Teaching Electricity at Nigerian primary schools: Are there occasions when classroom practices are at dissonance with curriculum policy intentions?: Are there occasions when classroom practices are at dissonance with curriculum policy intentions? Teaching electricity at Nigerian primary schools

Ayoade Ejiwale Okanlawon; Jubril Busuyi Fakokunde; Nimota Moromoke Raji; Anthonia Ayobami Oyelade

Authors

Ayoade Ejiwale Okanlawon Osun State University,Osogbo.Nigeria
Jubril Busuyi Fakokunde Department of Science, Technology and Mathematics Education, Osun State University, Ipetu-Ijesa Campus, Nigeria
Nimota Moromoke Raji Department of Guidance & Counselling, Osun State University, Ipetu-Ijesa Campus, Nigeria
Anthonia Ayobami Oyelade Department of Educational Management, Osun State University, Ipetu-Ijesa Campus, Nigeria.

Keywords:

official science curriculum, policy intention, basic electricity, curriculum implementation, enacted curriculum

Abstract

The present study investigates the extent to which what was taught in the classroom conformed to the state standard. Specifically, the exploratory case study focuses on the discrepancies between the actual classroom practices and the policy intentions during the teaching of Basic Electricity in Nigerian primary schools. To achieve the objective of the study, five teachers were observed for three weeks during the teaching of Basic Electricity, a unit of content prescribed in the mandated science curriculum. Subsequently, these teachers were interviewed to collect information regarding the rationale for their classroom practices. Evidences from the classroom observation and documentary analysis of teachers’ lesson notes revealed the following discrepancies: variation with respect to (a) content coverage and sequence of content delivery (b) teachers and pupils’ activities (c) teaching approaches (d) learning and instructional materials and (e) assessment techniques. The rationale for the observed discrepancies as depicted by the data analysis include: teachers’ shallow understanding of curriculum content, fear of pupils engaging in dangerous experiments at home, abstractions of curriculum policy intentions, lack of professional development, teachers’ eagerness to complete the syllabus, influx of learners in primary schools, teachers’ financial constraint and lack of learning and instructional materials. Based on these findings, recommendations were made towards narrowing the gap between the actual classroom practices and the curriculum planners’ intentions.

References

Birbili, M., & Myrovali, A. (2020). Early childhood teachers’ relationship with the official curriculum: the mediating role of professional and policy contexts. Education Inquiry, 11(2), 110 – 125. https://doi.org/10.1080/20004508.2019.1687080.

Borich, G. D. (2011). Observation skills for effective teaching. Boston: Peaarson.

Borko, H. (2004). Professional development and teacher learning: Mapping the terrain. Educational Researcher, 33 (8), 3 – 15.

Braun, A., Maguire, M., & Ball, S. J. (2010). Policy enactments in the UK secondary school: Examining policy, practice and school positioning. Journal of Educational Policy, 25, 547 – 560.

Clandinin, D. J., & Connelly, F. M. (1992). Teachers as curriculum maker. In P. Jackson (Ed.), Handbook of Curriculum (pp. 363 – 461). New York, NY: Macmillan.

Dolfing, R., Prints, G. T., Butte, A. M. W., Pilot, A. & Vermunt, D. D. (2021). Strategies to support teachers’ professional development regarding sense-making in content-based science curricula. Science Teacher Education, 105, 127 – 165. doi: 10.1002/sce.21603.

Dong, A., Jong, M. S., & King, R. B. (2020). How does prior knowledge influence learning engagement? The meditating roles of Cognitive load and help-seeking. Frontiers in Psychology, 11:591203 doi: 10.3389/psyg. 2020591203.

Dringoli, B. J., Kolosova, K. & Rademaker, T. J., Wray, J., Choquette, J. & Hilke, M. (2021). The impact of content sequencing on quantitative problem-solving: A case study in electromagnetism using an online learning platform.

Edwards, F. (2011). The principles in the New Zealand curriculum. What sense do student teachers make of them? Teachers and Curriculum, 12, 57 – 63.

Fullan, M. (2007). The new meaning of educational change (4th. ed.) New York: Teachers College Press.

Harwood, N. (2017). What can we learn from mainstream education textbook research? RELC Journal, 48,264-277.

Kurz., A., Elliot, S. N., Wehby, J. L. (2010). Alignment of the intended, planned and enacted curriculum in general and special Education and its relation to student achievement. Journal of Special Education, 44(3), 131 – 145. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022466 9093 1196.

Lashley, L. (2019). A reflective analysis of the selection and production of instructional material for curriculum delivery at the primary level in postcolonial Guyana. SAGE Open, 1-15. Doi : 10.1177/2158244019858445.

Maguire, M., Brain, A., & Ball, S. (2015). ‘Where you stand depends on where you sit’: The social construction of policy enactments in the (English) secondary school. Discourse, 36(4), 485 – 499.

Mihalca, L., Salden, R. J., Corbalan, G., Paas, F., & Miclea, M. (2011). Effectiveness of cognitive-load based adaptive instruction in genetics education. Computerized Human Behaviour, 27, 82 – 88.

Mooney, C. G. (2013). Theories of childhood: An introduction to Dewey, Montessori, Erikson, Piaget, and Vygotsky (2nd ed.) Redleaf Press.

Nigerian Educational Research and Development Council (2012). Basic Science and technology Curriculum for Primary 4 – 6. NERDC, Abuja: Nigeria.

Olorundare, A. S. (2018). Philosophical underpinning of curriculum development. In T. N. Kanno and U. M. Nzewi (Eds.), Issues in curriculum development and implementation in Nigeria (pp. 1 – 12). Nigeria: Lagos. Foremost Educational Services Ltd.

Orafi, S. M. S., & Borg, S. (2009). Intentions and realities in implementing communicative curriculum reform. Science Direct, 37, 243 – 253.

Pak, Polikoff, Desimone, & Garcia (2020). The Adaptive challenges of curriculum implementation: insights for educational leaders driving standards-based reform. AERA Open, 6(2), 1 – 15. doi: 10.1177/23328584209328 28.

Polikoff, M., & Koedel, C. (2017). Big bang for just a few bucks: The impact of math textbooks in California. (Evidence Speaks No. #5). Washington, DC: Bookings Institution. Retrieved from https://www.brookingsedu/research/big-bang-for-just-a-few-bucks-the-impact-of-math-textbooks-in-california/.

Pope, C.A. & Watts, J. (1988). Revisiting the educational psychology on teaching students with learning difficulties. Educational Reveiw, 23, 25-37.

Priestly, M., & Philippou, S. (2018). Curriculum making as social practice: complex webs of enactments. The Curriculum Journal, 29(2), 15 – 158, Dol: 10.1080/09585176.2018.1451096.

Remillard, J. T. (2005). Examining key concepts in research on teachers’ use of mathematics curriculum. Review of Educational Research. 75(2), 211 – 246.

Sandvoll, R. (2014). When intentions meet reality: Consonance and dissonance in teacher approaches to peer assessment. Canadian Journal of Higher Education, 44(2), 118 – 134.

Sibanda, D. & Hobben, P. (2016). The sequencing of Basic chemistry topics by physical science teachers. African Journal of Research in Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, Doi:10. 1080/18117295.2016.1187505.

Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research, Thousand Oaks, California: Sage.

Strauss,A. L. & Corbin, J. M. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing ground theory (2nd. ed.). Thousand Oaks. Calif Sage.

Teaching Electricity at Nigerian primary schools: Are there occasions when classroom practices are at dissonance with curriculum policy intentions?: Are there occasions when classroom practices are at dissonance with curriculum policy intentions?