Lecturers’ views/perceptions of the programme

The sub-themes generated from the data under this heading are: programme design, reasons for the current state of the programme and quality control measures.

Programme design

On the issue of programme design, four out of the five lecturers interviewed agree that the NCE English Language teacher education programme is well designed. According to Lecturer 1 “…it’s well designed in reference to course content.” Lecturer 2 believes

...it can meet the immediate needs of the secondary school or primary school teachers that we are preparing. But it is the implementation that is the problem.

Lecturer 2 sees programme design and implementation as two separate entities. Lecturer 3, however, argues that although lecturers in the programme are doing their best, the programme is becoming worse and is faced with a number of challenges including the current standard of education. She says

…the standard of education has really gone down, it’s telling on us. So we are doing our best in conditions that are not the best really.

Lecturer 3 explains that the majority of the students entering the programme to study “are not usually the best.” As a result of this, many of such students “fail out.” From her point of view, therefore, lecturers are compelled to work with students who are more or less perceived as failures.

Lecturers 4 and 5 from College of Education B believe the programme is well designed, well structured. According to Lecturer 4, compared to other programmes, the English Language teacher education programme is viewed by

students as a difficult one. In his view, lecturers are guided by a degree of objectivity. He states:

But I must say that the students have a feeling that students of other departments, I mean departments other than English, find things...somehow easier from their own lecturers.

Lecturer 5 from College of Education B believes that there are no deficiencies in the programme as it is well structured. He states that since the College operates the English Single major component as designed by the NCCE, there is a good balance as the “...single major component weighs equally [the] English and Literature [courses].” To him, the strength of the programme lies in its adequate preparation of students for further studies in the subject at the University level. In fact he describes the programme as follows:

...it adequately prepares the students for the Pre University Programme... I mean for the University Programme, for those of them who will go to the University, and then for the middle level Language Education Programme in the... in the J.SS.3 in the Secondary level. So the programme is strong, it’s quite fine.

Reasons for the current state of the programme

With regards to the reasons for the current state of the programme as given on their perception of the programme design itself, the lecturers have different views. Lecturer 1 regards the provision of course outlines and language laboratories as a strong point for the programme as he believes that they make both the preparation of teaching materials and the task of teaching easier for the lecturers. This is in stark contrast to the view portrayed by Lecturer 2 as discussed in Section 4.3.2.2. According to Lecturer 1, the presence of a monitoring team also makes it mandatory for lecturers to be present in their

respective classes at lecture times. The statement below shows the reliance of Lecturer 1 on the pre-prepared materials:

...when you start teaching, it becomes easy because you are armed with what has been prepared in the outline for you because that’s what I use. With the aid of the instruments that are set up in the language lab, it really helps to boost your teaching. It helps make the teaching exercise to be very exciting. That’s a strong point. Then two, there are monitoring committee that have been set up in every department, they go round to make sure that ... we are really doing the job.

To Lecturer 2, although the programme is well designed, it is plagued by numerous problems in its implementation. This can be attributed to the obvious discrepancies between the NCCE requirements and actual implementation of the guidelines in the NCE programme. She states “... because of inadequate funding, our facilities are not adequate.”

Lecturer 3 is of the opinion that the programme is becoming worse. This she attributes to the poor quality of students admitted into the programme, negative orientation of students to English Language as a subject from their previous level of education and the presence of other degree programmes in the College of Education. In her words:

Some of them [the students] even think that English is so easy, if you can’t fit into some other course you can just land in English because everybody speaks English and they come here and they are not prepared.

Lecturer 4 is of the opinion that the programme is well structured but more difficult than other NCE programmes. This he attributes to the level of objectivity amongst lecturers in the department and to the fact that students in the department are made to work hard to earn their grades. According to him:

... whatever scores they have, it is simply what they have scored. I’m trying to say that students from other departments may score higher marks, higher marks that sometimes they may not merit, but that is not the case in English Language department.

