TEACHERS' PERCEPTIONS TOWARDS SUBJECT SPECIALISATION BY PRIMARY SCHOOL TEACHERS 1 TEACHERS'...

TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS TOWARDS SUBJECT SPECIALISATION BY PRIMARY SCHOOL TEACHERS 1

Aggrey Sonny Makhila University of Botswana

TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS TOWARDS SUBJECT SPECIALISATION

BY PRIMARY SCHOOL TEACHERS-THE CASE OF IMPLEMENTING

SCHOOLS IN NORTH EAST REGIONAL EDUCATION PRIMARY

SCHOOLS.

By

AGGREY SONNY MAKHILA

ID: 200602782

Supervisor: Dr. Kasule

A research essay submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the

award

Of

DEGREE OF EDUCATION:

EDUCATIONAL MANAGEMENT

Presented to the Primary Education-Faculty of Education

University of Botswana

Gaborone

May 2008

TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS TOWARDS SUBJECT SPECIALISATION BY PRIMARY SCHOOL TEACHERS i

I. USE OF THE RESEARCH

This research remains the property of the University of Botswana. However, the literacy rights

of the author must be respected. If any passage from this essay is quoted or paraphrased in a

paper or written work prepared by the user, the source of the passage must be acknowledged

in the work. If the user desires to publish a paper or written work containing passages copied

or closely paraphrased from this essay, which passages would in total constitute an infringing

copy for the purpose of Copyright Act, he or she must first obtain a written permission from

the author to do so.

TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS TOWARDS SUBJECT SPECIALISATION BY PRIMARY SCHOOL TEACHERS ii

II. APPROVAL

This research project has been examined and approved as meeting the required standard of

scholarship for partial fulfilment of the requirement for the Degree in Educational

Management.

-------------------------------------------- ---------------------------

Supervisor Date

------------------------------------------- ---------------------------

Internal Examiner Date

------------------------------------------- -----------------------------

Dean of Graduate Studies Date

------------------------------------------- -------------------------------

External Examiner Date

TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS TOWARDS SUBJECT SPECIALISATION BY PRIMARY SCHOOL TEACHERS iii

III. DECLARATION

I declare that, the study of teachers’ perceptions towards subject specialization in Botswana

primary schools is my own work; that it has not been submitted for any degree examination in

any other university and that all sources I used or quoted have been indicated and

acknowledged by complete references.

Aggrey Sonny Makhila: ...........................................................

Date: ………………………………………

Signed: ...........................................................

TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS TOWARDS SUBJECT SPECIALISATION BY PRIMARY SCHOOL TEACHERS iv

IV. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This is a research project to all those who are actively involved in policy making. Subject

specialization is teacher and supervisor driven. Teachers and school heads you are known to

be the catalyst and crucial partners in the teaching and learning processes and on you rest the

whole nations’ education system. On that note, I invite you to conceptualize this study and

acknowledge that it will be your tool for success in effecting quality education and responsive

education system in optimizing student academic achievement. I recognize all of you for the

splendid job that you are doing for the little ones. May your resilience be there ceaselessly.

TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS TOWARDS SUBJECT SPECIALISATION BY PRIMARY SCHOOL TEACHERS v

V. DEDICATION

Personality alone cannot be developed in simplicity and calmness. Only through experiences

of trial and suffering can the psyche be strengthened, vision cleared, ambition inspired and

success achieved. I would like to thank my project Doctor. Kasule for giving me the guidance

throughout the study and being available for me at all times. I will be failing not to

acknowledge all the Primary Education Department lecturers in charge of Educational

Management at the University of Botswana. A great thank you to all those teachers who found

it fit to respond to the questionnaire and interviews. To my ailing father, Greyson Sonny

Makhila Butale and my mother, Lucy Sonny Makhila Butale you are the fortress and my wife

Motlalepula Makhila and children Larona, Olorato, Tumisang and Mukani you are my refuge.

Pillars are my brothers Herman, Lekgowa, Daniel, Gift and Given. Lastly, my mentor

Professor Owen Nkwebi Pansiri, the support you gave me was encouraging and as such

motivated me to complete the research on time.

TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS TOWARDS SUBJECT SPECIALISATION BY PRIMARY SCHOOL TEACHERS vi

VI. ABSTRACT

The purpose of this study is to establish teachers’ perceptions on subject specialization in

Botswana Primary schools and the implications of generalist training for primary school

teachers. In recent years, there have been a number of innovations and reforms aimed at

making education relevant to the needs of the society. Despite the premium placed on

education, there continue to be challenging and persistent issues negatively affecting

teacher education, teaching and learning processes hence the Primary School Leaving

Examination results declining. One of these challenges is the generalist approach of

primary schools whereby teachers teach all subjects in the curriculum and even though

having mastered none of these subjects. Even though there is an indication of subject

specialization being done in primary schools, but it was lacking as teachers indicated

being frustrated by the model used as it was just subject sharing rather than subject

specialization.

This is often a departure from their pre-service training where they were trained as

generalist. This study adopted a survey research design in which questionnaires were the

main data collection instrument. This study targeted five primary schools in the North-

East Education Region with a sample of twenty (20) teachers. Of this sample of twenty,

twenty (20) completed the questionnaires. The results of this study reveal that teachers

advocate for specialization in primary schools because it allows them an area they can

teach with confidence. These teachers raised the issue of the difficulty in specialization in

infant classes as the pupils are very young to differentiate the subject discipline and

teachers swapping classes.

In upper-classes teachers welcomed the specialization and are of the opinion that the

model that would suit primary school level is the subject sharing in teaching complex

subject, like English, Creative and Performing Arts, Science, Social Studies, Mathematics

and Religious and Morale Education. The study recommended a review in the subject

specialization as there are more confusion among the schools due to the complex model

used. The study recommended subject sharing in upper-classes and balancing of teachers

who specialised at their in-service training. The results indicated lack of teaching and

learning materials, inadequate classrooms, negligence by both the teachers and

supervisors, and inadequate teacher and student support systems as major challenges.

TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS TOWARDS SUBJECT SPECIALISATION BY PRIMARY SCHOOL TEACHERS vii

VII TABLE OF CONTENT

CHAPTER ONE ................................................................................................................. 1

BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY ................................................................................... 1

1.0. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................... 1

1.1. BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY ........................................................................ 1

1.1.1 Subject specialisation proposal in Botswana Primary schools .......................... 2

1.2. STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM ....................................................................... 4

1.3. PURPOSE OF THE STUDY ................................................................................... 4

1.4. MAIN OBJECTIVES .............................................................................................. 4

1.5. SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY......................................................................... 5

1.6. LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY........................................................................... 5

1.7. DELIMITATION ..................................................................................................... 5

1.8. DEFINITION OF TERMS AND ABRIVIATIONS ............................................... 6

CHAPTER TWO ................................................................................................................ 7

LITERATURE REVIEW ................................................................................................... 7

2.0. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................... 7

2.1 THE MEANING OF "SUBJECT SPECIALISATION” .......................................... 7

2.2. VIEWS ABOUT SPECIALISATION AND GENERALISATION........................ 7

2.3. SUBJECT SPECIALISTS IN ENGLAND .............................................................. 9

2.4. VIEWS ON GENERALISTS TEACHERS........................................................... 10

2.5. VIEWS ON SPECIALISTS TEACHERS ............................................................. 12

2.6. ENGLISH MEDIUM SCHOOLS VERSUS SETSWANA MEDIUM SCHOOLS

....................................................................................................................................... 13

2.7. INTERNATIONAL DATA ................................................................................... 15

2.8. OPINION PIECES ................................................................................................. 16

2.9. CONCLUSIONS.................................................................................................... 18

CHAPTER 3 ..................................................................................................................... 19

METHODOLOGY ........................................................................................................... 19

3.0. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................. 19

3.1. RESEARCH DESIGN AND JUSTIFICATION. .................................................. 19

3.2. POPULATION AND JUSTIFICATION ............................................................... 19

3.3. SAMPLING PROCEDURES AND JUSTIFICATION ........................................ 19

3.4. DATA COLLECTION INSTRUMENT................................................................ 20

3.5. DATA ANALYSIS ................................................................................................ 20

3.6. QUESTIONNAIRE PILOTING ............................................................................ 21

CHAPTER FOUR ............................................................................................................. 22

DATA ANALYSIS AND RESULTS ............................................................................... 22

4.0 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................. 22

4.1 ANALYSIS OF RESULTS FROM TEACHERS .................................................. 22

4.1.1 Research question 1: Specialist teachers have an advantage on the attainment

of content by primary school age children. ............................................................... 22

4.1.2 Research question 2: Subject Specialist teaching has a disadvantage on the

content attainment of primary school age children. ................................................. 23

4.1.3 Research question 3: Subject Generalist teachers have an advantage on the

content attainment of primary school age children.. ................................................. 24

TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS TOWARDS SUBJECT SPECIALISATION BY PRIMARY SCHOOL TEACHERS viii

4.1.4 Research question 4: Generalist teaching has disadvantages on the content

attainment primary school age children. . ................................................................. 25

4.1.5 Research question 5: A subject generalist teacher gets to know pupils well and

can maintain a proper overview of the whole educational experience of the pupils. . . 26

4.1.6 Research question 6: A subject specialist teacher gets to know the academic

growth of pupils well. . ............................................................................................. 27

4.1.7 Research question 7: The subject specialist teacher brings the high level of

subject knowledge to their teaching. . ....................................................................... 28

4.1.8 Research question 8: The subject generalist teacher lacks subject knowledge .

8................................................................................................................................. 29

4.1.9 Research question 9: subject generalist teachers work efficiently for a greater

number of schools. . .................................................................................................. 30

4.1.10 Research question 10: Subject knowledge and higher quality teaching are

more likely to come from specialist than generalist teachers. . ................................ 31

4.1.11 Research question 11: With the introduction of the new curriculum there is

need for specialisation in certain subjects. . .............................................................. 32

4.1.12 Research question 12: Teachers in primary schools are trained for generalist

class teaching than specialist teaching. . .................................................................. 33

4.1.13 Research question 13: Are teachers in primary school teachers trained as

specialist subject teaching than generalists teaching. . ............................................. 34

4.1.14 Research question 14: Generalist class teaching is appropriate of all age

levels than specialist teaching. . ................................................................................ 35

4.1.15 Research question 15: Specialist teaching is more appropriate for lower

primary school pupils. . ............................................................................................. 36

4.1.16 Research question 16: The facilities in primary school allow for the

implementation of specialist subject teaching .. ....................................................... 37

