The Facilitator’s Content Knowledge

Given that this study also seeks to ascertain the extent to which the implemented curriculum corresponds with the planned curriculum, it is also important to assess the content knowledge of the facilitators who delivered the lessons. Shulman (2004), notes that

the person who presumes to teach subject matter to children must demonstrate knowledge of that subject matter as a prerequisite to teaching. Although knowledge of the theories and methods is important, it plays a decidedly secondary role in the qualification of a teacher (p193).

Since there was no opportunity to observe the training of facilitators, the study relied on SfL management anecdotal reports. As noted earlier, after their initial training, facilitators were given regular field support throughout the course of the programme cycle. Thus, the only verifiable evidence of facilitators’ content knowledge was gleaned from class observations, interviews with learners, and the facilitators themselves.

It is important to note that the two facilitators under study had both been teaching CEP classes for nearly ten years. Therefore, they were very experienced members of staff who were well versed in the rudiments of the SfL programme. Accordingly, the evidence presented in this section may not be truly representative of all CEP facilitators.

So far, the study has been able to give an account of how CEP classes are delivered and managed but this is obviously not enough in understanding how effective the programme is implemented. Shulman (2004:199) indicates that the literature of research on teaching, does not adequately answer all the questions relevant to understanding effective implementation of curriculum. He notes that the emphasis on prevailing literature is on

how teachers manage their classroom, organise activities, allocate time and turns, structure assignments, ascribe praise and blame, formulate the levels of their questions, plan lessons and judge the general student understanding. What we miss are questions about the content of the lessons taught, the questions asked and the explanations offered.

Nevertheless, Table 6.1 below shows how the facilitators under study proved themselves in terms of knowledge of the content they aimed to transmit to learners (pedagogical content knowledge). In most of the lessons observed, it was obvious that the facilitators had mastery over subject content. They were confident in their presentation and able to lead pupils to critically build on their own experiences, construct new knowledge, and get them to participate in reading, writing and numeracyl exercises. Pedagogical content knowledge also

148 includes an understanding of what makes the learning of specific topics easy or difficult (Shulman, 2004).

Table 6.1: CEP Facilitators Content knowledge

Content Indicator % Not evident % Slightly evident % Somewhat evident % Evident % Highly evident

Shows knowledge of subject

matter in lesson presentation 3% 0% 0% 12% 86%

Is able to respond to learners’ questions

accurately 0% 0% 8% 22% 71%

Provides additional

information to learners _{17% 9% 17% 24% 44%}

Provides clear and

appropriate information _{7% 0% 16% 44% 45%}

As the table above shows, in all categories there was evidence that facilitators had a clear grasp of the content they were expected to deliver to learners. Learners’ questions were responded to correctly 93% of the time while providing additional information 66% of the time. The lessons themselves were delivered clearly as they followed the script and so clear and appropriate information was provided 90% of the time. Thus, it can be seen that with the requisite curriculum materials as detailed in the SfL manual, it is possible for facilitators to have mastery of the learning content they deliver. Equally important is the fact made earlier about the functionality of the topics being discussed. Ali, one of the facilitators indicated:

the topics I teach are all activities and functions that I as well as the children undertake daily. I have my own farm and some cattle so all these community topics are activities I have been engaged in since a child.

Thus the fact that topics were derived from the local reality meant that facilitators who were also local community members will be familiar with the content of the lessons. An exception in both Complementary Education Programme classes observed was facilitators’ difficulty in handling the topics of HIV/AIDS, and Information and Computer Technology (ICT), which had recently been added to the curriculum. ICT would seem to be a theoretical subject to add to the curriculum, as the schools were not equipped with computers.

149 Learners’ questions were responded to effectively, although the lesson sequence did not lend itself to many chances for students to ask questions; even though there was a lot of pupil engagement through asking them to read sentences and write words on the board or in their exercise books. Thus even though the lessons and the classroom interactions were always teacher initiated as noted earlier, the opportunity given to the children to answer questions and reproduce their answers either on the board or in their book was instrumental in the knowledge construction process.

