In Papua New Guinea there is central control over the school curriculum. Content standards (syllabuses) for elementary and primary sectors are approved under the powers of the Minister for Education as defined under the Education Act (1995). These prescribed content standards (syllabuses) are accepted as the “national standards” within the NEB approved criteria for the school system (Avalos, 1992; Kenehe, 1981; Matane, 1986; and McNamara, 1989). Official documents list content and curriculum standards for every subject taught at elementary, primary and secondary schools.
The challenges for attaining curriculum standards in Papua New Education continue. Matane (1986) asserted that the curriculum is fragmented, lacks value orientation, and children are not trained in problem solving and decision making skills. Further, curriculum fragmentation inhibits stakeholders of education (school, church, community and state) from working together to achieve national goals. Some of the factors that influence content and curriculum standards approved by the NEB are discussed in this section. These include inappropriate content standards, teachers’ knowledge of curriculum; teachers’ language abilities, teaching methods, monitoring and assessment of pupils’ learning and initiatives for the next five years.
Curriculum content developed for Papua New Guinea schools was inappropriate at the time of its introduction because teachers were not able to teach content standards that were beyond their pre-service teacher education subject content. For instance, innovative curriculum standards in Mathematics introduced child-centred and individual discovery methods into the school curriculum (Lancy, 1983). These methods failed because teachers lacked sufficient knowledge in Mathematics content to develop an
A third failed innovation included primary Science, where teachers rejected traditional conceptions in favour of modern science (Crossley, 1984; Lornie, 1981; Plummer, 1981).
In addition, the language of instruction impacts on curriculum implementation. Kenehe (1981) emphasised that teachers in primary schools do not speak English well enough to be able to teach it effectively. Teachers’ proficiency in the language of instruction impedes effective learning. Some classroom teachers avoided addressing the issue of English and were teaching it badly because they were experiencing weaknesses in fundamental skills of comprehension and reading (Kenehe, 1981; Plummer, 1981). Many teachers taught Mathematical concepts and skills which they personally did not understand (Downing, 1982; Vulliamy, 1983; McLaughlin, 1991). A study of English language usage by teachers identified that about 30% of in-service and pre-service teachers using a cloze test were experiencing frustration and only one third could read independently (Herman, 1988). Given this situation, many teachers do not correctly interpret official curriculum documents. Teachers’ competence and confidence to structure teaching and learning contribute in part to low level teaching and minimal learning experienced in schools (Kenehe, 1981; O’ Sullivan, 1994; McLaughlin, 1997).
Another factor influencing teachers’ beliefs and understanding of how to implement curriculum standards is related to their limited professional input in curriculum decisions (Kenehe, 1981; Weeks, 1985b). Teachers have limited professional input in making curriculum decisions (Avalos, 1987; Burke, Elliot, Lucas, & Stewart, 1997; Crossley, 1985; Guthrie, 1986; Ross, 1988 & 1989). Curriculum developers make decisions on the content and curriculum standards of literacy, numeracy, elementary social studies, science and practical applications of these to hygiene and nutrition for primary schools (Guthrie, 1985). Yet the success of curriculum standards specific to reading, writing and arithmetic (3R’s), and monitoring and assessment of pupils’ achievement is dependent upon classroom teachers’ beliefs and understanding (Atwood, 1986; Pickford, 1999; Zeegers, 2000).
Some research studies reveal that implementation of curriculum decisions depends on school and teacher variables which influence student achievement (Smith, 1985; Attwood, 1986; Pickford, 1998 & 1999). But social and cultural factors combined with prescribed teaching approaches also influence teaching and pupils’ learning (McLaughlin, 1997; Pickford, 1998 & 1999). Some of these concerns include: poor nutrition, community problems, crime, poor teaching techniques, and poor school and home learning environments (Attwood, 1986; McNamara, 1989). Although social and economic factors may have considerable explanatory power when considering the overall level of academic achievement, it is arguable that in Papua New Guinea, investment in education has not matched other forms of social investment (Attwood, 1986; Pickford, 1999). To achieve desired learning outcomes, sufficient resources
and competent teachers are needed to implement and measure standards (Crossley & Vulliamy, 1986 & 1996; Hawes, 1987).
Moreover, there is a lack of community support and failures in the overall policy and management support from the government. Some of these weaknesses would have been corrected with good planning and management particularly attending to the improvement of the current unequal distribution of the social benefits of education between rural and urban children (Guy, 1999). Teachers alone, cannot deliver these standards because much of the content needs to be supported by teachers’ and students’ materials. Teachers teach to prescribed curricula to fulfil national standards such as requirements of literacy and numeracy as measured by passing examinations (Gibson & Weeks, 1990).