4.1.17 Research question 17: Do material Resources in Primary schools allow for

subject specialisation? . ............................................................................................. 38

4.1.18 Research question 18 Specialist subject teaching is more important for

teaching some subjects (e.g. creative and performing arts) than others (e.g. Science,

English, Setswana e.t.c). .......................................................................................... 39

CHAPTER FIVE .............................................................................................................. 40

DISCUSION OF FINDINGS, SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND

RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................................................................. 40

5.0 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................. 40

5.1 DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS ............................................................................... 40

5.3 SUMMARY ............................................................................................................ 42

5.4. CONCLUSIONS.................................................................................................... 42

5.5 RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................................................ 43

REFERENCES ............................................................................................................. 45

APPENDIX 1 ................................................................................................................ 49

APPENDIX 2 : QUESTIONNAIRE FOR TEACHERS .............................................. 50

APPENDIX 3 : Questionnaires for Teachers on Study-leave-UB ................................ 51

APPENDIX 5: Questionnaires for Primary School Teachers....................................... 53

APPENDIX 6: RESEARCH BUDGET....................................................................... 55


CHAPTER ONE

BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY

1.0. INTRODUCTION

This paper explores what the educational literature has to say about the issues of

specialisation. It looks briefly at the history of specialisation in England from where

Botswana inherited teaching by specialists’ teachers in both junior secondary and senior

secondary schools. Previews of researches were analysed on comparative basis. The

results from international surveys were critically looked into. The basic question was

‘does subject specialist teaching have an impact on the attainment of primary school age

children in Botswana Primary Schools?’ In order to answer this question, there was need

to know how teachers are perceive subject specialisation and what the attainments of

their pupils are. More literature will be drawn from comparative studies in Botswana and

other countries that practise the same system.

1.1. BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY

The 1994 Revised National Policy on Education for Botswana proposed that the society

of Botswana needs specialist subject teachers who are competent, knowledgeable and

skilled to prepare learners who are educated and informed who would face 21st century

challenges without hesitation. ‘Subject specialist’ teaching has long featured in primary

education in many African countries more specially Namibia and also in some European

countries. The practice tended to be in the form of the specialist teacher of art, music or

physical education taking a class for a period or so each week to supplement the teaching

of the generic class teacher, who was expected to cover all the ‘core’ subjects of the

curriculum. These exceptions were always in areas where, it was assumed, there was

some innate ‘talent’ involved that some teachers could not reasonably be expected to

possess. Teachers themselves have been highly supportive of the assistance they receive

from these types of specialist (Planel et al: 1998).With the case of Botswana engaging

specialist teachers depended on the discretion by the school head in quest for better

results and it was termed ‘semi specialisation’. The Revised National Policy on

Education of 1994; REC.24 [paragraph; 4.8.36], on teacher management and teacher


development, points out that: “from standard four onwards pupils should gradually be

introduced to teaching by specialists teachers,” (Republic of Botswana 1994:20).The

Revised National Policy on Education gives priority to universal access to basic

education, equity and quality education. As a way of improving quality,

Recommendation 24 (c) of the RNPE recommended that teaching by specialist teachers

be gradually introduced from standard four in the quest for quality.

1.1.1 Subject specialisation proposal in Botswana Primary schools

In line with the recommendation, the Ministry of Education decided to pilot teaching by

specialist teachers from standard four to standard six. The pilot is based on the premises

that a large number of teachers (63%) are certificate holders who have not specialised in

any area of the curriculum while 37% are Diploma and Degree holders (Statistics and

returns –Ministry of Education). To kick start the implementation, the Department did

appoint a committee of 14 members comprised of Inspectors, Heads of Schools, Primary

School Management Advisors, School Heads representatives and Regional Education

Officers to work on the logistics and modalities of implementing the pilot project.

The pilot project began second term in 2007.A total of 78 schools which are in the

urban/peri-urban and remote areas were sampled. Among the 78 schools are those that

have consistently been performing well, above and poorly for the past three years. The

numbers of schools to be engaged in each region are as follows:

North Region 8

West Region 8

South 16

South Central 20

Central North 12

Central South 14

The current teachers who are Certificate and Diploma holders are used in the pilot;

where possible, schools with most Diploma and Degree holders are also used. Allocations

of teaching subject for certificate holders were based on their competency/strengths and

interest. The pilot test began with standard 4, 5 and 6 and would continue up to standard

7 in subsequent years. The pilot project will run for four years. It is hoped that within


these four years Department would have trained more specialist teachers in different

subjects, (Kurlman-Principal Education Officer II: Ministry of Education: 2006).

Since specialisation is a new development in Botswana’s primary schools, it has

been decided to introduce it gradually. Therefore teaching by specialisation would be

done within streams (i.e. stream of teachers sharing subjects).However, in schools where

there is one stream for each standard, teachers would teach across, for instance a standard

four teacher teaching some subjects in standard four and five and vice versa.

The National Primary School heads Conference, Regional Education Officers;

Principal Education Officers (Management and Inspectorate) have been informed about

the pilot and advised to mobilize piloting schools. Still to be consulted are: Teacher

organisations; Teacher training and development; Parents Teachers Associations (PTAs);

Local authorities including Education Secretaries and School to be involved in the pilot.

Monitoring was intensified since the project started. A monitoring tool was

developed. School Heads, PEO IIs (Inspectorate and Management) would monitor the

project. The committee would also carryout some school visits to get the feel of how the

pilot is carried out. The Standard Four Attainment Tests and the PSLE would be used to

evaluate the project. Therefore the regional collation of Standard Four Attainment Tests

would be prepared and analysed thoroughly and submitted to the Department. Inspectoral

areas will also use their common inspectoral tests to evaluate the performance. Reports

from schools, and PEO IIs would be used as well. Meetings would also be used for

evaluating the pilot project as well as any Research submission from the University of

Botswana.

As a way forward the committee commenced on the 26 and 27 March 2007 to

provide briefs about visits to schools and pave a way forward; develop guidelines and

monitoring tool to guide schools that would be engaged in the pilot project; REOs and

PEO IIs had to inform schools in the pilot as soon as possible and prepare them for

implementation. Other relevant stake holders; Parents Teachers Associations, Education

Secretaries and Councillors were informed as well. The agreement was that the

consultations would be held end of March 2008.


1.2. STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM

During my years of teaching, I realized that generalized subject teaching approach was

effective but not efficient. To understand underlying factors I conducted a study on

factors that might be contributing to PSLE poor results, (Makhila: 1998; 14).Among my

findings it was clear that Primary School Teachers were ill-equipped in innate skills of

approaching various subjects. I recommended that there be subject specialisation for

quest of better results. Though subject specialisation was good and justified by the RNPE

of 1994, it was dormant until 2007.

Subject specialisation is a new development in Botswana Primary Schools. It is

seen as an integral part of quality learning and teaching in various subjects and

disciplines .The researcher, in this regard therefore, intends to investigate on teachers’

perceptions towards subject specialisation in primary schools, (Makhila: 1998; 14).

1.3. PURPOSE OF THE STUDY

The purpose of this study is to get teachers’ views on subject of specialisation in the

primary school teachers. The researcher also intends to assess how knowledgeable

teachers are in the field of curricular subjects Moreover the study seeks to come up with

suggestions that will help teachers and other stakeholders to improve in the special

subject delivery.

1.4. MAIN OBJECTIVES

In regards to the implementation of subject specialisation in the primary school system,

this research is mainly intended to:

Find out the perceptions of primary school teachers towards subject

specialisation.

Investigate on problems perceived by primary school teachers, in the teaching

of newly introduced curricular subjects.

Examine perceived challenges faced by primary school teachers in the

teaching of each subject.


1.5. SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY

This study will:

alert both the government, and citizens of Botswana on the development needs of

teaching by specialisation towards the personal awareness level, intellectual and

physical development of the child.

the study will ignite discussions in North East and Francistown schools on the

effectiveness of teaching by specialised teachers resolution in Botswana. This

study will provide useful information to such key stakeholders as teachers,

lecturers, head teachers, education officers, local council personnel, education

administrators whose involvement would be necessary for successful

implementation of the programme on specialisation.

Analysis will reveal whether or not subject specialisation teaching with the new

curriculum have an impact on the attainment of primary school age children in

Botswana Primary Schools?

This study will help the relevant policy makers on the evaluation of teacher

education programmes which will address issues of relevance and appropriateness

to curriculum development and delivery.

1.6. LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY

Since the study was carried out when teachers were preparing for sports and music

competitions, the targeted teachers did not have enough time to attend to the

questionnaires, hence the likelihood of giving in-correct information.

1.7. DELIMITATION

The study was carried out in only eight primary schools, two schools per inspectorial

area. That is, the Chobe Inspectorial, ,North East-East, North East-West and two in

Francistown inspectorial areas, due to time and financial constraints. Therefore, the

results will not be generalizable to all the schools in Botswana due to the size of the

sample. These schools are chosen because they are convenient to the researcher in terms

of their geographical location.


1.8. DEFINITION OF TERMS AND ABRIVIATIONS

The following terms have been used in this study to mean the following;

Specialisation: Teaching that is limited to one or two subjects in the primary school

curriculum opposed to teaching by one teacher of the entire subject in the timetable

Generalisation: A state of being competent in several different disciplines, fields of

study and or activities.

Perception: The process of integrating and interpreting information about others so as to

accurately understand them. It involves the process of attribution-judging what people are

like and why they behave as they do.

Attitudes: A relatively stable cluster of feelings, beliefs, and behavioural predispositions

that is intentions towards some specific target. This aspect of an attitude, its evaluative

component refers to the liking or disliking of any particular target. Those are ways of

thinking or feelings of being negative or positive about something.

RNPE-Revised National Policy on Education

ERA-Education Reform Act

UCET- Universities Council for the Education of Teachers

QUEST-Quality in Experiences of Schooling Transnational

IBE- The International Bureau of Education

TIMSS- Third International Math’s and Science Study

OFSTED-Office for Standards in Education

LEA-Local Education Authority

REOs-Regional Education Officers

PEO IIs –Principal Education Officers II


CHAPTER TWO

LITERATURE REVIEW

2.0. INTRODUCTION

This chapter reviews the literature related to the perceptions of stakeholders towards

subject specialisation and also compile available information on challenges faced by

teachers as generalist in educating the learners. In particular the attitudes towards subject

specialisms would be investigated.

2.1 THE MEANING OF “SUBJECT SPECIALISATION”

Before commencing a study of specialisation, it is necessary to establish in what context

the word "specialisation" and its derivatives will be used within this-paper.

