La Comisión Interterritorial de Cooperación al Desarrollo

Criticisms levelled against cognitivist (Piaget, 1926, 1971, 1975; Piaget & Inhelder, 1969) and behaviourist learning theories (Skinner, 1953, 1974) led to the emergence of sociocultural (Vygotsky, 1962, 1978) and constructivist learning theories (Jessel, 1999). Piaget and Skinner, among others, were criticised for failure to consider political and sociocultural factors in the learning process. Sociocultural and constructivist theories consider learning as a social and cultural construction of knowledge that takes place in varying historical, social, political, and cultural contexts. Thus, there is no fixed and rigid knowledge waiting to be transmitted to our minds as assumed by cognitivists. However, these learning theories have remained the basis for understanding best teaching and learning practices in many countries, and most teacher education

discourses constructed them as the foundation for informing effective learning (Moore, 2000, 2004, 2012).

A Tanzanian study (Mbilinyi, 1979) identified ‘formal administrative structures’ and ‘role relationships' in teachers’ work in schools. These structures and relationships determined teachers’ and students’ socialisation patterns and their functioning. Most policies that determined teachers’ work in schools originated from the Ministry of

Education and were to be implemented without teachers’ questioning their relevance to

schools, curriculum, and their work. At school level, there was less democracy in decision making, and school heads had “de jure power and control over the subjects to

be taught by each teacher” (p. 102) and allocation of teaching and non-teaching functions. Further, Mbilinyi also noted the departmentalisation and stratification of

teachers’ work based on taught subjects. There was evidence of separation between arts and science subject teachers that was encouraged by differences in salaries, as science teachers were paid slightly more than arts, a situation that made them perceived as

superior to their fellow artists. “Science teachers often took breaks separately in their

own offices, usually the laboratory preparation rooms.” (p. 102). Further, students ranked “science teachers and science subjects higher, calling them ‘tough’ and their

positions more remunerative in terms of future prospects.” (p. 102-103).

According to Mbilinyi (1979), social stratification was encouraged by individual and socially constructed differences in teachers’ academic backgrounds, work experience, sex, and marital relationships. This implied that in their working

relationships, teachers developed ‘communities’ of graduates versus non-graduates, seniors versus juniors, and married versus singles which shaped work behaviour, motivation, attitudes, and performance. There were work-related characteristics of authoritarianism, hierarchism, departmentalisation, and social stratification that affected

teachers’ work.

Similarly, Komunte (1995) found that the majority of secondary teachers

selected “student-centered language learning strategies like pair/group/class discussions,

reading texts silently and loudly in the classroom” (p. xii). However, it is surprising that

Komunte concluded that such selected and practised pedagogies did not influence

“students learning processes observed in the classroom” (p. viii). Such findings and

conclusion meant that although pedagogy selection and practice was influenced by CR, these did not shape knowledge and identity construction. This conclusion contradicted data presented by Komunte who found that CR shaped students’ reading skills. Further,

her finding that students’ poor English language knowledge and background, and insufficient reading materials where “four or five students” (p.77) shared an English textbook during silent reading practice, could not demonstrate how student-centered pedagogies were practised and the curricular outcomes. These and similar study findings not only contradict learning theories that I discuss later, but also common sense assumptions about learning. Thus, such studies also exemplify the limitations of survey epistemology and methodology in examining the influence of pedagogic practice on

knowledge construction. Komunte’s study also reflected the effects of reconstructed

power relations of domination reproduced through curriculum and pedagogy because it showed that, in text reading pedagogy, students were “so nervous that they made silly

mistakes while reading” (p. 76). Further, she noted students code switching to Swahili in an English lesson, an act that was suppressed by teachers’ power. However, the author underestimated these observations as serious policy issues that needed particular in-depth research and policy attention. Thus, Komunte (1995) was consistent with past

studies’ (Kibogoya, 1988; Roy-Campbell & Qorro, 1987, 1997) findings on note taking and lecturing pedagogies.

