The transition from an English-only medium of instruction (MOI) to a bilingual English–Kreol Morisien model represents a significant pedagogical, cultural, and organisational shift. Effective implementation requires strategic curriculum leadership grounded in systematic change theory. This article analyses how principals and educational leaders can utilise Lewin’s Three-Stage Change Model (Unfreeze–Change–Refreeze) to guide bilingual MOI reform, particularly in schools serving low-ability learners, who are most affected by MOI barriers. Through strategic visioning, collaborative planning, and evidence-informed decision-making, principals can create conditions for sustainable bilingual curriculum transformation that enhances equity, inclusiveness, and academic achievement.
1. Introduction
Medium of instruction reforms are widely recognised as deep-structure changes that affect pedagogy, curriculum alignment, assessment practices, teacher competencies, and school culture (Fullan, 2007; Hornberger, 2009). In contexts where English remains the dominant instructional language, students of low literacy levels often struggle to access content knowledge, resulting in academic underachievement (Cummins, 2000). Introducing a bilingual English–Kreol Morisien MOI can significantly improve conceptual understanding, engagement, and language development—but only if implemented through coherent strategic leadership.
The principal, as the curriculum leader, plays a pivotal role in guiding MOI change by shaping vision, mobilising teacher collaboration, and ensuring curriculum coherence (Glatthorn & Jailall, 2016). Lewin’s (1947) Three-Stage Change Model provides a structured framework through which educational leaders can manage the complexity and sensitivity of bilingual MOI transformation.
2. Conceptual Framework: Lewin’s Three-Stage Change Model
Lewin’s model outlines three interdependent stages:
-
Unfreeze – preparing stakeholders for change by challenging existing beliefs and practices;
-
Change (Move) – implementing new strategies, behaviours, and structures;
-
Refreeze – institutionalising new practices to ensure long-term sustainability.
This classical model remains highly relevant in MOI reforms due to its emphasis on culture, behaviour, and system stability (Burnes, 2004). Strategic curriculum leadership is required at each phase to maintain coherence and ensure that reforms support low-ability learners.
3. Strategic Curriculum Leadership and the “Unfreezing” Stage
The first stage requires creating readiness for change. In MOI reform, this involves acknowledging the limitations of English-only instruction for low-ability learners and building consensus around the benefits of bilingual learning.
3.1 Diagnosing Learning Barriers
Low-ability learners frequently lack foundational literacy in English, resulting in difficulties in conceptual learning, classroom participation, and assessment performance (Benson, 2012). Strategic leaders initiate diagnostic reviews using:
-
baseline literacy assessments
-
learner profiles
-
classroom observation data
-
consultation with teachers and parents
These data help establish the need for reform.
3.2 Building Awareness and Willingness
Resistance is likely when teachers are accustomed to English-only instruction. The principal’s role is to:
-
Facilitate workshops explaining the cognitive advantages of mother-tongue bilingual education (Cummins, 2001).
-
Present research demonstrating that mother-tongue scaffolding enhances content comprehension.
-
Model an inclusive vision: bilingualism as a resource, not a deficit.
3.3 Creating Collaborative Structures
Curriculum leaders establish curriculum committees, bilingual task forces, and teacher learning communities to involve stakeholders in co-constructing the reform. This aligns with Glatthorn and Jailall’s (2016) emphasis on collaborative curriculum leadership.
Outcome of Unfreezing: Collective understanding that the current MOI system disadvantages low-ability learners and that bilingual instruction can address equity gaps.
4. Strategic Leadership During the “Change” (Move) Stage
This stage involves implementing the bilingual English–Kreol Morisien curriculum in a systemic manner.
4.1 Professional Development and Teacher Capacity Building
Effective bilingual MOI requires teachers to be confident in:
-
translanguaging strategies
-
culturally responsive pedagogy
-
structured bilingual lesson planning
-
code-switching techniques that support conceptual transfer
The principal ensures ongoing training, coaching, and mentoring. According to Darling-Hammond et al. (2017), professional learning is the strongest predictor of successful curriculum change.
4.2 Curriculum Alignment and Instructional Materials
Strategic curriculum leadership ensures:
-
Lesson plans that integrate Kreol Morisien as a scaffold for English instruction
-
Development of bilingual glossaries and learning aids
-
Alignment of assessment tasks with bilingual instruction so low-ability learners are not disadvantaged
Curriculum mapping ensures coherence across subjects.
4.3 Supporting Low-Ability Learners
Bilingual reforms particularly benefit this group by:
-
Reducing cognitive overload
-
Increasing comprehension through first-language activation
-
Improving confidence and participation (Heugh, 2013)
Leaders establish differentiated instruction, remedial support, and regular formative assessments.
4.4 Monitoring and Feedback
The principal uses structured monitoring cycles:
-
classroom walkthroughs
-
teacher reflection logs
-
student performance tracking
-
bilingual assessment data
This aligns with continuous improvement models in curriculum leadership (Print, 2020).
5. The “Refreezing” Stage: Institutionalising the Bilingual MOI
Refreezing ensures sustainability and prevents regression to English-only practices.
5.1 Policy Consolidation
The principal formalises:
-
bilingual MOI policies
-
school-level guidelines for translanguaging
-
bilingual assessment framework
-
documentation of instructional standards
5.2 Strengthening School Culture
Bilingualism becomes a core school value through:
-
celebrating students’ Kreol Morisien literacy achievements
-
recognising teachers who demonstrate exemplary bilingual pedagogy
-
embedding bilingual resources in the school environment
This solidifies teacher identity and commitment to the reform.
5.3 Long-Term Evaluation and Data Use
Strategic leaders establish ongoing evaluation systems to measure:
-
literacy gains
-
subject-matter comprehension
-
teacher proficiency in bilingual instruction
-
student engagement patterns
Evidence ensures that the reform continues improving learning outcomes for low-ability students.
6. Conclusion
Implementing a bilingual English–Kreol Morisien medium of instruction represents a transformative curriculum reform requiring deliberate and strategic educational leadership. Principals, functioning as curriculum leaders, guide the school through the unfreezing, change, and refreezing stages by building consensus, nurturing teacher capacity, supporting low-ability learners, and institutionalising new pedagogies. When grounded in Lewin’s Change Model and supported by robust professional development and continuous monitoring, bilingual MOI reform can substantially enhance learning equity and academic success.
References
- Benson, C. (2012). The role of language of instruction in promoting quality and equity in education. UNESCO.
- Burnes, B. (2004). Kurt Lewin and the planned approach to change: A re-appraisal. Journal of Management Studies, 41(6), 977–1002.
- Cummins, J. (2000). Language, power and pedagogy: Bilingual children in the crossfire. Multilingual Matters.
- Cummins, J. (2001). Negotiating identities: Education for empowerment in a diverse society. California Association for Bilingual Education.
- Darling-Hammond, L., Hyler, M., & Gardner, M. (2017). Effective teacher professional development. Learning Policy Institute.
- Fullan, M. (2007). The new meaning of educational change (4th ed.). Teachers College Press.
- Glatthorn, A. A., & Jailall, J. M. (2016). The principal as curriculum leader: Shaping what is taught and tested (3rd ed.). SAGE.
- Heugh, K. (2013). Literacy and bi/multilingual education in Africa: Recovering collective memory and expertise. International Review of Education, 59, 49–67.
- Hornberger, N. (2009). Multilingual education policy and practice: Ten certainties (grounded in Indigenous experience). Language Teaching, 42(2), 197–211.
- Lewin, K. (1947). Frontiers in group dynamics. Human Relations, 1(2), 143–153.
- Print, M. (2020). Curriculum development and design. Routledge.
