**1. Introduction**

This chapter focuses on shifts in vision which took place over the seventeen year life of the South African Radio Learning Programme, from an initial product based conception of curriculum to one which was process based. This was accompanied by shifts in implementation theory as well as implementation strategies, which are described and then analysed.

The initial aims of the programme were based on an interactive radio model originally applied in Nicaragua in 1974 (Perraton, 2000) and then replicated in a number of other developing countries in Latin America, Africa and Asia. Its initial radio curriculum was based on a teaching approach developed in Kenya, which was designed to raise the quality of English teaching in the first three years of primary school (Imhoof & Christensen, 1986).

In Kenya, the curriculum involved a series of daily half hour audio lessons, which were used to introduce English to primary school children. These audio programmes were interactive in involving children in a variety of activities, which required to responses using English.

The radio lessons also involved music and movement, and were carefully designed to introduce core concepts and vocabulary. The programme was based on behaviourist principles, using distributed learning and repetition to ensure that concepts and vocabulary were internalised. The Kenyan radio learning programme can thus be characterized as a skills-based distance education programme, based on use of radio as a medium of instruction.

Like its Nicaraguan and Kenyan predecessors, the South African Radio Learning Programme (called "English in Action"), was introduced to Southern Africa using funds provided by USAID. The grant was provided to a South African NGO (the Open Learning Systems Education Trust) on the condition that technical advisers funded by USAID would train staff in radio lesson development as well as in programme implementation. The sponsors also required an evaluation design which included use of pre and post tests of English language competence, in line with the type of summative evaluation used to monitor previous implementations of interactive radio programmes in other countries.

Teacher Development Through Distance Education:

around curricular issues had also been established.

formative evaluation over the initial implementation phase.

**of the programme during the initial funding phase** 

support national implementation of the programme.

methods (Potter, 1993a; 1993b), as follows:

principals and other stakeholders?

professionalisation?

and print materials had been developed.

**3.1 Evaluation design** 

Contrasting Visions of Radio Learning in South African Primary Schools 55

classroom materials, and at the Grade Two level 130 radio lessons and supporting classroom

Plans were in place for the scripting of 180 radio lessons and the development of supporting learner materials to support Grade Three level implementation. Structures for curriculum development and for consultation with national and provincial Education Departments

Underpinning these programmatic structures was a programme implementation theory (Weiss, 1998; Potter, 2005) reflecting a vision of educational change (Potter, 1992). This chapter focuses on a shift in this vision from a product to a process conception of curriculum (Hamilton, 1976, Stenhouse, 1975, 1980; 1981; Walker, 1969; 1971). As this shift took place in response to evaluation and is also reflected in the evaluation reports on the development of the programme over this period, the next section of this chapter focuses on the role of

**3. Changes in vision of the project team: Responses to formative evaluation** 

Like its predecessors using interactive radio in other parts of the world, the South African Radio Learning Programme was subject to evaluation for developmental and accountability purposes. The initial evaluation design was conceptualised as based on measurement involving development of a test of English language vocabulary which would be applied in pre and post-testing of learners in a number of schools involved in the programme. The performance of these learners would then be compared with pre- and post-test performance of learners in a similar number of contrast schools not involved in the programme. If learning gains could be demonstrated using audio-cassettes, this evidence would then be used to make the case to the national broadcaster to provide a national radio footprint to

At the time of the time of the programme's inception in 1992, a number of other projects in South Africa were also working to develop procedures for teaching English at the lower primary level (such as the Molteno project; MAPEP) and at the upper primary level (such as SELP; TELIP; TOPS; the Molteno Project; READ). In a context of rapid change in South African in its transition to democracy, the evaluation design was criticized as insufficiently responsive to context of South African schools, as well as the changes occurring in South Africa on both a socio-political and educational level. A broader contextually based evaluation design was then developed (Potter, 1993a), in which pre-and post-testing would form one element or strand. The design was evolved consultatively and responsively (Stake, 1983), and addressed six questions through use of multiple data sources and multiple

Is the "English in Action" programme effective in teaching primary English?

Are teachers who use the programme empowered, supported in their jobs and assisted in

Is there acceptance of the programme by the community, inclusive of teachers, parents,

However, a number of shifts took place from this initial conception of a programme originally designed to implement an approach which had been tried and tested elsewhere in the world. Shifts initially took place from a purely measurement-based summative evaluation design, towards a more contextual, holistic, formative and multimethod approach to programme evaluation (Potter, 1993a; 1993b). The programme's behaviourist assumptions were also challenged (Leigh, 1995; Perraton, 2000), being replaced with a more responsive and process approach to curriculum development and evaluation (OLSET, 1995; Potter, Dube, Kenyon et al., 1995).

These changes are traced in the initial sections which follow.