"Specialisation" has often been used to denote a substantial concentration of activity

within a particular field of practice. Alternatively and more significantly, it has been used

to indicate competence or expertise within the field. Concentration alone is not a

satisfactory indicator of specialisation as it does not necessarily produce competence or

expertise, although this is the usual result. For example, a teacher may devote a great deal

of time to a particular area of teaching, yet still be less proficient than another teacher

who spends relatively little time in the same area. The problem of arriving at a suitable

definition is a difficult one, but rather than becoming embroiled in a complex discussion

of terminology, "subject specialisation" in this paper will be used as a general term to

include both concentration and expertise in terms of competency in the subject matter.

At the same time, individual work rhythms have been neglected and

psychological and pedagogical knowledge in the field of learning possibilities has been

ignored This segmentation can often only be bridged with great difficulty by the

nevertheless necessary mechanism of interdisciplinary. Of course, subject specialisation

need not lead to ‘segmentation’ and ‘atomisation’ but it would be an ever-present success

as the review would show (http:www.sre.ac.uk/scot-research/hallitial/index.html:2045-

2008).

2.2. VIEWS ABOUT SPECIALISATION AND GENERALISATION

The Report of the National Commission on Education (Republic of

Botswana:1993),otherwise known as the Kedikilwe Report ,and the Revised National


Policy on Education of 1994,make quite strong arguments against very strict

compartmentalization of subjects. Tabulawa (Gazette paper:18/03/2008) urges that;

“subject specialisation and compactalisation of subject should be avoided and every

effort should be made to establish linkages between the subjects in a holistic

way”(p.172).The argument is clear as the move has been made to alter the curriculum in

fundamental way, especially in the direction of integration. The Ministry of Education is

introducing specialised teaching in the primary level.

The 1993 National Commission on education went around the country collecting

views from the general public on education issues. This culminated to the Report of the

National Commission on Education (1993). Teachers and the general public are

concerned about the quality of teaching and learning. This concern emanates from

unsatisfactory pass rate in Primary School Leaving Examinations which customers /stake

holders to judge performance of Botswana primary schools.

Section 4.8.35 of this report reads, “One factor that both teachers and the general

public consider to affect the quality of teaching and learning at primary level is the

generalist teacher”. According to the report this issue generated two views. One view

favoured specialization in teachers ‘areas of greatest proficiency. The proponents of this

view argued that this would promote the quality of teaching critical areas like

mathematics, Science and Practical subjects. This appeared to enjoy the majority of the

general public.

The second view was opposed to specialization and favoured generalist teaching.

The arguments that supported this view were that specialization at primary level could

harm socialization and progress of learners .They submitted that primary school pupils

needed to know and identity with their teachers and who in turn should ensure that they

progress through the curriculum. Therefore in coming up with recommendation 24 ©, the

commissioners recommended that teachers be allowed to specialize in subjects of their

greatest proficiency and from the second view, the commissioners considered the idea of

pupils knowing and identifying with teachers. The other view to this issue favoured

generalist teaching. People who subscribed to this view questioned the wisdom

introducing of specialization at a formative stage of pupils’ learning. They argued that the

move could harm pupils’ socialization and progress. They further submitted that primary


school children need to know and identify with their teachers and who in turn has to

ensure that they progress through an integrated curriculum rather than fragmented

subjects taught by different teachers.

It will be recalled that the report of the National Commission on Education (1993)

gave birth to the white paper document referred to as the Revised National Policy on

Education of 1994.The views raised by the general public with regard to specialisaiton

were captured in recommendation 24(c) of this policy document and reads “…from

standard four onwards pupils should gradually be introduced to teaching by specialist

teachers.”The recommendation approved generalist teaching from standard one to three

and teaching by specialists from standard four onwards.

As the custodian of primary education, the Department of primary education took

charged with the portfolio responsibility to implement this policy recommendation. The

department adopted the recommendation as one of its initiatives for improving quality of

education in primary schools .The department of primary education as a department

charge with the responsibility of quality assurance in primary schools, concurs with the

move that subject specialization be introduced in primary schools. The department is

convinced that if teachers specialize in their subjects of greatest proficiency, there is a

high probability of improving the quality of teaching and learning. Based on this

reasoning the Department of Primary Education decided to take up the recommendation

for implementation. The department then deliberately came up with implementations of

subjects’ specialization as one of its initiatives under the objective, “achieve quality of

pre primary and primary education”.

2.3. SUBJECT SPECIALISTS IN ENGLAND

The first official endorsement of more subject specialist teaching in primary schools is

found in 1978 in Primary Education in England through a Survey by Her Majesty's

Inspectors of Schools, (DES, 1978). This pre-dates the Education Reform Act (ERA) of

1988 by ten years. However, it was this act, with its introduction of a National

Curriculum in England and Wales, which provoked further discussion of the deployment

of subject specialists (Campbell, 1992) which resulted from ERA when that the teacher

was faced with teaching 'nine or ten National Curriculum subjects. To differentiate


teaching accordingly, and to cover the detailed curriculum specifications embodied in the

attainment targets for each subject and level, Campbell proposed that a solution to this

'nightmare' was an increase in teaching by specialist teachers.

By the time that Campbell coined his memorable phrase (teaching by specialist

teachers), the idea of increased deployment of subject specialists had already been

officially aired. Alexander et al, 1992, introduced the classification of primary teachers'

roles as 'generalist class teacher', 'generalist / consultant', 'semi specialist ‘and 'specialist'.

It recognised that the National Curriculum made great demands on the subject knowledge

of teachers. While it did not recommend anyone model, it clearly implied that greater

attention needed to be given to subject specialism’s than had been the case previously.

Almost immediately teacher education institutions in England began to prepare students

as subject’ consultants’ (Edwards, 1992).

The discussion paper provoked both responses (e.g. Thomas, 1992; Watkinson,

1992) and further exposition of the ideas contained in it (Richards, 1994). The three

OFSTED reports of 1993, 1994 and 1997) made it clear that using subject specialists in

some way or other is now the ‘official’ practice which primary schools in England are

expected to adopt. There is very little analysis of the problem and the proposed solution,

and no independent research evidence to point to the relative effectiveness of generic

class teachers and subject specialists. The subject-based National Curriculum was not to

be argued with (Ball, 1995) and the problems which stemmed from it were to be solved

by following further the logic of a subject based curriculum.

In September 1998 the Universities Council for the Education of Teachers

(UCET) published their occasional paper on Subject Specialists -Primary Schools

(Thornton, 1998) which sets out to ‘give an insight into the nature of subject specialism’s

in primary schools; the way in which the concept has developed over time; the ways in

which it is understood and interpreted by key players and the educational arguments for

and against its adoption’.

2.4. VIEWS ON GENERALISTS TEACHERS

The review quotes Alexander et al’s (1992) classification of the primary teacher’s role

(generalist class teacher; generalist / consultant; semi-specialist; specialist) and points out


that the image of the generalist class teacher teaching a fully-integrated curriculum is far

from the reality in most schools where teaching tends to be organised around subjects.

Nevertheless the advantages claimed for the generalist teacher were that she (or

he) gets to know the pupils well, and can maintain a proper overview of the whole

educational experience of the pupils, thus ensuring coherence and balance. The teacher as

generalist /consultant appears to work effectively for a great number of schools

(Thornton: 1998).The debate about the effectiveness of subject specialist teaching

remains inconclusive. Thornton quotes official pronouncements about the superiority of

specialist teaching (OFSTED, 1997, paragraphs 3 and 18) but points out that no evidence

is produced to support these assertions. It is by no means clear that subject knowledge

and higher quality teaching are more likely to come from subject specialists than from

generalist class teachers (or from those class teachers with either an Primary low

certificate holders ,Primary high certificate holders, degree holders There is a need to

establish where the differences lie, the underlying causes of the ‘good teaching’ cited and

to relate them to the level and source(s) of teacher knowledge before claims for subject

specialist teaching can be established. Hard evidence is needed, not assumption or

assertion, (Thornton; 1998).

Thornton goes on to examine the implications of the debate for teacher status,

initial teacher education and deployment of staff. Her conclusion is that: The case against

generalist class teaching has not been satisfactorily made, and the evidence of the greater

effectiveness of proposed alternatives has been more asserted than presented. Poor or

ineffective teaching is no less, or more, likely to occur in subject specialist teaching than

in generalist class-teaching (OFSTED, 1994: para 52). What really matters is the quality

of the teaching as a whole (Thornton: 1998).

There are two final issues regarding the staffing of primary schools that invites

discussion and demand clear thinking-the question of specialisation and the duties of a

teacher other than that of actually teaching. (a) specialisation-it is almost everywhere

accepted that the primary school teacher should be capable of imparting to his pupils all

the skills, knowledge, and attitudes which they are expected to learn and acquire. This is

not because his work with his pupils is so easy that one person can cover all aspects of it.

On the contrary, as already argued, his work calls for a higher degree of professionalism


than in any other sector of the educational system. The reason is the stage of maturity

which his pupils have reached. The infants 6-8 years are not yet ready for the division of

knowledge taught separately by specialist teachers as is the secondary schools. I have no

doubt that from 9-12 years they can fully cope with teaching by specialists, (Nwangu,

1978, p.87).

Truly primary school pupils must be treated as whole persons; and their day-to-

day personal relations with a familiar (and hopefully liked and respected) teacher are

crucial to their development. This is why frequent changes of primary school staff are so

harmful. This integrated approach through the medium of one teacher is much more

important in the primary school than in the secondary school .Recently even in secondary

schools, through the introduction of integrated studies and team teaching, the integrated

approach is gaining greater recognition, (Musaazi, 1982).

There is, of course, room for some specialisation in the primary school and

provision is usually made for a certain amount of it in primary schools, breakthrough to

English, agriculture, computer science, creative and performing arts, art and craft, drama

special education, remedial and music education, as an example (Cameron, 1998).This

specialisation, however, should be made subsidiary to the integrated approach. In other

words, as far as possible the so called specialists should be trained as normal primary

school teachers and only afterwards add their specialisation to their initial training. Next

in schools they should be expected to do a certain amount of routine class teaching in

subjects other than their specialism’s (Nwangu, 1978).

2.5. VIEWS ON SPECIALISTS TEACHERS

The main advantage of specialist (or semi-specialist) teaching is that the subject specialist

brings a high level of subject knowledge to their teaching, and it is the lack of such

subject knowledge which is the main weakness of the generalist class teacher. Thornton

(1998, p.364), points out in passing that, the deployment of specialist teachers is that it is

‘extremely rare for primary schools to have sufficient teachers to cover, individually and

with special expertise in the National Curriculum subject.


