ELEMENTOS DEL SISTEMA DE CALIDAD

As classroom managers, teachers are the primary role players within the structural context of the individual classroom environment. Teachers make decisions in the selection of subject matter and how to present it to the students. Thornton (2005) correctly referred to teachers as curriculum gatekeepers because of the kind of decisions they make in the implementation of any intended curriculum in the classrooms. Indeed, teachers make lots of decisions about the implementation of any curriculum, but they do so under various constraints (Grant, 2003). It is not surprising that for the past two decades, much research has concentrated on how teachers acquire knowledge they use in their classrooms (Zembylas, 2007). Such studies have indicated that several factors like teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge, teacher preparations, social-cultural beliefs, and teachers’ knowledge about the needs of their students, mandated tests, and availability of resources influence classroom practices (Adler and Goodman, 1983; Grant, 2003; Yeager and Wilson, 1997). An examination of these issues can help us understand how various systematic factors influence teachers’ decisions in the selection of content and pedagogies

for implementation of the Expressive Arts curriculum. I will begin the analysis with what Shulman (1991) called ‘pedagogical content knowledge’.

a. Teachers’ Pedagogical Content Knowledge

Shulman’s (1991) conceptualisation of teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge (hereafter referred to as PCK) during the late 1980’s came about as he wondered about what and how teachers taught. His study helped in the rejuvenation of research work that revealed that teachers gained knowledge from multiple sources, influencing their decisions in the classrooms (Fenstermacher, 1994). Shulman (1991) asked thought-provoking questions on how teachers gain and use knowledge, and some of the questions were:

How do teachers decide what to teach, how to present it, how to question learners about...? What are the sources of teacher knowledge? What does a teacher know and when did he or she come to know it? How is new knowledge acquired, old knowledge retrieved and both combined to form a new knowledge base? (p.8)

He observed that PCK developed in stages from the pre-service teacher, to a novice teacher, and to the experienced teacher. However, this does not suggest that this process is a smooth and well-defined pattern of transition because the process itself is context- dependent. He noted that there are two kinds of knowledge, which teachers develop and use in their classrooms.

First, I will discuss what Shulman meant by content knowledge. This refers to, ‘the amount and organisation of knowledge per se in the mind of the teacher’ (p.9). Thus, Shulman contended that content knowledge is not just facts, but also explaining various propositions of the representation of knowledge. He observed that in most cases, teachers acquire this form of knowledge in their areas of specialisation.

The second kind of PCK is what Shulman called pedagogical knowledge. He observed that this knowledge, ‘... goes beyond knowledge of subject matter per se to the dimension of subject matter knowledge for teaching’ (p.9; emphasis in original). In essence, therefore, content knowledge and pedagogical knowledge are two sides of the same coin. Indeed, as Shulman observed, pedagogies are the most useful ways of representing subject matter in a manner that is comprehensible to students. He contended that teachers gain the PCK through their college preparation, but this improves as they gain experience in their classrooms. Fenstermacher (1994), one of the researchers inspired by Shulman, articulated very well the process of teachers’ gaining of knowledge from their college preparation through to experience.

A conceptualisation of this process is what Fenstermacher’s (1994) called teacher knowledge formal (hereafter referred to as TK/F) and teacher knowledge practical (hereafter referred to as TK/P). The TK/F is the type of knowledge teachers gain from their formal training, and these include subject matter, curriculum theories, instructional techniques, and classroom management skills (Fenstermacher, 1994). He argued that university researchers and professors produce this kind of knowledge largely based on theories of teaching and learning. The expectation from the researchers and professors is that training in these types of TK/F determines the effectiveness of the teachers in planning and implementation of any curriculum. He also observed that education policy- makers consider TK/F as the essential base of knowledge for teachers’ classroom practices. As a result, curriculum development processes are largely dependent on this type of knowledge.

On the other hand, TK/P is the type of knowledge that teachers produce and use through practice in their classrooms. Indeed, through trying out things in the classrooms, teachers come to know what works for them in the context of their environment (Thornton, 2005).

Sadly though, curriculum developers hardly take into account the practical knowledge that teachers produce and use in their classrooms (McLaughlin and Talbert, 1990). This is why one of the goals of this study was to investigate the TK/P from the perspectives of primary school Expressive Arts teachers. While teachers’ gaining of TK/F seems straightforward to understand, the gaining of TK/P is not. As Fenstermacher rightly argued, we can understand the development of TK/P by engaging teachers in a dialogue of how they implement the intended curriculum.