However, new information was not always presented to learners. In a follow-up discussion, Ali, one facilitator noted the following: “Where we do not have all the information, we are encouraged to bring in community members to lead or support the discussion” (24/05/2011). Mr Abu, who had been instrumental in developing the curriculum, also indicated that the facilitator was not intended to be a repository of all knowledge, and that the teaching and learning process was designed to encourage interaction between pupils and facilitators, with community members sometimes coming in to share their knowledge and experience. Yet, this was observed to take place only once during the field study.

Moreover, while the involvement of others with specialized knowledge and experience is a good idea in principle and can lead to the involvement of the community, parents and other skilled people as resource persons, it does not allow facilitators to increase their knowledge base, especially when it comes to topics they are not familiar with. Therefore, if suitable local resource persons were not available, classes could suffer, as I observed when one facilitator was attempting to teach ICT and HIV/AIDS.

Shulman (2004:202) contends that society expects “that the subject matter content understanding of the teacher be at least equal to that of his or her lay colleague”. In his view, it is important for the teacher to not only understand the subject in detail but also understand why he has to teach the subject and the benefits of teaching the subject or topic to his pupils.

Moreover, we expect the teacher to understand why a given topic is particularly central to a discipline whereas another may be somewhat peripheral. This will be important in subsequent pedagogical judgements regarding relative curricular emphasis (p202).

Indeed, Facilitators’ competency in terms of the pedagogical content of lessons was highly evident in all observations. While it is important to emphasise Shulman’s view that mere content knowledge is likely to be as useless pedagogically as content free skill. But to blend

150 properly the two aspects of teacher capacities requires that attention is paid to the content as well as elements of the teaching process. Figure 6.8 below details facilitators’ performance in terms of content-related pedagogical practices that is pedagogical content knowledge.

Figure 6.8: Facilitators’ Content- related Pedagogical Practices

The table shows that in 81% of the observed lessons, facilitators provided activities to practice and extend knowledge; 75% of lessons showed evidence of activities that encouraged learners to develop the ability to think independently/critically; and 62% of lessons linked content to relevant life experiences, prior or future learning, or through association. It can also be seen that 60% of lessons took into account the abilities of all learners in the development of the lesson; 60% took into account the complexity and

151 difficulty of material in the development of the lesson; and 62% provided explanation of how the lesson fit into the broader scope of the discipline.

As noted previously, the activities listed in Figure 6.7 were prescribed in the Facilitator’s Manual. Therefore there did not seem to be a lot of initiative on the part of the facilitator in devising activities aimed specifically at tackling difficult topics or subjects, and discussions with Complementary Education Programme facilitators revealed a certain hesitance to deviate from the guide. Thus, while the CEP was noted for its flexibility in accommodating the lifestyle of the community and its learners, there was a certain level of rigidity found in the manner in which instruction was managed. O’Sullivan (2004) notes the importance of prescriptive materials that guarantee teachers stay on track and facilitate learner centred lessons and it appears that is the principle being utilised in the CEP. Especially given the fact the CEP facilitator is not a professionally trained teacher, scripted guides become even more crucial in ensuring that at every step of the way, the teacher has instructions to fall back on ensuring that the gap between curriculum policy and practice which is endemic in the formal school process is drastically reduced in this instance.

In contrast to the CEP facilitators, formal school teachers observed did not seem to be on top of the lessons they were delivering. See figure 6.9 below.

152

Figure 6.9: Formal School Teachers’ Content–Related Pedagogical Practices

The above table shows the weaknesses observed in the formal classes. In general, teachers were not seen to link lessons to the lives of the children. For instance, on one occasion, I observed a reading comprehension lesson being taught through poetry in a P4 class. While the poem was in English and difficult for the children to follow, the learners did not seem to understand what was going on as the teacher kept on talking about rhyming and other literary terms without attempting to make the theme of the poem or its subject interesting to the children. Teachers were not seen attempting to change their pace or approach to ensure that learners participated in lesson. My conclusion was that teachers were just interested in running through their lesson plans prepared for the week. Thus there was no real attempt to ensure that the plans were delivered as intended which brings to the fore the issue of policy and practice in curriculum implementation the focus of the next chapter.

