Discrepancies Between Curriculum Recommendations and Science Instruction: Challenges and Perceptions of Elementary School Teachers in Ghana

• In Event: Teachers, the Curriculum and Literacy

Proposal

Introduction

The elementary school science curriculum in Ghana has undergone multiple reforms with the goal of enhancing students' learning outcomes (MoE, 2019). However, elementary school learners are still falling short of attaining the minimum proficiency level in science (MoE, 2019; Ngman-Wara, 2015). Ensuring the successful implementation of curriculum reforms requires supporting teachers who play a pivotal role in driving this process. However, teachers often encounter challenges when adapting to new content, instructional approaches, and assessment techniques that accompany curriculum innovations (Baidoo-Anu & Mensah, 2018; Pillay et al., 2022). This is particularly significant for elementary school teachers who are primarily generalists and may lack specialized training in teaching science (Kathie, 2010; Osei, 2004). As a result, a gap may arise between the intended curriculum and what is actually implemented in the classroom. This study explores the question: What are Ghanaian elementary school teachers’ classroom instructional practices?

Theoretical Perspective

The study draws upon Shulman's (1986) Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK) as a guiding framework. Shulman introduced the concept of PCK as an element of the knowledge base for teaching. PCK involves the combination of content and appropriate pedagogy to understand how topics and issues are organized, represented, and adapted to the diverse interests and abilities of learners for effective instruction (Shulman, 1987). PCK has been widely used as a model for investigating teacher knowledge and pedagogical practices in different contexts.

Methods and Data Sources

Data for this paper draws from a larger research project that investigated the curriculum knowledge, self-efficacy beliefs, and classroom practices of elementary school teachers in Ghana. The research design employed for data collection and analysis was the sequential explanatory mixed method research design (Creswell, 2012). In this qualitative component of the study, a sample of 10 teachers participated in two separate interviews, and two of their lessons were observed. The data collected from these interviews and observations were subjected to an inductive thematic analysis (Patton, 2014).

Findings

This section presents findings on teachers’ pedagogical practices. First, I present findings from the classroom observation and then findings from the interviews.

Discrepancies in Curriculum Recommendations and Classroom Practices

While the curriculum recommends that teachers engage students in collaborative and group work, lesson observations revealed that teachers' pedagogies were dominated by "teacher-centred" approaches to teaching (e.g., teacher dominates discussions) as opposed to pedagogical approaches that curriculum emphasized "child-centred and inquiry-based based instructional teaching". Additionally, there was little evidence of teachers engaging students to engage in collaborative and group work. For example, no group work was observed in the classroom. Moreover, the lesson observation revealed that teachers made little effort to ask students to justify and clarify their ideas. This is in sharp contrast to the curriculum recommendation which encourages teachers to provide students with opportunities to "expand, change, modify, and justify their ideas". Finally, the lesson observation revealed that teachers' pedagogical practices did not support students to apply science concepts to daily lives, which goes contrary to the curriculum emphasis on the application of science concepts to daily life.



Elementary School Science Teachers' Perceptions and Challenges in Science Instruction

To further explore elementary school science teachers' instructional practices, I interviewed each of the 10 teachers after each observation. Themes were developed from interview responses to gain an in-depth understanding of teachers' instructional approaches. The results showed that majority of the teachers see science as a technical subject. For instance, Akosua said, "Given the chance, I will not teach science because it is more technical, and I do not have any special training”. For Akosua, teaching science in elementary school demands special training and being a generalist limits her ability to teach a "technical subject" such as science.

In line with the same reasoning, other teacher sees science as difficult or certain topics as difficult to teach. For example, Gloria shared, “If they say we should do subject teaching, I would like to teach English and R.M.E (religious and moral education). Mathematics and science are sometimes difficult to teach". Similarly, Akua shared, "It is difficult to teach certain topics in science...for example, basic electronics. This is why I don't like teaching science”. Certain topics are difficult to teach for these teachers, and given the chance, they would opt to teach subjects other than science. Other teachers also complained that inadequate instructional resources make teaching science difficult, especially, when the topics are not "practical enough" For example, Kate said, "I like teaching topics that are more practical like plants and animals...some topics are very difficult and because we don’t have available resources, I find it difficult to teach them" For these teachers, teacher elementary science requires extra resources and support.

Educational and Scholarly Significance

This study highlights a significant gap between the recommended instructional approaches and the actual classroom practices of elementary school science teachers. This finding is crucial for educational policymakers and curriculum developers to address and improve teacher training and support to meet the demands of the curriculum. Secondly, the study provides valuable insights into the perceptions of elementary school science teachers regarding science as a technical subject and the challenges they face in teaching science. This understanding is essential for designing targeted professional development programs and support systems to enhance teachers' effectiveness in teaching science. Additionally, the discrepancies between recommended and observed pedagogical practices can have implications for student engagement and learning outcomes. By examining these discrepancies, educators can identify areas where improvements are needed to foster a more student-centred and inquiry-based learning environment.

This study aligns with the 2024 conference theme and serves as an initial step for educators and researchers to initiate discussions about protesting dominant paradigms in curriculum development. These paradigms often marginalize teachers, preventing them from having a voice in curriculum development. By challenging the top-down approach to curriculum development, critical perspectives can be integrated, aiming to foster a more just and equitable society.

Author

• Martin Ako, McGill University