From the explanation of both Shulman (1991) and Fenstermacher (1994), it becomes clear that teacher preparation programmes are critical for understanding teachers’ content knowledge and pedagogical classroom practices. The two authors also alluded to the fact that teachers gain knowledge from other sources as they gain experience in the classrooms. However, neither of the two researchers mentioned socio-cultural histories as one of the major sources of knowledge for teachers. I find this problematic because they both consider pre-service training as the beginning point from which teachers gain knowledge. On the contrary, studies indicate that social-cultural beliefs and perspectives are important sources of knowledge that influence teachers during preparation and professional career (see arguments by Adler and Goodman, 1983; Grant, 2003; Murry, 1997; Rios, 1996). As shall be explained later in this section, socio-cultural histories of teachers as well as students also influence classroom practices. It, therefore, follows as a logical conclusion that cultural histories play a pivotal role in shaping teachers’ TK/P. Teacher preparation is the starting point to understand Shulman’s and Fenstermacher’s arguments about how teachers gain knowledge. However, teacher preparation is only one of the sources of teachers’ pedagogical and content knowledge. As already mentioned earlier, socio-cultural background is another important source of teachers’ socially constructed knowledge. Thus,

the next section is an attempt to explain the influence of teachers’ socio-cultural histories on their selection of content and pedagogies in their classrooms.

b. Socio-cultural influence on teachers’ classroom practices

Research on teachers’ cognition has failed to vigorously explore how teachers gain knowledge from their social-cultural histories and also how those forms of knowledge influence their decisions in the classrooms (Rios, 1996). This does not suggest that there are virtually no research works on culture and learning. In fact, there is a significant amount of research works on culture, race, and schooling. These research works have, however, concentrated on the influence of race and culture on students’ classroom achievements (Nasir and Hand, 2006). What the research studies have not investigated critically is how culture contributes to teachers’ decisions on classroom practices they adopt (Hamilton, 1993; Rios, 1996). Indeed, ‘what teachers tell us about their practice is, most fundamentally, a reflection of their culture, and cannot be properly understood without reference to that culture’ (Hamilton, 1993, p.87). This implies that teachers, too, hold socially-constructed knowledge, beliefs, values, and perspectives that are shaped by their own cultural histories.

Grant (2003) defined belief as ‘a proposition among things accepted as true, including axioms, rules of practice and perspectives’ (p.153). Such beliefs manifest themselves into perspectives or stances, and these may influence teachers’ decisions in the planning and implementation of lessons. Adler and Goodman (1983) defined perspectives as meanings and interpretations teachers give to classroom practices. Perspectives are set in the teachers’ real world of everyday experiences. Thus, the manifestation of classroom behaviours is a result of teachers’ background experiences, experiential beliefs, and assumptions made from those beliefs (Adler and Goodman, 1983).

c. Teacher identity

Successfully bringing an implementation of a curriculum hinges on the teacher’s identity or dispositions towards work. In this study, teacher identity means a ‘teacher’s beliefs, dispositions and interests towards teaching given the conditions of his/her work’ (Jansen, 2002, p.119). The feeling that a teacher has about his/her work shapes his/her ability in implementing a curriculum policy (Jansen, 2002). Kadzamira’s (2006) study notes that low salaries, coupled with other poor working conditions in Malawi cause widespread teacher discontent and so teaching is regarded as ‘employment of the last resort.’ Teachers’ discontent with their career may affect their performance and consequently affect the implementation of any curriculum including Expressive Arts.

d. Personal circumstances of teachers

Literature reviewed has shown that teacher personality, identity, knowledge of a curriculum, resistance to change and professional development are factors restricting a teacher’s ability to implement a curriculum effectively. In addition, a teacher’s personal social circumstances such as personal or family health and poverty are also factors that can undermine the implementation of a curriculum. For example, Lowe (2008) argues that many teachers in Malawi are constrained by social circumstances such as caring for sick children, personal ill-health and a meager income. These social circumstances often cause teachers to absent themselves from work. Describing teacher absences in Malawi, Lowe (2008), explains that

At the first school I visited there should have been five teachers present, but three, including the principal, were absent on that day. If we add to this the claimed number of classes with no teachers at all, we see reasons why children might lose interest in school (p. 18).

A teacher’s personal circumstances can therefore either inhibit or enhance the implementation of a curriculum.

To sum up, teachers are key players in the implementation of a curriculum because they are the ones who introduce a curriculum into the classroom. The success of a curriculum mainly hinges upon a teacher’s commitment to a curriculum, the teacher’s sound knowledge of the goals and content knowledge of the curriculum, teacher’s knowledge about the practice of teaching the curriculum and suitable personal social circumstances. Such personal circumstances include personal and family health and sound finances.