We are therefore dealing with variations on a theme (or set of themes).Variations

include the length of the training, the amount of teaching practice demanded, the status of

trainees (employees or students) and the locus of control of the teacher education system.

As we shall see, it is only rarely that differences between systems of teacher education

include subject specialisation at primary education level. The Revised National Policy on

Education) Republic of Botswana: 1994), may have argued that ‘teacher education in

Europe offers a fascinating natural laboratory for educational researchers to explore

different ideas and programmes, and the effects of different forms of training’, but in this

instance the differences may not really be so great.

2.6. ENGLISH MEDIUM SCHOOLS VERSUS SETSWANA MEDIUM SCHOOLS

Chipeta and Mannathoko (1996), provided detailed comparisons between the English and

Setswana Medium Schools in Botswana. They noted that, compared to the other systems,

the English Medium system has comparatively little articulation between initial training

and entry into teaching, and that teacher education has very few linkages with regional

and local systems. It also has a much higher requirement for teaching practice, but they

notes that; “Scrutiny of the literature on the practical component in teaching shows little

empirical evidence to suggest any one form of course model or programme is more

effective than any other.” looking at course models, it is clear that internationally a range

of alternative strategies are in use with scant evidence to suggest that any one is more

effective than another.

In the primary school field, Pansiri etal, (2003-Botswana Gazette) have explored

the similarities and differences of Setswana and English teachers’ approach to pedagogy

through questionnaires, interview and classroom observation. One of their major findings

was that Setswana Medium primary teachers place more emphasis on basic skills and

academic knowledge than English Medium teachers for whom a major concern is the

development of intelligence and all-round education. English Medium primary teachers

also seek to achieve a basic complement of non cognitive objectives including notions

such as desire to learn, socialisation and personal development.


This latter study showed that despite the review of the national curriculum on

education and advocacy of more teacher-centred approaches English Medium teachers

remained individual and child-centred in their pedagogic styles. In Setswana medium,

however, despite official attempts to focus more on the individual child, the formal

‘leçon’ continued to predominate. This is interesting for two reasons. First it suggests that

particular styles of teaching (in this case associated with national education systems) can

be remarkably persistent in the face of attempts to change them, and secondly that these

styles of teaching may make little overall difference to the levels of pupil attainment.

It is not that there were no differences between the levels of attainment of the

pupils in the English Medium School and The Setswana medium schools- in each case

there were relative strengths and weaknesses which reflected their ‘pedagogic emphases’,

but that overall these tended to balance one another out. Chipeta and Mannathoko (1996),

comment was that ‘a clear message of the study was that pedagogy needs to be

understood in terms of the larger cultural context and that without such understanding,

the effects, and hence the potential value, of any particular educational intervention

cannot be predicted’(Moon, 1998).

In his section on ‘Pedagogies and Didactics’ Moon(1998), contrasts the

continental tradition of scientific and theoretical thinking about teaching in general and

subject teaching in particular with the pragmatism of the Anglo-African world,

characterised by Simon (1994) as follows: The most striking aspect of current thinking

and discussion about education is its eclectic character, reflecting deep confusion of

thought, and of aims and purposes, relating to learning and teaching - to pedagogy,

(Simon, 1994).Given these differences in traditions of thinking about teaching and

learning, as well as the wider cultural differences identified by Broadfoot (1996) and her

colleagues, Moon feels justified in warning us of the ‘dangers and pitfalls of international

comparisons’. It is, however, worth considering such comparisons to see what grounds, if

any, there might be for hypothesizing a link between the deployment of specialist

teachers and the attainment of pupils.


2.7. INTERNATIONAL DATA

The new policy, (RNPE: 1994) on Botswana primary education has suggested the

responsibility for teachers to abandon teaching different subjects. One teacher would no

longer be responsible for teaching all subjects. The teachers, generally three in number,

share two classes. One teacher is responsible for the humanities, the second for

mathematics and sciences, and the third for social sciences religious and moral education

inclusive. A specialist teacher also comes in for foreign languages, creative and

performing arts, (Millennium goals, 2000)

However, in another education document (Department of Primary Education:

2006-subject specialisation in primary schools), we learn that ‘Teachers are not subject

specialists, but on the basis of their specific competences they are responsible for one of

the three subject areas covered by each module’ (Republic of Botswana: Long Term

Vision (2016) through curriculum change document: 1998). The four subject areas

correspond to languages, mathematics and science and social sciences and practical. Such

a system is explained in the International Bureau of Education database as follows:

Teaching is divided into sectors called areas where subjects are grouped together.

Teachers collaborate in defining the teaching activities and are responsible for various

subjects, grouped into the following three areas: linguistic-expressive, scientific-logical

mathematical and historic-geographical-social. Activities concerning non-verbal

languages are assigned where they are best suited. The School Head assigns the areas to

the module teachers according to their specific competencies. (IBE, World Data on

Education: Italy)In other words, Italy appears to have a system of specialised teaching

without teachers who are specialised by virtue of the training they have received, but only

on the basis of their particular interests and competencies.

The Plowden report(1993,1994 and1997) pointed out that: In many countries

around the world, primary classes are taught by a single teacher who is responsible for

teaching all subjects in the curriculum. The use of specialist teachers does not seem to be

a major topic of international interest. The recent Handbook of Teacher Training in

Europe. Issues and Trends. (Galton and Moon, 1994) issued on behalf of the Council of

Europe, says nothing about it.


Books like Subject Learning in the Primary Curriculum. (Murphy et al, 1995) have

capitalised on the growth of subject-based learning in primary schools, but concentrate on

questions about the nature of subject knowledge, and the amount of it required by a class

teacher. The topic of specialist teachers is significant by its absence from its pages. Even

Glaser’s contributed chapter in which he analyses the subject-specificity of expert

knowledge does not go on to examine the question of whether this expertise should be

embodied in a subject specialist teacher, although this is clearly one possible implication

of his position.

2.8. OPINION PIECES

Many of the articles about the need (or otherwise) for subject specialist teachers which

have appeared in the educational literature over the years have been ‘opinion pieces’

which do not draw on empirical research. Some of these cover familiar ground. Long

ago in 1986 the US journal (Design for Arts in Education) ran a special edition under the

title ‘Who Teaches: Specialist, Generalist, and Visiting Artist?’ They concluded that

there was a place for everyone and that ‘partnerships’ should flourish. As was earlier

mentioned, a recent survey in West-wood English medium primary school in Botswana

has identified a large amount of support among class teachers for the work of visiting

expressive arts specialists (Bangale-Ministry of Education:1998). In science the

arguments are also continually re-visited. In the pages of Botswana Daily News of 3rd

March,2006 ,teaching by specialisation Assistant Education Minister Moggie

Mbaakanyi(2006) debated whether upper primary classes pupils should be taught by

specialists or not. Member of Parliament Isaac Mabiletsa (2006) revived the argument in

favour of specialists in Botswana, and was countered by Member of Parliament,

Dumelang Saleshando ((Botswana Daily news of March, 2006).

Meanwhile in the pages of another Parliament debate ,they debated on the neglect

of teaching by specialisations in Botswana Primary Schools. They saw this as due to the

wide range of subjects a teacher had to cover and to 'lack of time, facilities and

equipment'. They proposed that a solution to this would be the deployment of subject

specialists. They also proposed four models for deployment: the 'creative and performing

arts education teacher' model; the mathematics science model; the 'social sciences model;


and the 'school-within-a-school (creative and performing arts' model. None of these

pieces provided any evidence to support their rival claims and none has advanced the

argument (curriculum evaluation notes-Botswana, 2007).

Assistant Minister of Education- Mbaakanyi (2006), promotes the idea that’

primary education’ is itself a ‘specialism’ and should be recognised as such(Botswana

Daily news of March:2007 ). Kurlmann-Principal Education Officer –Need Assessment

unit-Ministry of Education reports a small scale study of the curriculum as organised and

delivered in 78 primary schools in Botswana as a pilot project. They looked at the place

of ‘subject teaching’ and the role of the ‘generalist’ primary teacher. What she found was

a ‘mixed model’ in operation. She argued again that nursery and primary teachers are

specialists and that the idea of specialism should not be narrowly equated with subject

specialism in teacher education.

Honourable members of Parliament countered that the rationale for generic class

teaching is simple: education is one thing, and the child is one whole being who benefits

attention being given to his or her whole experience,(Botswana Daily news of

March:2007 ). Someone - the class teacher - needs to keep in sight an overview of the

child’s experience to ensure a balanced and even development. The teacher knows the

children, and knows what they each individually need. The counter argument is equally

simple. It is that more and more is being demanded of children and of their teachers.

These demands are coming in the form of increasing need for subject-based

knowledge (though there is rarely a questioning of why it should be in this form), and no

one teacher can reasonably be expected to know all that is now required as Professor

Tabulawa term it “jack of all trades but master of none” from his Botswana daily news

corner. The obvious solution is that more than one teacher should take responsibility for

the child’s education, and that they should divide their responsibilities according to

subject specialists. Basically this is advocated by the Performance Management System

in quest for quality results by quality learners from quality instructions by the specialist

teacher.


2.9. CONCLUSIONS

The tension between subject specialism and general classroom teaching was evidenced as

present in the literature review. The tension will always be present to some extent and is a

reflection of the opposition between subject-centred and child-centred views of

education. What is remarkable is how little research evidence there is to support the

arguments on either side. The official literature is full of exhortation and assertions but

these do not appear to be built on sound evidential foundations. International data on

education and training systems does exist, but is not always in forms which allow any

simple comparisons between countries, far less to answer very specific questions about

the impact of specialist teaching. Most studies are relatively small scale and suggestive

rather than conclusive. The nearest we have to persuasive research evidence are the

results of international surveys of attainment such as TIMSS, but even these must be

treated with caution. They suggested differences between the attainments of pupils in

different countries, but they are much less useful for explaining the causes of those

differences. The best we can say from that data is that the case for the effectiveness of

subject specialist teaching at primary level does not appear to be supported. Therefore it

is amongst this research to carry on a survey to find out the perceptions of the primary

school teachers regarding subject specialisation


CHAPTER 3

METHODOLOGY

3.0. INTRODUCTION

This chapter presents the procedures the researcher followed in data collection as well as

data analysis. It further discusses the following; research design, population of the study,

samples, sampling procedures and data collection instruments. It presents analysed data,

references and appendices.

3.1. RESEARCH DESIGN AND JUSTIFICATION.

Since the study investigates perceptions, a descriptive exploratory approach was adopted

in which both qualitative and quantitative methods were employed. The most appropriate

instrument was the questionnaire and the interview methods.