Other studies (Kapolesya, 2010; Nzigilwa, 2010; Osaki, 2000) have shown that student-involving pedagogies, such as questions and answers, independent reading and reflection, fieldwork, group discussions, and debates, were effective in enabling students to construct planned curricular experiences. Similarly, through qualitative methods, Jokolo (2004) examined the classroom interactional framework in advanced level Biology among teachers and students and with CR in three selected schools in Dar es Salaam and Mbeya regions. The findings indicated that there was less interaction among teachers and students and CR as teachers dominated classroom interaction because of large class sizes, inadequate resources, less developed students’ and

teachers’ subject matter knowledge, identity, and motivation in shaping their work. For

example, when students asked critical questions from their experiences, such as “Why when food particles enter the respiratory tract or when we take in spiced food tears

come out?” The teacher’s response was, “It is not indicated in the textbook” (p. 86), showing that the teacher’s knowledge and practice were shaped and limited by the textbook contents. Their knowledge did not go beyond the textbooks, and they could not think and create for their own knowledge based on their environment. However, Jokolo

did not examine how such teachers’ responses further constrained students’ knowledge, creativity, and critical thinking, and reproduced dependence on textbooks as dominant

discourses. Further, Jokolo did not link these classroom pedagogic practices with the sociocultural, political, and historical contexts of learning and the curricula outcomes shaped by this teacher domination. In terms of social construction of knowledge through interaction, Jokolo (2004) found that interaction in a Science practical-based curriculum was higher than in the theory sessions. However, Jokolo did not examine the cultures and ideologies reproduced through curriculum texts and practices.

Jokolo (2004) also established similar findings with other studies (Chonjo, 1980; Chonjo et al., 1995; Chonjo & Walford, 2001; Mwinsheikhe, 2002) how teacher

pedagogy constrained students’ participation in knowledge and identity construction. According to Jokolo, teachers predetermined which student should respond to their questions before they asked those questions. This practice discouraged other students from listening and participating because they knew that those questions were for the selected students. Sometimes chorus answering was constructed in the learning process because of a lack of systematic approach to questioning. Further, Jokolo found that the

pedagogies prescribed by government curriculum policy texts “were minimally used or

were not used at all” (p. 95) and attributed this discursive contradiction to insufficient

CR, lack of teacher professional development, large classes, and a lack of teacher motivation. However, Jokolo did not consider the sociopolitical reasons for these attributions, nor the power relations reproduced through the pedagogies constructed by teachers. Moreover, like other studies on classroom pedagogy discussed above, Jokolo (2004) also revealed static classrooms with students’ seatting arrangements in rows, facing the teacher, and that note copying was the main pedagogic practice constructed in the Biology curriculum process; however, the impact of these pedagogies on power/knowledge and identities was not considered. Jokolo also found teachers’ curriculum planning and practice structuring in a similar, linear pattern, beginning with

“oral questions followed by lesson presentation by lecturing and few interrupted questions [and] conclusion through summary/questions/assignment” (p. 95). However,

the extent to which these patterns were social and politically shaped and their effects on

teachers’ work were not considered. Further, Jokolo found that most teachers he

observed resisted lesson planning, but did not find out why and the effects of this on their work.

Some studies (Mosha, 2011, 2012) have reproduced determinants of the state of the poor quality of education in Tanzania since independence, including teacher-centred pedagogy, lack of CR, school facilities, ‘cultural conditions’, ‘international conditions’,

less financing, and teacher quality. Mosha (2012) also noted secondary school CR

policy fluctuation over the past few decades from “MOEC, then to the councils, followed by private providers and now it is the schools again” (p. 72). However, these

studies fail to involve school institutional sites to examine, nor how and to what extent such factors and the dominant groups affect teachers’ work. In other words, these studies lack the voices of those who experienced policy changes — the teachers and students — who construct curriculum in the first place. Moreover, Mosha (2011) explains capitalist cultures of student selection and competition through the school curriculum without noting their effects on learning and social class reproduction.