From the perspective of Lecturer 4, the standards in the Department of English are high and students are made to work hard. This again appears to be at variance with the view of Lecturer 3 discussed above which suggests a lowering of standards as majority of students admitted into the programme are performing below the required academic standards. Complicating the issue even further is the point made by Lecturer 2 that students entering the programme are required by the NCCE to have a minimum of “five credits for all NCE entry requirement, with English and Maths compulsory.”

According to Lecturer 5 the programme covers courses in the following areas Language Methodology, Phonology and Grammar and as such cannot be said to be deficient.

Quality control measures

According to the lecturers in College of Education A, the programme has certain measures in place for quality control which include the use of a monitoring committee and the use of moderators for the moderation of marked scripts. Lecturers 1, 2 and 3 acknowledge the existence of the monitoring committee. However, its role is restricted to only ensuring that lecturers are in class as scheduled on the timetable. According to Lecturer 1:

...they [the monitoring committee] really do not... check the course content and... what each lecturer teaches to confirm whether it’s in line or not. What they do is just to make sure that there’s a lecturer in class performing his duty at the appointed time.

Lecturer 2 seems to agree with Lecturer 1 on this point as she too states “...every person has some kind of autonomy over ... his lecture method, over the classroom.”

Although Lecturer 2 confirms the existence of the monitoring committee in the School of Languages in College of Education A, she equally acknowledges a lack of an internal monitoring system which focuses on the teaching practices of lecturers and other aspects of the programme. When asked if the programme has an internal monitoring system, she responds “...no, no, nothing like that. We don’t have anything like that.”

Her comments here seem to indicate that the College of Education does not have a system designed to monitor and ensure that the practices utilised by the lecturers in the classrooms of Colleges of Education are geared towards the promotion and achievement of the programme’s objectives. This point is further buttressed by Lecturer 2 as she describes the teaching practices of some of the lecturers in the Department of English. She states: “...some of our lecturers go to class to read from text books, I’m sorry to say.” The last part of that comment clearly shows her dissatisfaction and disapproval of such practice.

To ensure a measure of uniformity in scores awarded to the students, marked scripts, in all the courses taught at the different levels, are moderated. According to Lecturers 2 and 3 the scripts for Year II and III students are moderated externally by selected Lecturers in the subject from other Colleges of

Education, while those of Year I students are moderated internally. Lecturer 2 says

...our Year I students’ scripts are moderated internally; that is the lecturers within the department would swap ... scripts and moderate. But from Year II and Year III, they are sent out for external moderators.

Lecturer 3, in her response, lends credence to this as she also states: ...then we have a system where we ...assess one another’s work.

Then we also use external assessors. Part two and part three courses are given to external assessors.

With the use of the internal and external moderators, it would appear that the proof of a lecturer’s effectiveness in teaching is judged by the overall performance of the students in the examination and not necessarily on the lecturer’s teaching practices in class. This is portrayed in the remarks of Lecturer 3 which states:

We call on the course lecturer, why do you have such a high level of failures for instance. Why is it some people have A+, majority are just failing?

There is, therefore, no system in place that periodically checks the performance/ classroom practices of the lecturers.

As seen from the discussion above, the first major theme, “Lecturers’ Views/Perception of the Programme” centred on the design of the programme, reasons for the programme’s current state and measures for quality control as part of the programme itself. The afore-mentioned aspects, therefore, form the sub-themes generated from the first main theme of the Lecturers’ interview findings.

Table 4.5: Implementation Issues

Items Lecturer 1 (College A) Lecturer 2 (College A) Lecturer 3 (College A)

NCCE policies versus actual practice

- class size

-inadequate funding - insufficient course hours - not able to use the language laboratory -student population - unconducive learning environment Effect on Lecturer’s practice - inadequate feedback to students

- dissatisfied with the programme

- kills the zeal to work - increase in lecturer’s workload

- devises means to help students cover the course outline.

-diverted focus for monetary gain - quality of learning - quality of learning Quality of students - mixed learning abilities

-not all students have a solid academic

foundation

- non-credible results - poor academic foundation - few good students

- not the best calibre of students

- basic level of knowledge of the subject

- bottom of the barrel

Effect on lecturer’s practice

-relates with students to identify problems - correcting errors

-seeks to improve students’ foundational knowledge

- works with students already perceived as failures