3.2. POPULATION AND JUSTIFICATION

The target population of the study were class teachers from the North Region. The

subjects of the study were chosen because teachers are the implementers of this

Education programmes/innovation.

3.3. SAMPLING PROCEDURES AND JUSTIFICATION

A total of 8 Primary Schools which are in urban/peri-urban and remote areas were

sampled. Purposive sampling was used. They were chosen as they are the pilot schools.

.First, sampling will be used where a sample from the public schools was selected to

represent other institutions. As Cohen etal (2000, p.173) assert, “… more importantly, in

a large survey, researchers usually draw a sample from the population to be studied:

rarely do they attempt to contact every member…”

As there are four inspectoral areas covered by the total population of

implementing schools was used. The study populace was 64 teachers. Since the study is

focused on the already selected school by the Ministry of Education, a purposive

sampling and systematic random sampling of teachers was conducted. The names of

upper primary teachers were listed according to streams in alphabetical order. Two

teachers were selected using a systematic random sampling to represent other teachers.


Both sexes were chosen, however there are more females due to female domination in

primary schools. Best and Khan (2006, p.354) contends that, “…purposive, simple

random sampling and systematic sampling give equal representations across the entire

population of the study….”

3.4. DATA COLLECTION INSTRUMENT

The research procedures started with developing a questionnaire which was to be

completed by the respondents. This instrument was selected for its numerous advantages,

it allowed a wide coverage of respondents, it is fairly easy to administer, and it is a

relatively cheaper and quicker method of data collection. It also gives the respondents

liberty to answer questions without the researcher’s interference, (Cohen et al, 2000). The

instrument was chosen because there was no time to individually question or interview

each respondent.

A questionnaire comprising open-ended and close-ended questions was designed

(see appendix 2). The question types jointly sought to find out the perceptions of

teachers on subject specialisation in primary schools. The questionnaire had two parts:

part one asked respondents demographic data such as sex,age,education,position and

status; part two asked respondents to evaluate the perceptions underlying specialisation

using 5 point likert scale questions,(Likert,1980).

An interview was also conducted. As noted by Bose and Tsayang, (2005, p.29)

citing Warts and Ebbut, (1987), “…the interviews yield a wide range of responses

leading to discussions and therefore more informed and shared responses.” Gay and

Airaisan, (2003, p.14), connotes that, “…interview allows physical presence of the

researcher…face-to-face interaction for the researcher to compare and observe genuine

insights by respondents.” The individual selected for interviews was given a semi

structured questionnaire before the interview, and then the researcher discussed each

question and took notes.

3.5. DATA ANALYSIS

Since data was collected using different techniques, analysis of data called for the

triangulation of techniques. Bell, (1999, p.13) asserts that, “the aim of a survey is to

obtain information which can be analysed and patterns extracted and comparison made.”


This argument is further supported by Cohen and Manion, (2000, p.132), who pinioned

that, “a survey describe the nature of existing conditions, compare standards and identify

relationship between specific events. Therefore data was analysed descriptively. Data was

analysed using descriptive statistics of percentages, frequency including graphs and

charts. Data was coded, entered and analysed using SPSS (Statistical Package for Social

Science).

3.6. QUESTIONNAIRE PILOTING

The questionnaires were administered to University of Botswana students who are

reading Bachelor of Education in Primary .They were asked to complete and give

feedback to the researchers. The piloting was intended to validate the instruments. The

instruments were thereafter updated and a finalised copy was produced.


CHAPTER FOUR

DATA ANALYSIS AND RESULTS

4.0 INTRODUCTION

This chapter presents the results of the study. The results include presentation of the

respondents’ bio-data-information and the results of the study. It also analyses research

questions and their responses. The results are presented in tables separately and followed

by the research questions analysis.

4.1 ANALYSIS OF RESULTS FROM TEACHERS

4.1.1 Research question 1: Specialist teachers have an advantage on the attainment

of content by primary school age children. The answers to this question are

presented in table 1.

Table 1: Advantages of content attainment among pupils

Frequency Percent

Valid

Percent Cumulative Percent

Valid Strongly

disagree 3 4.68 4.68 4.69

Disagree 7 10.93 10.93 15.94

Neither agree

or disagree

6 9.37 9.37 24.98

Agree

29 43.31 43.31 68.29

Agree strongly

19 29.68 29.68 100.00

Don’t know

0 0.0 0.0 00.00

Total 64 100 100 100.00


Table 1 shows that 72.99% of he respondents are of the opinion that specialist’ teachers

have an advantage in content attainment by primary school children. On the contrarily

15.61% are f the feeling that specialist teachers do not have an advantage on content

attainment by pupils while 9.37% are neutral about the concept of specialisation. The

results hereby suggest that specialist teachers have an advantage on attainment of content

by primary school pupils.

4.1.2 Research question 2: Subject Specialist teaching has a disadvantage on the

content attainment of primary school age children. The answers to this question are


Table 2: Disadvantages of content attainment among pupils

Frequency Percent

Valid


Valid Strongly

disagree 16 25.00 25.00 25.00

Disagree 26 40.62 40.62 65.62

Neither agree

or disagree

3 4.68 4.68 70.30

Agree

14 21.87 21.87 92.17

Agree strongly

3 4.68 4.68 96.85

Don’t know

2 3.12 3.12 100.00

Total 64 100.00 100.00 100.00

The results reveal that 65.62% of the respondents do not see specialists’ teachers being a

disadvantage on content attainment by primary school pupils. On the hand 26.55% feel

that subject specialisation teaching disadvantages content attainment by pupils, whereas

only 7.2% are neutral. Therefore the results depicts that subject specialisation is viewed

as disadvantaging pupils in content attainment.


4.1.3 Research question 3: Subject Generalist teachers have an advantage on the

content attainment of primary school age children. The answers to this question are


Table 3: Advantage by Generalist teachers

Frequency Percent

Valid


Valid Strongly

disagree 7 10.93 10.93 10.93

Disagree 17 26.56 26.56 37.49

Neither agree

or disagree

14 21.87 21.87 59.37

Agree

20 31.25 31.25 90.61

Agree strongly

6 9.37 9.37 100.00

Don’t know

0 0.00 0.00 100.00

Total 64 100 100 100.00

Table 3 shows that 40.62% of the respondents indicate that subject generalists’ teachers

have an advantage on content attainment by pupils whereas 21.87% of the respondents

neither agree nor disagree. On the other hand 37.49 of the respondents disagree with the

fact that generalists’ teachers have an advantage on attainment of content by primary

schools pupils. The results hereby suggest...


4.1.4 Research question 4: Generalist teaching has disadvantages on the content

attainment primary school age children. The answers to this question are presented

in table 4.

Table 4: Disadvantage by Generalist teachers on pupils

Frequency Percent

Valid


Valid Strongly

disagree 4 6.25 6.25 6.25

Disagree 12 18.75 18.75 25.00

Neither agree

or disagree

8 12.50 12.50 37.50

Agree

17 26.56 26.56 64.06

Agree strongly

20 31.25 31.25 95.31

Don’t know

3 4.68 4.68 99.99

Total 64 100 100 100.00

Table 4 results reveal that 57.81% of the respondents are of the opinion that generalist

teachers have disadvantages on content attainment by primary school pupils. However

25% disagree with the notion that generalist teachers contribute to poor content

attainment by pupils while 12.5% are neutral in their perceptions. The results therefore

indicate that generalist teaching is perceived as contributing positively to content

attainment by pupils.


4.1.5 Research question 5: A subject generalist teacher gets to know pupils well and

can maintain a proper overview of the whole educational experience of the pupils.

The answers to this question are presented in table 5.

Table 5: Overview of the whole educational experience of the pupils by generalist

teachers

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

Valid Strongly

disagree 0 0 0 0.00

Disagree 10 15.62 15.62 15.62

Neither agree

or disagree

8 12.50 12.50 28.12

Agree

18 28.12 28.12 56.24

Agree strongly

28 43.75 43.75 99.99

Don’t know

0 0.00 0.00 100.00

Total 64 100.00 100.00 100.00

Table 5 shows that 71.87% of the respondents strongly agree that a generalist subject

class teacher plays a significant role in the development of the child socially, physically,

intellectually and spiritually. On the contrary only 15.62% of the respondents disagree

with the fact that generalists’ teachers’ get to understand pupils well to maintain proper

overview of their educational experiences. 12.5% respondents neither agree nor disagree

to the notion. The results hereby suggest that generalists’ teachers are perceived as having

an advantage of knowing pupils better therefore able to maintain a proper overview of

their educational experience.


4.1.6 Research question 6: A subject specialist teacher gets to know the academic

growth of pupils well. The answers to this question are presented in table 6.

Table 6: Knowledge by specialists’ teachers on academic growth


Valid Strongly

disagree 4 6.25 6.25 6.25

Disagree 14 26.56 26.56 32.81

Neither agree

or disagree

11 17.18 17.18 49.99

Agree

23 35.93 35.93 85.92

Agree strongly

9 14.06 14.06 99.99

Don’t know

0 0.00 0.00 100.00

Total 64 100.00 100.00 100.00

Table 6 shows that 49.99%are of the perception that subject specialisations have an

overview on the academic growth of pupils.32.81% are counter reacting having a

perception that specialists also have an impact on the academic growth of the learners.

However 17.8% of the respondents neither agree nor disagree with the idea that

specialised teachers have an upper hand in the knowledge of pupils’ academic growth.

Therefore the majority of teachers are of the notion that subject specialisations have an

overview on the academic growth of pupils.


4.1.7 Research question 7: The subject specialist teacher brings the high level of

subject knowledge to their teaching. The answers to this question are presented in

table 7.

Table 7: Specialist teachers’ subject knowledge

Frequency Percent

Valid


Valid Strongly

disagree 4 6.25 6.25 6.25

Disagree 0 0.00 0.00 6.25

Neither agree

or disagree

3 4.68 4.68 10.93

Agree

16 25.00 25.00 35.93

Agree strongly

41 64.06 64.06 99.99

Don’t know

0 0.00 0.00 100.00

Total 64 100.00 100.00 100.00

Table 7 shows that 17.18% of the respondents are neutral in their perception to the

specialist teachers subject knowledge and mastery. The result there by suggests that

specialists’ teachers are perceived as having good subject knowledge thereby contributing

to high level content mastery by pupils.


4.1.8 Research question 8: The subject generalist teacher lacks subject knowledge

.The answers to this question are presented in table 8.

