Encuesta de percepción sobre fases del proyecto

UTs played back their videoed tape lesson, reflected on their practice and critiqued the lesson they had filmed. Analysis of UTs’ interview data on the videoed tape lesson and what they felt had not worked well were categorised under the following: (i) teacher dominance in classroom teaching (ii) compliance with established school and district policies.

7.3.2.1. Teacher dominance in classroom teaching

UTs’ interview data suggested that teacher dominance was high while pupils’ involvement was relatively low. From UTs’ interview data, despite their intentions to use

learner-centred approaches as indicated above, this diminished as the lesson progressed. This appears to suggest a conflicting perspective between teacher’s knowledge and classroom practice as the account below illustrates:

My intention was to use child-centered approach and so I started… by involving them, asking questions, allowing them to come with their own ideas… Then along the line .. I realized I was lecturing them…..I think for a greater part of the lesson, I used lecture method (UT4f: 19/08/2011).

Another comment from a UT suggested that the teacher explained facts without finding out the extent of pupils’ understanding. A strong sense of the teacher’s role as transmitting knowledge to pupils, without perhaps finding out the extent of their understanding, could be discerned from the data:

There were a number of mathematical concepts that I had to tell my pupils. I told them because I had no other means to let them understand….my pupils are not good academically….I did not find out whether they understood the meaning of the concepts I explained to them…I feel some of the mathematical concepts the only way you can let your pupils have an idea is to tell them (UT2m: 9/08/2011). Similarly, a UT disclosed that facts were explained to pupils without establishing possible reasons behind the development of these facts. From this UT’s view, the teacher could be seen as the final authority as to whatever knowledge was deemed appropriate in the teaching and learning environment:

I think there were some concepts that though I explained to pupils, I did not establish the reasons behind the development of these concepts for better understanding by pupils. For example, I explained to them [mathematics lesson] that the sum of angles of a triangle is 1800, but I did not go further to establish the underlying reasons….I discussed the concepts like statements of facts (UT5m: 24/08/2011).

Overall, the views expressed by UTs seem to suggest that conveying, telling and transmitting knowledge, concepts, facts and skills to pupils using lecturing, explaining, giving instructions and talking during classroom teaching without much involvement of

pupils were some of the gaps identified in their approach to classroom presentation. All these could be viewed largely as reflecting the practice of teacher-centred methods.

Given the accounts in sections 7.3.1 and 7.3.2, it appears that though UTs expected the learning environment to be learner-centred throughout the lesson delivery, at a point it became teacher-centred, indicating the complex nature of classroom learning environment. Some of the reasons for these differences in what I will describe as “learner-centred practices” to “teacher-centred approaches” include the fact that UTs do not get enough exposure to the learner-centred practices in their training, especially at CoEs (see section 7.2.2.2). Other reasons are discussed in the sections below.

Taking the discussions above and the comments that seem to suggest that principles of a learner-centred perspective can be embedded within a traditional teacher-centred environment, at least for these UTs particular classroom teaching, it is important for the UTDBE programme to attempt more thorough understandings of their professional teaching and learning contexts.

7.3.2.2. Compliance with established school policies and classroom management

UTs’ interview data suggested that school policy and national curriculum policies influenced the depth of coverage of intended objectives set for a particular lesson. For some UTs, their work, including the pace of classroom teaching, number of exercises set for pupils and marked was largely decided by the requirements of the district office and the school administrators. Each term, a teacher was mandated to cover the entire scheme

of work for his/her class. Time, and the number of pupils exercises per week were important indicators closely monitored by headteachers and other district officials.

UTs are also working under a predetermined school curriculum (designed at the national level) and calendar. A combination of pressures therefore requires them to organise the classroom teaching and learning in a manner that will secure completion of required tasks within a specific time frame. The previous paragraphs point a finger at pressures on UTs from headteachers and district officials, while this paragraph points to the dictates of the national curriculum.

UT’s inability to achieve fully the objectives set for the lesson was attributed to the school policy on the number of exercises needed to be given to pupils as this account illustrates:

I could not use all the materials that I had prepared to use in class. I had to stop using it …..in order to give pupils some exercises. …in my school pupils are supposed to be given 20 exercises in mathematics [5 exercises 4 times a week]..I will be queried by the headteacher and circuit supervisor if I am unable to meet this (UT4f: 19/08/2011).

Similarly another UT commented:

What our school and educational authorities want to see is by way of lesson notes preparation and number of exercises given to your pupils and marked. …..The actual process of teaching is not very important, and therefore you were in a way forced to concentrate on that (UT3f: 15/08/2011).

For a UT, rushing to complete the syllabus appeared to be more important to the school authorities than engaging pupils in meaningful teaching. This suggests a conflict in how UTs want to teach:

It will be a very big problem if the teaching progress is behind schedule and the intended topics in the syllabus are not finished by the end of the term. Pupils are externally examined by the district at the end of every term and so completing the topics in the syllabus was very important (UT1f: 3/08/2011).

The point of view of another UT seems to justify why lecturing and rote learning were most effective means of classroom teaching. This ensures a speedy completion of the syllabus as the account illustrates:

Without using the lecture method of teaching, and sometimes rote learning, there was no way that you could complete the topics outlined (UT6m: 30/08/2011). The views in this category appear to suggest that as much as UTs saw lecturing, transmitting knowledge, explaining concepts, facts and skills to pupils, and teacher classroom dominance as factors that influenced their classroom teaching negatively, school policy on the number of exercises that should be given to pupils and the rush to complete topics to fulfill curriculum requirements were also factors that informed the choice of a particular teaching strategy. This evidence suggests that the school environment does not provide enough opportunities for UTs to apply the theories and methods that they had been taught at CoE and could be in conflict with the wisdom of practice they might have acquired through previous teaching experience.

In general, it seems if the UTDBE programme is successful in setting up aspirations for UTs to teach in a ‘learner-centred’ way, this is causing the UTs some considerable difficulty in their attempts to develop their teaching practice.