional practices of teachers: a Chinese perspective”, Australian Journal of Teacher
Education, Vol. 38 No. 12, pp. 120-146.
Lever, J., Krzywinski, M. and Altman, N. (2017), “Principal component analysis”, Nature Methods,
pp. 641-642.
Lochner, B., Conrad, R. and Graham, E. (2015), “Secondary teachers’ concerns in adopting learning
management systems: a US perspective”, TechTrends: Linking Research and Practice to
Improve Learning, Vol. 59 No. 5, pp. 62-70.
Luo, Y. (2016), “Gender and job satisfaction in urban China: the role of individual, family, and job
characteristics”, Social Indicators Research, Vol. 125 No. 1, pp. 289-309.
MacDonald, A., Barton, G., Baguley, M. and Hartwig, K. (2016), “Teachers’ curriculum stories:
perceptions and preparedness to enact change”, Educational Philosophy and Theory, Vol. 48
No. 13, pp. 1336-1351.
Madondo, F. (2020), “Perceptions on curriculum implementation: a case for rural Zimbabwean early
childhood development teachers as agents of change”, Journal of Research in Childhood
Education, pp. 1-18, doi: 10.1080/02568543.2020.1731024.
Mandukwini, N. (2016), Challenges Towards Curriculum Implementation in High Schools in Mount
Fletcher District, Eastern Cape, Masters Dissertation Submitted to the University of South
Africa, Pretoria, South Africa.
JARHE Margolis, J., Durbin, R. and Doring, A. (2017), “The missing link in teacher professional development:
student presence”, Professional Development in Education, Vol. 43 No. 1, pp. 23-35.
13,4
Marz, V. and Kelchtermans, G. (2013), “Sense-making and structure in teachers’ reception of
educational reform. A case study on statistics in the mathematics curriculum”, Teaching and
Teacher Education: An International Journal of Research and Studies, Vol. 29, pp. 13-24.
McNeill, K.L., Katsh-Singer, R., Gonzalez-Howard, M. and Loper, S. (2016), “Factors impacting
teachers’ argumentation instruction in their science classrooms”, International Journal of
1082 Science Education, Vol. 38 No. 12, pp. 2026-2046.
McShane, M. and Eden, M. (2015), “Encouraging efficiency, rewarding quality: lessons for school
choice policy and practice”, Journal of School Culture, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 97-114.
Morgan, C. and Xu, G.R. (2011), Reconceptualising obstacles to Lecturer Implementation of Curriculum
Reform: Beyond Beliefs, Paper presented at the Manchester Metropolitan University Conference,
17-19 July 2011, available at: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com (accessed 23 May 2016).
Neill, J. (2017), Survey Research in Psychology, available at: https://www.slideshare.net/jtneill/
exploratory-factor-analysis (accessed 14 June 2020).
Nevenglosky, E. (2018), Barriers to Effective Curriculum Implementation, Doctoral Dissertation
Submitted to the Malden University.
Nevenglosky, E.A., Cale, C. and Aguilar, S.P. (2019), “Barriers to effective curriculum implementation”,
Research in Higher Education Journal, Vol. 36, pp. 1-31.
Oloo, J.A. (2010), “Quality assurance of higher education in alberta, Kenya and Norway”, Current
Issues in Education, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 1-22.
Ornstein, A.C. and Hunkins, F.P. (2014), Curriculum: Foundations, Principles and Issues, 6th ed.,
Pearson Educational, Boston.
Ornstein, A.C., Pajak, E.F. and Ornstein, S.B. (2011), Contemporary Issues in Curriculum, 5th ed.,
Pearson Education, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey.
Park, J. and Ham, S. (2016), “Whose perception of principal instructional leadership? Principal teacher
perceptual (dis)agreement and its influence on teacher collaboration”, Asia Pacific Journal of
Education, Vol. 36 No. 3, pp. 450-469.
Polikoff, M.S. and Porter, A.C. (2014), “Instructional alignment as a measure of teacher quality”,
Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, Vol. 36 No. 4, pp. 399-416.
Rogan, J. and Grayson, D. (2003), “Towards a theory of curriculum implementation with particular
reference to science education in developing countries”, International Journal of Science
Education, Vol. 25 No. 10, pp. 1171-1204.
Roman, A.G. (2019), Curriculum Implementation and Performance of Mathematics Education Students
in One State University in the Philippines, available at: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/
Curriculum-Implementation-and-Performance-of-in-One-Roman/347463cbc3021a7737ba4dc34
b0abf69827084dc (accessed 12 March 2020).
Schagen, S. (2011), Implementation of the New Zealand Curriculum: Synthesis of Research and
Evaluation, Ministry of Education, New Zealand.
Seehorn, A. (2012), Common Barriers to Curriculum Change, available at: www.ehow.com/info_
8019688_commo-barriers-curriculum-change.html (accessed 25 January 2018).
Simmons, J. and MacLean, J. (2018), “Physical education teachers’ perceptions of factors that inhibit
and facilitate the enactment of curriculum change in a high-stakes exam climate”, Sport,
Education and Society, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 186-202.
Smith, J. and Thier, M. (2017), “Challenges to common core state standards implementation: views
from six states”, NASSP Bulletin, Vol. 101 No. 3, pp. 169-187.
Spreen, C.A. and Knapczyk, J.J. (2017), “Measuring quality beyond test scores: the impact of regional
context on curriculum implementation (in northern Uganda)”, Fire: Forum for International
Research in Education, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 1-31.
Tabaundule, G.M. (2014), Evaluative Research of the Implemented Secondary School Curriculum in Curriculum in
Namibia, PhD Thesis Submitted to the University of the Free State, Bloemfontein, South Africa.
accredited
Taguma, M. and Barrera, M.F. (2019), Draft Change Management: Facilitating and Hindering Factors
of Curriculum Implementation, available at: https://www.oecd.org/education/2030-project/
private
contact/Change_management_for_curriculum_implementation_Facilitating_and_hindering_ universities
factors_of_curriculum_implementation.pdf (accessed 17 May 2020).
Taole, M.J. (2015), “Towards a meaningful curriculum implementation in South African schools: senior
phase teachers’ experiences”, Africa Education Review, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 266-279. 1083
Taylor, C., Rhys, M. and Waldron, S. (2016), “Implementing curriculum reform in wales: the case of the
foundation phase”, Oxford Review of Education, Vol. 42 No. 3, pp. 299-315.
Tichnor-Wagner, A., Allen, D., Socol, A.R., Cohen-Vogel, L., Rutledge, S.A. and Xing, Q.W. (2018),
“Studying implementation within a continuous continuous-improvement process: what happens
when we design with adaptations in mind?”, Teachers College Record, Vol. 120 No. 5, pp. 9-16.
Tikkanen, L., Pyh€alt€o, K., Soini, T. and Pietarinen, J. (2017), “Primary determinants of a large- scale
curriculum reform: national board administrators’ perspectives”, Journal of Educational
Administration, Vol. 55 No. 6, pp. 702-716.
Toma, S., Alexa, I.V. and Sarpe, D.A. (2015), “Identifying the risk in higher education institutions”,
Procedia Economics and Finance, Vol. 15, pp. 342-349.
Wang, H. (2006), An Implementation of the English as a Foreign Language Curriculum Policies in the
Chinese Tertiary Context, PhD Thesis Submitted to the Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario
Canada.
Yan, C. (2014), “We can’t change much unless the exams change: teachers’ dilemmas in the curriculum
reform in China”, Improving Schools, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 5-19.
Yang, X. (2013), “Research on high school students’ everyday life in the new curriculum reforms
implementation progress in China”, Creative Education, Vol. 4, pp. 93-99.
Zandvamari, A. and Daryapoor, E. (2013), “Mixed methods research: a new paradigm in educational
research”, Journal of Educational and Management Studies, Vol. 3 No. 4, pp. 525-531.