Table 8: Generalists teachers’ shortcomings

Frequency Percent

Valid


Valid Strongly

disagree 6 9.37 9.37 9.37

Disagree 13 20.31 20.31 29.68

Neither agree

or disagree

14 21.87 21.87 51.55

Agree

21 32.81 32.81 84.36

Agree strongly

10 15.62 15.62 99.99

Don’t know

0 0.00 0.00 100.00

Total 64 100.00 100.00 100.00

Table 8 show that 85.2% of the respondents are of the perception that Specialist teachers

has an advantage on the attainment of primary school age children. The results hereby

suggest that a Specialist teacher has an advantage on the attainment by primary school

age children.


4.1.9 Research question 9: subject generalist teachers work efficiently for a greater

number of schools. The answers to this question are presented in table 9.

Table 9: Work efficiency by generalist teachers

Frequency Percent

Valid


Valid Strongly

disagree 5 7.81 7.81 7.81

Disagree 8 12.50 12.50 20.31

Neither agree

or disagree

14 21.87 21.87 42.18

Agree

26 40.62 40.62 82.80

Agree strongly

5 7.81 7.81 90.61

Don’t know

6 9.37 9.37 99.99

Total 64 100.00 100.00 100.00

Table 9 shows that 20.31% of the respondents suggests that generalists teachers have not

proved to work efficiently in schools, while 49.43% are of the perception that generalist

teachers are very efficient on the other hand 21.8% are neutral while 9.37 did not know or

did not express any opinion.


4.1.10 Research question 10: Subject knowledge and higher quality teaching are

more likely to come from specialist than generalist teachers. The answers to this

question are presented in table 10.

Table 10: Quality teaching by Specialist teachers

Frequency Percent

Valid


Valid Strongly

disagree 2 3.12 3.12 3.12

Disagree 3 4.68 4.68 7.80

Neither agree

or disagree

4 6.25 6.25 14.05

Agree

22 34.37 34.37 48.42

Agree strongly

33 51.56 51.56 99.98

Don’t know

0 0.00 0.00 100.00

Total 64 100.00 100.00 100.00

Table 11 results reveal that 7.8% of the respondents do not perceive specialist teachers as

being in a position to deliver higher quality. On the contrary 85.93% are of the perception

that specialists teachers are in a better position to provide high quality teaching.62.5%

could not agree or disagree with the ideas. The result therefore suggests respondents feel

that higher quality teaching can be provided by generalists’ teachers than specialists’

teachers.


4.1.11 Research question 11: With the introduction of the new curriculum there is

need for specialisation in certain subjects. The answers to this question are


Table 11: New curriculum

Frequency Percent

Valid


Valid Strongly

disagree 2 3.12 3.12 3.12

Disagree 0 0.00 0.00 3.12

Neither agree

or disagree

2 3.12 3.12 6.24

Agree

14 21.87 21.87 28.11

Agree strongly

45 70.31 70.31 98.42

Don’t know

1 1.56 1.56 99.99

Total 64 100.00 100.00 100.00

Table 11 shows that 82.18% of the respondents believe that specialist’ teachers are

needed for the higher demand in subject mastery brought by the new curriculum. On the

other hand 3.12% disagree with the fact that specialists’ teachers are better equipped to

meet the demands of the new curriculum. Only 1% of the respondents did not know

whether specialist teachers are suited for the new curriculum and 3.12% were neutral.

The results therefore suggested that due to the introduction of the new curriculum there is

great need for specialisation in primary schools.


4.1.12 Research question 12: Teachers in primary schools are trained for generalist

class teaching than specialist teaching. The answers to this question are presented

in table 12.

Table 12: Primary school teachers training

Frequency Percent

Valid


Valid Strongly

disagree 7 10.93 10.93 10.93

Disagree 10 15.62 15.62 26.55

Neither agree

or disagree

5 7.81 7.81 34.36

Agree

21 32.81 32.81 67.17

Agree strongly

21 32.81 32.81 99.99

Don’t know

0 0.00 0.00 100.00

Total 64 100.00 100.00 100.00

Table 12 results reveal that 26.55% of the respondents disagree with the notion that

primary school teachers are trained for generalists teaching. On the other hand 65.62%

believe that many teachers are trained for generalist teaching in primary schools 7.81%

could neither agree nor disagree. Therefore the result suggests that most teachers in

primary schools are trained for generalist teaching.


4.1.13 Research question 13: Are teachers in primary school teachers trained as

specialist subject teaching than generalists teaching. The answers to this question

are presented in table 13.

Table 13: Trained teachers

Frequency Percent

Valid


Valid Strongly

disagree 5 7.81 7.81 7.81

Disagree 5 7.81 7.81 15.62

Neither agree

or disagree

6 9.37 9.37 24.99

Agree

22 34.37 34.37 59.36

Agree strongly

22 34.37 34.37 93.73

Don’t know

4 6.27 6.27 100.00

Total 64 100.00 100.00 100.00

Table 13 shows that 68.74% are of the perception that most Primary School teachers are

not subject specialists. On the other hand 15.62% are certain that Primary School teachers

are more trained in subject generalization.6.27% is doubtful while 9.37% are neutral. The

result hereby implies that there are few primary school teachers trained for subject

specialists teaching.


4.1.14 Research question 14: Generalist class teaching is appropriate of all age levels

than specialist teaching. The answers to this question are presented in table 14.

Table 14: Appropriateness by the generalist class teachers

Frequency Percent

Valid


Valid Strongly

disagree 11 17.18 17.18 17.18

Disagree 24 37.50 37.50 54.68

Neither agree

or disagree

6 9.37 9.37 64.05

Agree

14 21.87 21.87 85.92

Agree strongly

5 7.81 7.81 93.73

Don’t know

4 6.25 6.25 99.99

Total 64 100.00 100.00 100.00

Table 14 results indicate that 54.68% of the respondents believe that generalists teaching

is not appropriate for all age group levels.29.68% on the other hand believe that

generalists teaching is suitable for all standards.9.37% of the respondents are neutral

while 6.25% of the respondents had no idea. The results thereby suggest that generalist

teaching is not appropriate to all age group levels as compared to specialists teaching.


4.1.15 Research question 15: Specialist teaching is more appropriate for lower

primary school pupils. The answers to this question are presented in table 15.

Table 15: Lower primary school pupils and subject specialisation.

Frequency Percent

Valid


Valid Strongly

disagree 22 34.37 34.37 34.37

Disagree 27 42.18 42.18 76.55

Neither agree

or disagree

6 9.37 9.37 85.92

Agree

4 6.25 6.25 92.17

Agree strongly

3 4.68 4.68 96.85

Don’t know

2 3.12 3.12 99.99

Total 64 100.00 100.00 100.00

Table 15 results reveals that 76.55% are of the perception that generalist class teaching is

not appropriate for lower class learners. On the contrary 10.93% believe that specialist

teaching is effective/appropriate for lower classes. Only 9.37% were neutral while 3.12 %

had no idea. The results therefore suggest that specialist teaching is less appropriate and

effective in lower classes.


4.1.16 Research question 16: The facilities in primary school allow for the

implementation of specialist subject teaching .The answers to this question are


Table 16: Infrastructure in Primary schools.


Valid Strongly

disagree 28 43.75 43.75 43.75

Disagree 20 31.25 31.25 75.00

Neither agree

or disagree

3 4.68 4.68 79.68

Agree

4 6.25 6.25 85.93

Agree strongly

5 7.81 7.81 93.74

Don’t know

4 6.25 6.25 99.99

Total 64 100.00 100.00 100.00

A Table16 result reveals that 76% are of the feeling that primary schools are ill equipped

in facilities like laboratories and field play to allow smooth running of specialist teaching.

On the other hand 14.06% assert that facilities in primary schools allow for effective

implementation of subject specialist teaching.4.68% are not sure of their perceptions

while 6.25% had no idea. Resource constraints limit the extent to which subject specialist

teaching can be implemented in primary schools.


4.1.17 Research question 17: Do material Resources in Primary schools allow for

subject specialisation? The answers to this question are presented in table 17.

Table 17: Material Resources in Primary schools

Frequency Percent

Valid


Valid Strongly

disagree 11 17.18 17.18 17.18

Disagree 6 9.37 9.37 26.55

Neither agree

or disagree

2 3.12 3.12 29.67

Agree

7 10.93 10.93 40.60

Agree strongly

35 54.68 54.68 95.28

Don’t know

3 4.68 4.68 99.96

Total 64 100.00 100.00 100.00

Table 17 reveal that 65.61% of the respondents are of the feeling that there is

unsatisfactory resources that limits effectiveness in subject specialists teaching.e.g

cooking perishables, fabrics, sports equipments and utensils.26.55% are of the contrary

views while 10.93% are neutral as 4.68% did not know. It is therefore evident that lack of

resources is a barrier to effective subject specialisation teaching.


4.1.18 Research question 18 Specialist subject teaching is more important for

teaching some subjects (e.g. creative and performing arts) than others (e.g. Science,

English, Setswana e.t.c):.The answers to this question are presented in table 18.

Table 18: Importance of subject teaching in other subjects

Frequency Percent

Valid


Valid Strongly

disagree 15 23.43 23.43 23.43

Disagree 12 18.75 18.75 42.18

Neither agree

or disagree

9 14.06 14.06 56.24

Agree

5 7.81 7.81 64.05

Agree strongly

20 31.25 31.25 95.30

Don’t know

3 4.68 4.68 99.98

Total 64 100.00 100.00 100.00

Table 18 shows that 39.06% of the respondents supports the notion that subject

specialisation is more effective in teaching some subjects/disciplines than others e.g.

CAPA .42.18% of the respondents with the notion that Primary school teaching is not so

important to specialists subject teaching. 14.06% are neutral while 4.68% had no idea.

Therefore, the results entail that subject specialists teaching is also important for other

subjects as well.


CHAPTER FIVE

DISCUSION OF FINDINGS, SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND

RECOMMENDATIONS

5.0 INTRODUCTION

This chapter discusses the findings of the study, as well as conclusion and

recommendations based on the findings of the study The focus was to: find out the

perceptions of primary school teachers towards subject specialisation; Investigate on

problems faced by primary school teachers, in the teaching of newly introduced

curricular subjects and finally examine challenges faced by primary school teachers in the

teaching of all subjects.

5.1 DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS

The major finding was that specialist subject knowledge was a stronger influence (for the

better) on teaching performance in subject than the specialist curriculum courses they had

to follow. This relationship was not apparent for either generalist subject teaching

specialists or specialist subject teaching where the influence of their training course

outweighed that of their existing subject knowledge. Some Namibian research has also

looked at the impact of training versus experience.