Little is known at this stage about teachers’ beliefs and understanding and their intuitive decisions based on their self-owned innovative teaching methods and use of local knowledge in teaching (Gibson & Weeks, 1990). What is known is that classroom teaching becomes too “mechanistic and routine” where both teachers and students follow instructions directly from a detailed textbook. Teachers became engaged in rote teaching with students engaging in rote learning (McLaughlin, 1997). In some situations, teachers are rigid and inflexible and not creative in varying teaching methods to meet different pupil characteristics (McNamara, 1989). Therefore, students’ curriculum materials have been developed in a way that students’ assessable tasks are prescribed for each of the respective subjects. For instance, primary school Mathematics curriculum was designed to guide children to develop a better understanding of Mathematics, possibly beyond that of their teacher. It was noted that teachers’ lack of understanding and limited language skills inhibited pupils’ understanding (Roberts, 1986). Similarly, classroom observations revealed that teachers lacked skills in motivating students and they tended to use a strict, authoritarian approach to teaching which resulted in students’ dependency on the teacher (Matane, 1986). Teaching methods influence learning in the classroom. The use of rote teaching and learning encouraged predominately formalistic, teacher-driven, textbook-dependent learning in the classrooms (McLaughlin, 1989). Regardless of the institution in which teachers are trained, they exhibit a similar teaching style and focus on teaching performance rather than student learning. Teachers continue to use stereotyped forms of lessons with emphasis on words rather than on meaning (Avalos, 1989; Avalos, 1991; Avalos, 1992). McNamara (1989) pointed out that “teaching behaviour is based more on formalised lessons than on the application of learning processes to the needs of particular children” (p. 5). Age-old habits of relying on
Language of instruction
Standards planned for the language of instruction cannot be maintained because of the teachers' and students' communication and learning difficulties. O'Sullivan (1994) pointed out that language is a significant factor, which carries a heavy burden not only in attaining educational goals, but also in establishing individual and national identity, and in the provision of power. Improvement of English language used in classrooms will remain a daunting task unless current teaching practices are improved (O'Sullivan, 1994). Teachers, therefore, need academic knowledge of curriculum, proficiency in teaching and language of instruction (local vernacular and English) which are essential in communicating these standards to students (Pickford, 1999; McLaughlin, 1997). Such expectations have not been fulfilled in the preparation of elementary and primary teachers. Therefore, teachers face difficulties and struggle to teach pupils (Guy, Haihuie & Pena, 1997; Zeegers, 2000). There is a general perception that teachers’ skills are very much associated with the skills and achievement levels of primary pupils (Beeby, 1966; Kenehe, 1981; McLaughlin 1988, Avalos, 1990). Beeby (1966) conceptualised the above perception about the teachers’ skills as the Dame and Formalism stages of development, meaning teachers had limited educational background and training thus restricting them to form deeper meanings of the texts books and syllabi ascribed to schools. Every effort must be made to improve the quality of spoken English especially amongst teachers because there was clear evidence of deficiencies in teachers’ English proficiency in primary classroom (Avalos, 1991; McLaughlin, 1988; O’Sullivan, 1994).
Classroom teachers have operated by adapting a systemic approach in which behavioural objectives strongly controlled teacher behaviours (Guthrie, 1986; McLaughlin and O’Donoghue, 1996; Pickford, 1999). Approved duty statements controlled teachers’ behaviours, specified the content of teaching and learning program and suggested appropriate strategies and ways of assessments (Wilson & Wilson, 1984; Roberts, 1984, Tololo, 1995). Pupils’ mastery of knowledge and skills specified in the teachers’ behavioural objectives was, however, frequently confounded by the lack of teachers’ knowledge and skills and their own level of education received primarily from pre-service teacher education programs (Wilson & Wilson, 1984; Roberts, 1984).
Teachers’ knowledge contributes to the basic literacy and learning skills in schools because they have particular significance for the quality of education (McLaughlin, 1997). Quality education has its basis in “ample communication - especially in early childhood where quality communication helps in the development of basic literacy and learning skills learnt in the mother tongue” (McLaughlin, 1997, p. 94). Accordingly, bilingual pupils perform better in English in their overall academic achievement, including ability in a world language, in the context of bilingual education (Literal, 1986). Bilingual education
programmes require the teaching and use of vernacular and English from the beginning of school (Literal, 1986). McLaughlin (1997) asserted that a bilingual education programme has support from cognitive psychology. He argues that concrete operational thinkers, who are engaged in an abstract system like learning a new language, “can be meaningfully taught through exposure to that language’s conceptual structures using concrete experiences” (p. 94). Similarly, Wivell (1980) concluded that young Papua New Guinean children are compelled to learn a new language and use it as a tool to represent thought, and therefore, it is paramount that the way English is taught matches their cognitive development.