Further reading
American Institute for Research (AIR) (2016), Concerns-based Adoption Model (CBAM), available at:
www.sedl.org/cbam/on (accessed 3 June 2020).
Fullan, M. (1994), “Implementation of innovations”, in Husen, T. and Postlethwaite, T.N. (Eds), The
International Encyclopedia of Education, 2nd ed., Pergamon, Oxford, pp. 2839-2847.
Koo, C.N.A. (2009), The Implementation of a Curriculum Innovation: A Study of Using Information
Technology for Teaching and Learning in the Hong Kong Institute of Vocational Education, PhD
Thesis Submitted to the University of Wollongong, Hong Kong.
Stander, E. and Herman, C. (2017), “Barriers and challenges private higher education institutions face
in the management of quality assurance in South Africa”, South African Journal of Higher
Education, Vol. 31 No. 5, pp. 206-224.

About the authors

Prof. Norman Rudhumbu has 30 years of experience in teaching, management, research and community
service in schools, colleges and universities. Acted in the capacities of school head, principal lecturer,
HOD, assistant dean and dean. Holds the following academic and professional qualifications: PhD,
D.Ed., MPhil, MSc, MBA, M.ED, B.ED, Dip Ed. He has published 35 papers in peer-reviewed journals and
presented in seven regional and international conferences. He is an author of one business management
textbook and nine mathematics textbooks, a number of which have been prescribed for use in Botswana
schools. His three main research interests are: (1) critical studies in curriculum and pedagogy, (2)
learning, schools and innovations as well as (3) teaching and teacher education. Norman Rudhumbu is
the corresponding author and can be contacted at: [email protected]
JARHE E.C. (Elize) Du Plessis experience in distance teaching. She is a full professor in the Department of
Curriculum and Instructional studies at the University of South Africa (Unisa) and is also involved in
13,4 curriculum development in its School of Teacher Education. Her field of specialization is curriculum
development, teaching and learning and distance education. She is currently the programme coordinator
of the Post Graduate Certificate in Education programme (senior and FET phase). She is an experienced
developer of course material for student teachers. She has made contributions to several books and a
variety of journals and presented papers at both national and international conferences. Elize is also a
1084 national and international reviewer for several academic journals and acts as supervisor for MEd and
DEd students.

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: [email protected]