The interesting finding came in the comparison of the specialist subject teachers

and the generalist subject teachers - there was only a ‘weak difference between subject

specialist’s teachers and generalist class teachers. Bressoux (1996), comments that

‘pupils ‘suffer’ from having generalists teachers, particularly in Creative and Performing

Arts’. The implication of this is that the training they have received is at least as much of

a factor in their effectiveness as their subject knowledge. Of course, subject knowledge is

not the only factor involved. There is also teacher confidence. This has been investigated

in the area of the expressive arts by Duck (1990) in a study of Primary School provision

for teaching the arts in Australia. This confirmed that most teachers have little experience

of the arts in their own education and are not confident in teaching them. Teachers in that

study also saw the arts as less important than ‘basic’ areas of the curriculum. This

contributes to a ‘cycle of neglect’ which leads to arts being under-valued. One possible


solution to this problem which Duck (1990) proposed is the use of subject specialist

teachers in which the Botswana government has proposed. The Revised National Policy

on Education of 1994; REC.24 [paragraph; 4.8.36], on teacher management and teacher

development, points out that: “from standard four onwards pupils should gradually be

introduced to teaching by specialists teachers,” (Republic of Botswana 1994, p.20).

Similar research in the United Kingdom was conducted by Mills (1989) on

Creative and Performing Arts teaching. This described the experiences of forty non-

specialised Diploma primary teaching students. Initially most had little confidence in

their ability to teach Creative and performing arts. As their course progressed fewer and

fewer taught any Creative and Performing Arts related subject. Mills (1989) described a

cycle in which ‘student teachers were having negative perceptions about Creative and

performing arts and did not teach it because teachers with similar negative perceptions

often do not teach it’. However, problems of confidence are not confined to expressive

arts subjects only in the Botswana situation. In Teaching Service Management, Primary

School inspectoral report (2005) identified similar problems among primary teachers who

teach science, mathematics, English, Performance and Creative Arts as part of the

prescribed curriculum (Chipeta and Mannathoko, 1996).

One final piece of research does not directly concern subject specialists but is

worth noting and pondering for its implications. From general comment by the

respondents, Botswana colleges of education are ill equipped in specialist teaching

content. There are also a very large proportion of teacher trainees who leave the colleges

of education without any proper content because of specialised subject knowledge and

skills.. ‘Putting on an extra lense,’ this is more harm than damage to the pupils as they

would be taught by ‘half baked teachers’ (Makhila, 1998).The researcher in his

investigation analysed the possible causes of poor performance in North-East primary

schools in Botswana. One of the causes examined was ‘the characteristics of elementary

education’ which are described thus: Since 1989, primary or elementary education has

been neglected. The lack of thorough education on the existing and the potential future

personality of the child and the lack of thorough study of knowledge and skills have a

logical consequence in the performance of the primary school learners. The neglect might


lead to failure. This segmentation can often only be bridged with the introduction of

subject specialisation in Botswana Primary Schools.

The information in this study contributed to a greater understanding of the

benefits of both the generalists and specialists teachers. The results revealed that

respondents are of the perception that specialists’ teachers have an advantage in content

attainment to the learners. The generalists subjects teachers plays a significant role in the

development of the child’s socially, physically, intellectually and spiritually. The

perceptions supports the notion that specialists teachers and generalists teachers all

contributes positively on the academic growth of the learners. Beyond reasonable doubt

the study acknowledges that specialisation is more effective in teaching other

subjects/discipline than others. The prime focus of the study also revealed that

respondents supports the notion that unsatisfactorily in terms of resources and the

capacity may limits effectiveness in Specialists subjects implementation regardless

whether a teacher is a specialists or a generalists. Therefore the study looked at all

perceptions equally but respondents were very much exited to place more emphasis in

support of subject specialisation implementation in primary schools.

5.3 SUMMARY

In particular the attitudes towards subject specialisation were investigated. The

information showed that subject specialist in Botswana Primary teaching is at its infant

stage and is faced with challenges. Many teachers are of the perception that it would be

impossible to implement subject specialisation in the Botswana Primary schools, if and

unless resources are put in place. A substantial majority of teachers could see some value

in subject specialisation implementation but had doubt as if subject specialization would

be suitable for infant classes. The research supports the idea that there may be scope for

greater variation in practice, but that resource constraints limits the extent to which

subject specialist teaching is being implemented in schools.

5.4. CONCLUSIONS

The tension between subject specialism and general classroom teaching will always be

present to some extent and is a reflection of the opposition between subject-centred and

child-centred views of education. What is remarkable is how little research evidence


there is to support the arguments on either side. The official literature is full of

exhortation and assertions but these do not appear to be built on sound evidential

foundations. International data on education and training systems does exist, but is not

always in forms which allow any simple comparisons between countries, far less to

answer very specific questions about the impact of specialist teaching. Most studies are

relatively small scale and suggestive rather than conclusive. They suggest differences

between the attainments of pupil’s in different countries, but they are much less useful for

explaining the causes of those differences. The best the researcher can say from that data

is that the case for the effectiveness of subject specialist teaching at primary level does

not appear to be supported as such a model of subject sharing appears to be favoured by

the majority of upper class teachers. There might be disagreements, however, about the

best ways of doing it, and when one considers the interests on non-specialists, other

criteria must be thought of as well. This will influence the way in which the subject is

understood and used, but they are many temptations to make neither elaborations nor

comparisons of context and thus generates some serious errors and blunders.

5.5 RECOMMENDATIONS

A model of subject sharing be implemented as specialization seems not suitable

for all classes and be rolled as well to special schools.

To implement specialization there is need to review our policy Revised National

Policy Education so that we do not quote it ‘we walk the talk’. The other review

is to look at the Primary Management Manual of (2000) which clearly states the

Job Purpose of a teacher as well as duties of specialists’ teachers (see page 26)

Revised National Policy Education supports specialization.

The specialist subject teacher should be equipped with prerequisite skills

(techniques, behaviour problems and methodologies used at special class) so as to

teach in a main stream class.

Having noted how much workload is realized with Languages, I think the

Department may consider either increasing the number of teachers for this area or

exempting the concerned Senior Teacher from teaching, thus bringing effective

and efficient monitoring of the exercise since he covers the entire school for these


two subjects. Specialization in languages be separated to a void workload for

teachers at school level.

As per a recommendation of RNPE, which recommends teacher /pupils ratio 1:35

be implemented this recommendation should be speed up.

There should be specialization personnel who are specially hired for this program

because specialization needs close monitoring. All teachers in Primary schools be

trained on subject specialization at Diploma, Degree and Masters level.

A balance be made when specialised teachers are posted to primary schools.

Primary school certificate be phased out and those affected be allowed to pursue

Diploma or any higher education with relevancy in subject sharing.

More specialists’ teachers be hired so that teachers teach subjects they specialised

in to avoid generalised subject teaching.

Infrastructures be developed to carter for subjects’ specialisation i.e. laboratories,

resource rooms, multipurpose halls, libraries and field places.


REFERENCES

Alexander, R., Rose, J. and Woodhead, C. (1992), Curriculum Organisation

and Classroom Practice in Primary Schools. London: Department of

Education and Science.

Ball, S. (1995) ‘Education, Majorism and the “Curriculum of the Dead”’ . In: Subject

Learning in the Primary Curriculum.

Best, W.J., and Kahn, V.J. (2006). Research in Education (8th

ed). Boston: Library of

Congress.

Bose, K., and Tsayang, G. (2005). ‘Availability and Utilization of information and a

case of Southern Region of Botswana’- Pula Botswana journal of African

Studies. Vol No. 19. Issue. No. 32.

Broadfoot, P., Osborn, M. Planel, C. and Sharpe, K. (2000). Promoting Quality in

Learning: Does England Have the Answer? London: Cassell.

Campbell, J. (1992). ‘Class teaching: the nightmare at Key Stage 2’, Junior

Education.

Campbell, R.J. (1994). ‘Knowledge, Ignorance and Primary Teaching’: an

essay-review of Learning to Teach’, Teaching and Teacher Education.

Chipeta, P.D.and Mannathoko, C.E. (1996).Teaching Practice Evaluation.Macmillan:

Gaborone.

[email protected]://www.gov.bw/cgi-bin/news.cgi?d=20060303 as retrieved on 4

Feb 2008 21:33:18 GMT.

[email protected] as retrieved on 03 March, 2006

19:00 GMT.

DES (1978) Primary Education in England: A Survey by Her Majesty’s

Inspectors of Schools. London: HMSO.

Dobbs, S.M. (1986) ‘Generalists and Specialists: Teaming for Success’, Design for Arts

in Education.

Edwards, A. (1992) ‘Preparation for Subject Specialist Consultancies in British Primary

Schools’, Journal of Education for Teaching.vol.2

EIS (1999) ‘Overwhelming support for primary specialist education’, Scottish

Educational Journal.vol.7

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.gov.bw/cgi-bin/news.cgi?d=20060303

mailto:[email protected]


EURYDICE (1994). Pre-School and Primary Education. Brussels: EURYDICE:The

Information Network on Education in Europe.

<http://www.eurydice.org/Documents/preschool_n_primary/en/covpe1en.htm>

EURYDICE (1995) Structures of the Education and Initial Training Systems in the

European Union. 2nd ed. Brussels: EURYDICE: The Information

Network on Education in Europe.

<http://www.eurydice.org/Documents/Struct/en/struct.htm>

EURYDICE (1996). Supplement to the Report on Pre-School and Primary

Education: The Situation in Austria, Finland, Sweden and the EFTA/EEA

Countires (Iceland and Norway). Brussels: EURYDICE: The Information

Network on Education in Europe.

<http://www.eurydice.org/Documents/ps_supplement/en/covpe2en.htm>

EURYDICE (1997). Supplement to the Study on the Structures of the Education and

Initial Training Systems in the European Union: The Situation in Bulgaria, the

Czech Repbublic, Hungary, Poland, Romania and Slovakia.Brussels

EURYDICE: The Information Network on Education in Europe.

<http://www.eurydice.org/Documents/Struct/en/peco/peco.htm>

EURYDICE (1999). Supplement to the Study on the Structures of the Education and

Initial Training Systems in the European Union: The Situation in the Three Baltic

Countries (Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania), Slovenia and Cyprus.

Brussels: EURYDICE: The Information Network on Education in Europe.

<http://www.eurydice.org/Documents/Struct/en/Baltic/Baltic2.pdf>

Galton, M. and Moon, B. (eds.) (1994) Handbook of Teacher Training in

Europe. Issues and Trends. London: David Fulton Publishers, for the

Council of Europe.