153

6.5. Summary

In terms of the key aim of the present study – to understand how the Complementary Education Programme curriculum is implemented in order to prepare learners for entry into the formal school – on the one hand, there are highly operational and practical issues about how facilitators manage to utilize the CEP interactive approach and materials. Nevertheless, on the other hand, it is expected that when facilitators use the manual effectively, there will be an increase in effective classroom practices, particularly in such important instructional areas as pupil engagement and interaction in literacy tasks; the utilization of teaching and learning materials; evidence of increased pupil practice of ‘thinking’ skills rather than rote learning; and enhanced facilitator feedback to pupil performance.

The study showed that to a large extent facilitators ensured that they followed the script in the manual and this was the key factor in ensuring that there was an interactive classroom environment that promoted the social construction of knowledge. Other key factors such as the functional relevance of the topics, the facilitator’s mastery over the pedagogical content knowledge which was enhanced by its functionality for both facilitator and learners ensured that classroom interaction was animated and interesting. These factors in conjunction with the utilisation of mother tongue instruction created the platform for meaningful dialogue and knowledge construction. The functional and cultural relevance of the topics delivered via a local language also ensured that a real community of learning was created with parents, facilitator and learners coming together. Thus the CEP class was not just a school situated outside the community’s life but situated right within the structure of the community.

It is however critical to note that the study does not conclude that SfL magically creates a learner centred environment where all teaching and learning is participatory. A review of the literature on pedagogical practices across sub-Saharan African show that by and large most teaching and learning on the subcontinent is teacher centred and constrained by the history and social process of school. However the context within which School for Life operates breaks some traditional constraints and allows for a freer interaction between teachers and pupil. For the SfL learner, the CEP class is not a real school. It is more a or less a break from their economic chores and the environment of the class as indicated even by the presence of family members makes them feel more at home to participate.

This chapter has also noted in various sections how knowledge is socially constructed in the CEP class. However, a closer look at the some of the processes show that the SfL classes

154 share similarities with the formal school in terms of teacher-pupil elicitation and teacher- initiated discourse in the classroom. At the same time it is important to emphasise that social construction in the SfL class is not about the individual processes or parts but the sum of the disparate parts or processes coming together constructively or synergistically to create knowledge: the context of the class, the functional relevance of the topics, language of instruction (which is discussed in detail in the next chapter), meaningful dialogue and the relationship between the facilitator and learners all conspire to create a programme or lesson within which children are able to engage with and produce knowledge.

In contrast, observation carried out in the formal school showed a different situation, where there was disconnection between the intended curriculum and the implemented curriculum with very little interaction taking place as a result of the teachers’ inability or refusal to implement an interactive classroom engagement. Teachers in the formal school are not obligated to ensure that learning is interactive and while lesson plans were prepared for that purpose, it did not happen in practice. For instance At SfL, children write almost daily about some aspect of the curricular focus for the day/week. Copying plays a minor role. In formal school, children copy what teachers write. So at SfL, children share in generating text. It is interactive. They read, they talk, and then they write. Their writing reflects that interaction. It is a social construction of knowledge. At formal school, they do not construct knowledge. Everyone copies the same text, which was generated by the teacher. In formal school, kids learn that writing belongs to the other; in SfL they learn that people are authors.

Crucially, what this implies as indicated by some of the comments by CEP learners was a case of two different worlds. CEP learners were taught in an interactive and communal learning environment where they learnt subjects which were relevant to their lives but this was in preparation for a system that was to a large extent at variance with their experience of learning. We have also noted in Chapter 5, that the CEP curriculum does not mention the formal school in theory. The assumption is that once they master the rudiment of literacy and numeracy, they will be able to integrate into the formal school. Thus the effort that goes into ensuring that there is a real social construction of knowledge is seen as a way of guaranteeing their survival in the formal school. How they fare in the formal school is discussed in the next chapter.

155