Searching for learners’ voices: Teachers’ struggle to align pedagogical-reform policy with instructional practice

Q3 Social Sciences Journal of Pedagogy Pub Date : 2021-12-01 DOI:10.2478/jped-2021-0010
G. Chimbi, L. Jita
{"title":"Searching for learners’ voices: Teachers’ struggle to align pedagogical-reform policy with instructional practice","authors":"G. Chimbi, L. Jita","doi":"10.2478/jped-2021-0010","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Globally, pedagogical reform policy seeks to give space to learners’ voices. But teachers often struggle to engage learners in knowledge construction, deconstruction and reconstruction; as advocated by official curriculum reform policy. Aligning classroom practice to pedagogical-reform policy remains an uphill struggle for most teachers. This article examines Zimbabwean teachers’ efforts to align teaching methods to new curriculum policy which seeks to engage learners in classroom discourse. Using a qualitative multiple-case study and the theoretical lens of sensemaking, a case study of History teachers assessed how they were implementing new pedagogical prescriptions. Data gathered from the document analysis, interviews and 47 lesson observations suggest that, although participants made efforts to open up a space for learners’ voices, they often drifted towards teacher-centred practice. Some participants complained that the unavailability of technology‑based instructional resources, recommended in the new reform policy, made them resort to rote pedagogy. Others believed that teacher didacticism and the dictation of notes were inevitable in History instruction. The use of learner‑centric approaches (as advocated by policy) appeared to be just a drop in the ocean. This study recommends pedagogical reorientation for teachers if learners’ voices are to be heard and large-scale instructional reforms are to be successfully enacted at classroom level.","PeriodicalId":38002,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Pedagogy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Pedagogy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2478/jped-2021-0010","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

Abstract Globally, pedagogical reform policy seeks to give space to learners’ voices. But teachers often struggle to engage learners in knowledge construction, deconstruction and reconstruction; as advocated by official curriculum reform policy. Aligning classroom practice to pedagogical-reform policy remains an uphill struggle for most teachers. This article examines Zimbabwean teachers’ efforts to align teaching methods to new curriculum policy which seeks to engage learners in classroom discourse. Using a qualitative multiple-case study and the theoretical lens of sensemaking, a case study of History teachers assessed how they were implementing new pedagogical prescriptions. Data gathered from the document analysis, interviews and 47 lesson observations suggest that, although participants made efforts to open up a space for learners’ voices, they often drifted towards teacher-centred practice. Some participants complained that the unavailability of technology‑based instructional resources, recommended in the new reform policy, made them resort to rote pedagogy. Others believed that teacher didacticism and the dictation of notes were inevitable in History instruction. The use of learner‑centric approaches (as advocated by policy) appeared to be just a drop in the ocean. This study recommends pedagogical reorientation for teachers if learners’ voices are to be heard and large-scale instructional reforms are to be successfully enacted at classroom level.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
寻找学习者的声音:教师努力将教学改革政策与教学实践结合起来
在全球范围内,教学改革政策寻求给予学习者声音的空间。但教师往往难以让学习者参与知识的建构、解构和重构;正如官方课程改革政策所倡导的那样。对大多数教师来说,使课堂实践与教学改革政策保持一致仍然是一场艰苦的斗争。本文考察了津巴布韦教师为使教学方法与旨在使学习者参与课堂话语的新课程政策保持一致所做的努力。采用定性多案例研究和意义建构的理论视角,对历史教师进行了案例研究,评估他们如何实施新的教学处方。从文件分析、访谈和47节课观察中收集的数据表明,尽管参与者努力为学习者的声音开辟空间,但他们往往倾向于以教师为中心的实践。一些与会者抱怨说,由于没有新的改革政策所建议的以技术为基础的教学资源,他们不得不采用死记硬背的教学方法。另一些人则认为,教师说教和笔记听写在历史教学中是不可避免的。使用以学习者为中心的方法(政策所提倡的)似乎只是沧海一粟。如果要倾听学习者的声音,并在课堂层面成功实施大规模的教学改革,本研究建议教师进行教学重新定位。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Pedagogy
Journal of Pedagogy Social Sciences-Education
CiteScore
1.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
5
审稿时长
20 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Pedagogy (JoP) publishes outstanding educational research from a wide range of conceptual, theoretical, and empirical traditions. Diverse perspectives, critiques, and theories related to pedagogy – broadly conceptualized as intentional and political teaching and learning across many spaces, disciplines, and discourses – are welcome, from authors seeking a critical, international audience for their work. All manuscripts of sufficient complexity and rigor will be given full review. In particular, JoP seeks to publish scholarship that is critical of oppressive systems and the ways in which traditional and/or “commonsensical” pedagogical practices function to reproduce oppressive conditions and outcomes. Scholarship focused on macro, micro and meso level educational phenomena are welcome. JoP encourages authors to analyse and create alternative spaces within which such phenomena impact on and influence pedagogical practice in many different ways, from classrooms to forms of public pedagogy, and the myriad spaces in between. Manuscripts should be written for a broad, diverse, international audience of either researchers and/or practitioners. Accepted manuscripts will be available free to the public through JoP’s open-access policies, as well as featured in Elsevier''s Scopus indexing service, ERIC, and others.
期刊最新文献
Beneath the surface of compliant pupil behaviour: On how individuals in heterogeneous classes position themselves towards lessons’ content-based requirements Informal education for boys only? The theme of gender in the work of Jaroslav Foglar How principals identify low-performing teachers in public schools? Evidence from Chile Metacognition’s potential for Existentialism in classrooms Carers as mentors in inclusion: The case of Cyprus
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1