The effects of teaching and using English language greatly influence curriculum processes. Some research reported below reveal the confounding problems. For instance, a study of primary school classrooms found communication between teachers and pupils was restricted. As a result of poor English language proficiency, teachers do most of the talking and students respond in a form of chorus answers (Pearse, 1990). Moore (1981) researched the use of teachers’ praise in classrooms and found that low levels of teacher praise had negative effects on pupils’ classroom behaviour and achievement. The emphasis on using English language in their initial stages of schooling engages students in rote learning so that many basically only survive the education process (Dutton, 1977). Given the lack of proficiency in understanding and comprehending English, students are unable to ask questions (Mohok, 1989). At the time these studies were undertaken, many Papua New Guinean students’ reading speed, understanding and retention were proportionally lower compared to Western students (Dutton, 1977; Price, 1976 & 1978). Turner’s (1996) research revealed that students did not have the ability to construct meaning in the English language, because they have to learn how to speak, read and write as well as other subject-specific concepts and skills via English. Therefore, there are needs for excellent teachers, curricula and schools if students are to succeed (O’Sullivan, 1994; NDOE, 2000b & c).
Kappey (1983) stated that pupils’ language abilities were important in Science to describe what they were doing in their Science activities and explain how these knowledge and skills relate to outside the school situations. This and other studies found pupils who are good at Science are also good at language and express themselves effectively (Boeha, 1990; Kappey, 1983; Wilson, 1989; Yeboah-Amankwah, 1994). Turner (1996) stated that students have to attain skills in the English language in which the greater part of their education will be conducted and which therefore largely determines their life chances.
Monitoring, assessment and examinations
Within schools, teaching staff do not have a monitoring system to provide specific feedback on teaching and learning activities nor a system for the fair allocation of resources to better support performance on curriculum standards (NDOE, 1999c; 2000b; 2002b). In the case of academic assessment, numerous efforts to develop a national assessment system for schools have failed (Ross, 1991). Assessments of pupils vary markedly because of the limited skills and language ability of their teachers. Many teachers are not able to develop questions that encourage imaginative skills, but test general knowledge and essential basic skills as specified in the curriculum text (Maddock, 1980; McNamara, 1989). In high schools, many Science teachers have very limited knowledge of assessment theory and techniques (Maddock, 1980; Wilson, 1989; Yeboah-Amankwah, 1994). Assessments carried out by teachers to determine pupils’ progression to the next grade level could be totally invalid (Vulliamy, 1983; NDOE, 1999e; 1999h). It was recommended that improved instruments were needed to measure standards for assessment and examination purposes (Ross & Melville, 1986; MSU, 2000). Well formulated assessment guides on techniques for assessing attitudes and attainment of standards have yet to be developed at the national level (NDOE, 1999j). While schools flounder on determining appropriate monitoring and assessment mechanisms, external policy requirements for the national examinations divert teachers’ focus from addressing pupils’ learning problems (MSU, 1998).
National examinations continue to be a key determinant of educational practice in Papua New Guinea. Examinations taken at grades 8, 10, and 12 determine the progression of students to the next level of education (see Figure 3.1). Pupils’ high achievements in the national examinations are associated in part with promotional opportunities for teachers and head teachers (Weeks, 1985a). The image of good head teachers and schools is associated with good examinations results. Weeks (1985a) argued that there is more to education than examinations, and suggested that it is unfortunate if teachers lose sight of their other roles and devote more of their allocated time teaching for the examinations (Weeks, 1985a). Currently, an established monitoring system exists as an inspection system to monitor performances of schools and teachers for accountability purposes, but little has been done to review the bias towards examinations (Weeks, 1985a). The inspection monitoring system focuses on teachers' performance of non-pedagogic roles and as a result, little is known about how well pupils are achieving in the subject learning areas of the school curriculum (Guthrie, 1985).
