SEGURIDAD DE UTILIZACIÓN Y ACCESIBILIDAD (DB- (DB-SUA)

Lesson observation data revealed evidence that I theorised to describe the kind of interactional and teaching-learning transactional patterns that prevailed among learners and their teacher. To explore the psychosocial and political dimensions of the learning environment in Ellen’s AIDS lessons, I employ the sub-theme

“Restricted, closed interactional patterns”.

Significantly, the generally restricted, closed psychosocial and political interactional patterns that prevailed in Ellen’s AIDS classes differed from those in Stella’s class.

A much more stringent and inflexible learning atmosphere punctuated Ellen’s lessons, with the result that pupils seemed not to feel free to participate. The tense, formal psychosocial climate in the lessons tended to confine learners to collaborative engagements with the same group members, thereby depriving them of free cross-group interaction, which would enable cross-pollination of ideas. Although pupils enjoyed the privilege of mingling among themselves, within the limited spaces of their respective groups they seemed to engage in limited social encounters, in comparison with the recommended freedom of association that curriculum developers expect. Because of the teacher’s strict discipline and control, pupils spoke in low voices during group activities, with the teacher pacing up and down the room, seemingly monitoring for any kind of indiscipline. In contrast with Stella, who was more relaxed and free with her class, only rarely did Ellen mingle with her pupils and share some jovial social moments.

The only lighter moments the class seemed to enjoy were the laughing and giggling during some of the teaching-learning transactions that were observed, which will be discussed later on in this section, which Ellen abruptly terminated in the interest of order. Confirming the stern psychosocial climate that Ellen promoted in her lessons, teacher-learner interactions during question-and-answer sessions were restricted to Ellen and the few actively participating learners. Whereas this may not have been planned this way by Ellen, she seemed not to make much effort to involve all of her learners, but interacted only with those who appeared interested. This is incongruent with the spirit and rhetoric of the facilitation approach to AIDS lessons, namely of creating and maintaining a free learning environment that allows participation by all, regardless of ability.

As the above processes occurred, I deduced that by selectively interacting with

“interested” pupils, Ellen might not have realised the political connotations that such practices carry in terms of who has better access to learning opportunities than others. Furthermore, by assigning group leaders to distribute tasks and lead others in tackling them, subtle political messages seemed to be conveyed regarding power differentials between the leaders and the led. However, Ellen did not seem to see these dangers, as she engaged in this practice in a well-meaning spirit.

In view of the above evidence concerning the general learning atmosphere that Ellen created in her AIDS lessons, it can be concluded that Ellen’s conceptualisation of this pedagogical aspect ran counter to the curriculum specifications. Furthermore, the expectation specified by the curriculum that the teacher should be a free, cheerful, and flexible facilitator and moderator of learners’ learning experiences and a knowledge generator seemed to be problematic for Ellen.

Within the context of the above-mentioned processes and practices, the kind of cognitive and affective encounters that prevailed among learners and with their teacher was also revealed in the interviews. Ellen seriously applied her class to teacher-initiated learning activities, in a form that was reminiscent of the traditional academic approach applied to the mainstream subject curricula. Taking almost absolute control of the teaching-learning transactions, Ellen set her learners into the active cognitive encounters of thinking, reasoning, and responding to learning stimuli, both orally and in writing. I saw learners putting their heads together during group work as they completed academic tasks and collaboratively constructed their own role play scripts. There was much activity in all the lessons I observed, as the class would usually be given individual written work to do until the lesson ended.

The downside of the teacher and learners’ cognitive encounters was represented by Ellen’s cognitive efforts to drive effective learning among her learners. I saw her earnestly teasing out academic issues, providing her class with the explanations that she considered to be the most appropriate. In the face of the paucity of textbooks that the class had for this subject, Ellen thought out and formulated her own knowledge-based questions, which she wrote neatly on the chalkboard.

A cognitive blunder which Ellen made in one of her lessons was her interjection and moderation of some learners’ role play scripts. It seemed as if Ellen’s redirecting interventions reflected her continual re-visioning of what sort of content matter would be the best to steer her AIDS lessons. It seemed to be a compelling intellectual engagement in which the teacher restructured the content of the scripts into new versions, which she perceived as being part of the core pedagogical considerations of how best AIDS lessons should proceed.

Nevertheless, the above cognitive encounters occurred along with affective experiences, for both the teacher and her class. Evidence from lesson observations

highlights some emotional experiences of loud laughter and giggling, as well as blushing in distress by learners and the teacher during teaching-learning transactions. In the sense that she practically breathed her codified teaching practices into life, Ellen caused these emotions to happen. The various emotions were experienced in a strictly disciplined and controlled psychological environment.

In the second, fourth and fifth lessons, some learners, who seemed amused with the content of the role plays and the references to sexuality, laughed derisively. As a gendered person living within the social context of an African culture, I found myself enmeshed in a socio-cultural situation which Ellen and her learners experienced regarding which things were permissible and which things were not permissible to laugh at. I felt that I was not a disembodied inquirer who could not appreciate why the little learners laughed at what, in Ellen’s opinion, seemed not to be worth laughing at. I inferred that the issues that aroused the derision were culturally defined and were shared by Ellen and her learners in ways and attitudes that were not the same. For Ellen, it was not necessary for learners to laugh, and she therefore abruptly stopped the laughter.

The stopping of the laughter seemed to restrain the learners, who had been enjoying the more light-hearted moments from persisting in laughter over issues that Ellen felt they should regard as a reality. Furthermore, Ellen’s disapproval of those responses she deemed inappropriate from the learners often tended to discourage learners from continuing to disrupt the progress of the lesson. Hence, on a face-value judgement, the learners’ expression of happy emotions seems to suggest that Ellen was affording learners a free, relaxed AIDS learning environment, but in reality such happy emotions were experienced only momentarily, since the teacher seemed to be pre-occupied with the restoration and maintenance of order.

6.5.2.2 The teaching methods

6.5.2.2.2 Lesson observation theme: Non-participatory methods, which