Gay, L.R, .and Airasian, P. (2003), Educational Research Competencies for analysis and

Applications. New Jersey: Merrill Prentice-Hall.

Glaser, R. (1995) ‘Expert knowledge and the processes of thinking’ . In:

Subject Learning in the Primary Curriculum. (Murphy, P., Selinger, M.,

Bourne, J. and Briggs, M., eds.) London; New York: Routledge.

Hargreaves, L., Comber, C. and Galton, M. (1996). ‘The National Curriculum: Can


Small Schools Deliver?’ British Educational Research Journal vol.no.5

International Bureau of Education (IBE) (1999) World Data on Education.

<http://www.ibe.unesco.org> Accessed: 29 February 2008 19:36 GMT.

Kerger, L. (1998) ‘School Failure in Luxembourg’, European Journal of

Teacher Education.

Lous, C.and Manion, L. (1994). Research Methods in Education. London: Routledge.

Lous, C.and Manion, L. (2000). Research Methods in Education. London: Routledge

Mahlmann, J. J., Hope, S. and Krakora, J. (eds.) (1986) ‘Controversy. Who

Teaches: Specialist, Generalist, Visiting Artist’? Thematic issue of the journal

looking at the roles of generalist teachers and arts specialists in arts

education.http://wwwcsteep.bc.edu/TIMSS1/TIMSSPDF/astimss.pdf

Makhila. A. S, (1998), Factors Contributing to Primary School Leaving Examination

Poor Performance.Kasane Education Centre:Kasane

Moon, B. (1998). The English Exception? International Perspectives on the

Initial Education and Training of Teachers. (UCET Occasional Papers, 11.) :

Universities Council for the Education of Teachers.

<http://wwwcsteep.bc.edu/TIMSS1/TIMSSPDF/amtimss.pdf>

Musaazi,J. C. S(1982). The theory and Practice of Educational Adminisration-

Studies In Nigerian Education.Lagos:Macmillan

Nwangwu, N. A. (1978). Primary School Administration. London: Macmillan Publishers.

OFSTED (1993) Curriculum Organisation and Classroom Practice in Primary

Schools: a follow-up report. London: Department for Education.

OFSTED (1994). Primary Matters. London: HMSO.

OFSTED (1997). Using subject specialists to promote high standards at Key

Stage 2: an illustrative survey. London: OFSTED.

Olson, A.K. (1992). ‘In Praise of the Classroom Teacher’, Science and

Children, (January)

Olson, G.B. (1986). ‘Partnerships for Arts Education: The Learners’ Advocate’,

Design for Arts in Education.

Planel, C. and Osborn, M.; Broadfoot, P. and Ward, B. (eds.) (1998). A Comparative

Analysis of English and French Pupils Attitudes and

http://wwwcsteep.bc.edu/TIMSS1/TIMSSPDF/astimss.pdf


Performance in Maths and Language. London: Qualifications and Curriculum Authority.

Available on the Internet at <http://www.scre.ac.uk/scot-

research/hallinitial/index.html>

Republic Of Botswana (1994). Revised National Commission of Education: Government

Printer .Gaborone.

Republic of Botswana. (2003). National Development Plan 9:2003/4-2008/ 9- Ministry

of Finance and Development Planning. Botswana: Government Printers,

Gaborone.

Republic of Botswana (2001). Translating Vision 2016 into reality through curriculum

change .Government printer: Gaborone

Republic of Botswana (1994). The Revised National Policy on Education-Government

paper No.2 of 1994:

Republic of Botswana (1997). Long Term vision for Botswana-Towards Prosperity for

all. Government printers, Gaborone.

Wiersma, W. and Jars, S. (2005). Research Methods in Education- an Introduction- 8th

.

Boston: Pearson Education.


APPENDIX 1

University of Botswana

Private Bag 0022

Gaborone

___/____/2008

The School Head

……………………………………………….

……………………………………………….

………………………………………………

………………………………………………

RE: REQUEST TO CONDUCT AN EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH

As part of the Bachelor of Management requirements’ students are expected to carry out

an educational research. Request is therefore made to conduct an educational research in

your school.

Research Topic: Teachers’ perceptions towards subject specialisation by primary

school teachers-The case of implementing schools.

Yours Faithfully

Aggrey Sonny Makhila (Student)

ID NO: 200602782


APPENDIX 2 : QUESTIONNAIRE FOR TEACHERS

You are kindly requested to take time to go over this questionnaire and respond to all

questions. Do not write your name on this questionnaire, the responses will be treated

with utmost confidentiality.

TOPIC: Teachers’ perceptions towards subject specialisation in Botswana

Primary Schools-The case of North Region Pilot Schools.

Respond by placing a tick where appropriate.

SECTION A

NAME OF SCHOOL (optional). -----------------------------------------------------------------

1. Male [ ]

Female [ ]

2. Age group. 22-25 [ ]

26-30[ ]

31-35[ ]

36-40[ ]

41-45[ ]

46-50[ ]

51 and above [ ]

3. Teaching Experience.

0-5years [ ]

6-10years [ ]

11-15yers [ ]

16-20years [ ]

21years and above [ ]

4. Qualification.

Primary Teachers’ Certificate [ ]

Diploma in Primary Education [ ]

Bachelor of Education [ ]

Others (specify) -------------------------------------------------------------


APPENDIX 3 : Questionnaires for Teachers on Study-leave-UB

The items of the questionnaires should be answered using the answers provided

Strongly

disagree

--

Disagree

-

Neither

agree or disagree

0

Agree

+

Agree

strongly

++

Don’t

know

1)Specialist teachers has an advantage on the

attainment of primary school age children

2)Specialist teaching has an disadvantage on the


3)Generalist teaching has an advantage on the


4)Generalist teaching has disadvantage on the

attainment primary school age children

5)A generalist teacher gets to know pupils well and

can maintain a proper overview of the whole

educational experience of the pupils

6)A specialist get to know the pupils well

7)The specialist teacher brings the high level of

subject knowledge to their teaching

8)The generalist lacks subject knowledge

9)Generalist teachers works efficiently for a greater

number of schools

!0)Subject knowledge and higher quality teaching

are more likely to come from specialist than

generalist teachers

11) With the introduction of the new curriculum

there is the need for specialisation in certain

subject.

12)Teachers in primary schools are trained for

generalist class teaching


13)Few teachers in primary school teachers are

trained for specialist subject teaching

14)Generalist class teaching is appropriate of all

age levels

15)Specialist teaching is more appropriate for lower

primary school pupils

16)The facilities in primary school allow for the

implementation of specialist subject teaching

17)Resource constraints will limit the extent to

which subject specialist teaching can be

implemented in primary schools

18)Specialist subject teaching is more important for

teaching some subjects (e.g creative and

performing arts) than others (e.g science

,English,setswana e.t.c)


APPENDIX 5: Questionnaires for Primary School Teachers

The items of the questionnaires should be answered using the answers provided

Strongly

disagree

--

Disagree

-

Neither

agree or disagree

0

Agree

+

Agree

strongly

++

Don’t

know

1)Specialist teachers has an advantage on the


2)Specialist teaching has an disadvantage on the


3)Generalist teaching has an advantage on the


4)Generalist teaching has disadvantage on the

attainment primary school age children

5)A generalist teacher gets to know pupils well and

can maintain a proper overview of the whole

educational experience of the pupils

6)A specialist get to know the pupils well

7)The specialist teacher brings the high level of

subject knowledge to their teaching

8)The generalist lacks subject knowledge

9)Generalist teachers works efficiently for a greater

number of schools

10)Subject knowledge and higher quality teaching

are more likely to come from specialist than

generalist teachers

11) With the introduction of the new curriculum

there is the need for specialisation in certain

subject.

12)Teachers in primary schools are trained for

generalist class teaching


13)Few teachers in primary school teachers are

trained for specialist subject teaching

14)Generalist class teaching is appropriate of all

age levels

15)Specialist teaching is more appropriate for lower

primary school pupils

16)The facilities in primary school allow for the

implementation of specialist subject teaching

17)Resource constraints will limit the extent to

which subject specialist teaching can be

implemented in primary schools

18)Specialist subject teaching is more important for

teaching some subjects (e.g creative and

performing arts) than others (e.g science

,English,setswana e.t.c)

Any other comments

………………………………………………………………………………………………

………………………………………………………………………………………………

………………………………………………………………………………………………

………………………………………………………………………………………………

………………………………………………………………………………………………

………………………………………………………………………………………………

………………………………………………………………………………………………

………………………………………………………………………………………………

………………………………………………………………………………………………

………………………………………………………………………………………………

………………………………………………………………………………………………


APPENDIX 6: RESEARCH BUDGET

Research Problem

Stakeholders’ perceptions towards subject specialisation in primary school-The case of

piloting schools.

Name:Aggrey Sonny Makhila

ID No:200602782

Bank:First National Bank

Account No:57110081983

Stationary

4 pens,2 pencils, rubber, ruler,ream of A4 printing paper

and USB drive(memory stick)

Sub total P350.00

Transport charges

Gaborone to Parakarungu-Return Journey

two trips @ P240.00 per trip

Sub total P480.00

Typing charges

Questionnaire for teachers-2 pages @ P5.00X10 per page P100.00

Interview guide-2 pages [email protected] per page P120.00

Letters for seeking permission to conduct study-8 pages @P5.00 per page P40.00

Research Proposal [email protected] X60 Pages P300.00

Budget 2 pages a@ P5.00 P10.00

Final Report@P5 x 60 pages P300.00

Sub Total P870.00

Printing charges

Final Research Proposal @P3.00 x 60 pages P180.00

Final Research Project @P3.00 x 65 pages P195.00

Sub total P375.00

Photocopying charges

Final Research Proposal 2 copies @P3.00 X 60 Pages P180.00


2 letters for seeking permission to conduct a study P4.00

Budget Letter P 4.00

Sub Total P383.00

Binding charges



Binding 3 copies @P10.00 X 3 Copies P30.00

Sub Total P425.00


Meal allowance

Breakfast @P20.00 X 10 days P200.00

Lunch @P25.00 X 10 days P250.00

[email protected] X 10 days P200.00

Sub Total P650.00

Others

Telephone Calls P200.00

Sub Total P400.00

GRAND TOTALS P3258.00

TEACHERS' PERCEPTIONS TOWARDS SUBJECT SPECIALISATION BY PRIMARY SCHOOL TEACHERS 1 TEACHERS'...

Documents

Transcript of TEACHERS' PERCEPTIONS TOWARDS SUBJECT SPECIALISATION BY PRIMARY SCHOOL TEACHERS 1 TEACHERS'...