Ross (1991) suggested that examination remains the main factor influencing selection to tertiary institutions because “opportunities to enter modern sector employment are scarce and the rewards for doing so are of great importance to teachers and students” (p. 1). Teachers’ classroom behaviours are
strongly influenced by the national examinations taken by their pupils. Research work on quality issues by Weeks (1985a) revealed parents had strong convictions that a good headmaster plays an important role in their children’s future, by ensuring that all children pass grade 6 national examinations. To the parents “children passing the examination are a measure of school quality” (p. l97). Teachers’ and head teachers’ performance ratings, appointment and promotion are associated with students’ examination performance (Weeks, 1985a). However, there are two down-sides to examinations. First, the introduction of continuous assessment in schools to count towards a certain percentage of total marks revealed that teachers had inadequate conceptualisations of assessments and provided texts of doubtful validity. Second, examinations do not measure the socialization processes of learning such as appreciation of equity and level of participation of children in learning activities. The generic examination requirements fail to acknowledge rural and urban school children’s socialization processes which are equally important to the children’s learning contexts and education (Thomas, 1976; Bray, 1985; Gibson & Weeks, 1990; and Townsend, 1985). Thomas (1976), Bray (1985), Gibson & Weeks (1990), and Townsend (1985) all discussed factors contributing to children’s low standards in examination achievement levels. These factors include:
• language difficulty;
• the lack of and turnover of teachers;
• teacher absenteeism;
• the lack of material and equipment; and • children not interested in learning.
Arguably, numerous factors inhibit the provision of education and achievement of learning outcomes and outputs of schools. The system continues to mass produce great numbers of pupils whose education terminates early from grades 8 and 10, many of whom have not attained the level of proficiency in the subjects’ learning areas. This will be discussed in the next section.
Outcome and Output
Monitoring, assessment and evaluation are all aspects of instructional practices that are essential for decision making on teaching strategies, resources and pupils’ performance of standards. It has been noted (NDOE, 2002b) that children’s grade progression occurs without adequate information of individual achievement because there are no established reporting mechanisms. The examination system is negatively perceived as a contributing factor which creates a gloomy picture of this pyramidal system of education (NDOE, 1999d). For instance, of the children who start grade one in the old school structure
only 1000 children of the 1982 cohort completed grade twelve. In 1993 an intake of 172,000 students enrolled in primary schools. By 1999, only 23,000 of this cohort completed grade ten or twelve respectively. The 1999 number does not include students who dropped out from the primary and secondary school system (NDOE, 1999d).
While access has been a priority of the educational reform, the quality and standard of basic education and high school education has not shown any marked improvement in students’ skills. The rate of literacy amongst school children completing grade 6 to grade 10 is low. The progression of school children from primary to high school is similar (NDOE, 1999j). The percentage of girls going beyond primary schooling is lower than the percentage of boys. Culturally, women and girls do not have equal status with men in the community. In the school system, the overall educational attainment for girls is lower than for boys. The illiteracy rate amongst women is higher (60%) than men (50%). The system produces high drop out rates and is blamed for the social problem of unemployment (NDOE, 1999j). Furthermore, the monitoring system of inspection instituted pre-independence is inappropriate to provide critical analysis of the defects of input, processes, and outcomes of education. Data from the inspectors’ monitoring work are rarely in quantifiable form and this makes it impossible to conduct data analyses. This is discussed in the next section.
Inspection system
The inspection system is established to maintain standards in the national education system. The main purpose is to monitor national education standards developed in school curriculum, teacher training, school administration and management to fulfil the government’s expectations of education and for accountability purposes. Beeby (1966) pointed out that some inspectors were poorly educated and trained or at a “formalism stage” stage of development, limiting their understanding and meaning constructions. Given these limitations, they could offer little help to their fellow teachers. However, inspectors are perceived as the system-defined experts on classroom management, subject and school administration, teaching methods, and lesson planning, programming, in-service, curriculum development and assessments. They play a crucial role in the establishment of new schools, teaching positions and new facilities. Inspectors provided monitoring and evaluation information on education processes such as academic standards and achievement levels (Guthrie, 1983; Hawes, 1987; Westren, 1987). Tololo (1995) reviewed the system of inspections and reported that there were serious deficiencies and drawbacks in its functions, including inspectors’ limited educational backgrounds and subject matter knowledge, poor English language skills and inability to provide professional guidance for teachers (Weeks, 1985a; Guthrie, 1985).
Teacher performance
Teachers have duty statements for each teaching position. However, little is known about how they enact these duties. These duty statements show evidence of generalisability in the way they list the behaviours or attitudes that teachers have to demonstrate in the classrooms (see appendix 6). These duties are used to assess the abilities of new teachers for certification and registration, teacher inspection, teacher promotion and teacher personal reports for tenure appointments. But there is no logical connection between duty statements prescribed by the NDOE and teachers’ instructional roles, particularly, daily classroom assessment of academic standards and student learning. Weeks (1985b) stated that there is a mismatch between standardised policy of inspection and teachers’ performance of teaching duties and pupils’ learning experiences and goals. For instance, policy makers assume elementary and primary teachers graduating from teacher education programmes are competent to meet