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
TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS TOWARDS SUBJECT SPECIALISATION BY PRIMARY SCHOOL TEACHERS 1
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
TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS TOWARDS SUBJECT SPECIALISATION BY PRIMARY SCHOOL TEACHERS 2
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
TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS TOWARDS SUBJECT SPECIALISATION BY PRIMARY SCHOOL TEACHERS 3
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.
TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS TOWARDS SUBJECT SPECIALISATION BY PRIMARY SCHOOL TEACHERS 4
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.
TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS TOWARDS SUBJECT SPECIALISATION BY PRIMARY SCHOOL TEACHERS 5
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.
TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS TOWARDS SUBJECT SPECIALISATION BY PRIMARY SCHOOL TEACHERS 6
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
TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS TOWARDS SUBJECT SPECIALISATION BY PRIMARY SCHOOL TEACHERS 7
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
TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS TOWARDS SUBJECT SPECIALISATION BY PRIMARY SCHOOL TEACHERS 8
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
TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS TOWARDS SUBJECT SPECIALISATION BY PRIMARY SCHOOL TEACHERS 9
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
TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS TOWARDS SUBJECT SPECIALISATION BY PRIMARY SCHOOL TEACHERS 10
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
TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS TOWARDS SUBJECT SPECIALISATION BY PRIMARY SCHOOL TEACHERS 11
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
TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS TOWARDS SUBJECT SPECIALISATION BY PRIMARY SCHOOL TEACHERS 12
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.
TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS TOWARDS SUBJECT SPECIALISATION BY PRIMARY SCHOOL TEACHERS 13
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.
TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS TOWARDS SUBJECT SPECIALISATION BY PRIMARY SCHOOL TEACHERS 14
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.
TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS TOWARDS SUBJECT SPECIALISATION BY PRIMARY SCHOOL TEACHERS 15
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.
TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS TOWARDS SUBJECT SPECIALISATION BY PRIMARY SCHOOL TEACHERS 16
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;
TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS TOWARDS SUBJECT SPECIALISATION BY PRIMARY SCHOOL TEACHERS 17
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.
TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS TOWARDS SUBJECT SPECIALISATION BY PRIMARY SCHOOL TEACHERS 18
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
TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS TOWARDS SUBJECT SPECIALISATION BY PRIMARY SCHOOL TEACHERS 19
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.
TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS TOWARDS SUBJECT SPECIALISATION BY PRIMARY SCHOOL TEACHERS 20
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.”
TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS TOWARDS SUBJECT SPECIALISATION BY PRIMARY SCHOOL TEACHERS 21
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.
TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS TOWARDS SUBJECT SPECIALISATION BY PRIMARY SCHOOL TEACHERS 22
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
TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS TOWARDS SUBJECT SPECIALISATION BY PRIMARY SCHOOL TEACHERS 23
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
presented in table 2.
Table 2: Disadvantages of content attainment among pupils
Frequency Percent
Valid
Percent Cumulative Percent
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.
TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS TOWARDS SUBJECT SPECIALISATION BY PRIMARY SCHOOL TEACHERS 24
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
presented in table 3.
Table 3: Advantage by Generalist teachers
Frequency Percent
Valid
Percent Cumulative Percent
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...
TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS TOWARDS SUBJECT SPECIALISATION BY PRIMARY SCHOOL TEACHERS 25
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
Percent Cumulative Percent
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.
TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS TOWARDS SUBJECT SPECIALISATION BY PRIMARY SCHOOL TEACHERS 26
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.
TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS TOWARDS SUBJECT SPECIALISATION BY PRIMARY SCHOOL TEACHERS 27
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
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
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.
TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS TOWARDS SUBJECT SPECIALISATION BY PRIMARY SCHOOL TEACHERS 28
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
Percent Cumulative Percent
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.
TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS TOWARDS SUBJECT SPECIALISATION BY PRIMARY SCHOOL TEACHERS 29
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
Percent Cumulative Percent
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.
TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS TOWARDS SUBJECT SPECIALISATION BY PRIMARY SCHOOL TEACHERS 30
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
Percent Cumulative Percent
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.
TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS TOWARDS SUBJECT SPECIALISATION BY PRIMARY SCHOOL TEACHERS 31
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
Percent Cumulative Percent
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.
TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS TOWARDS SUBJECT SPECIALISATION BY PRIMARY SCHOOL TEACHERS 32
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
presented in table 11.
Table 11: New curriculum
Frequency Percent
Valid
Percent Cumulative Percent
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.
TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS TOWARDS SUBJECT SPECIALISATION BY PRIMARY SCHOOL TEACHERS 33
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
Percent Cumulative Percent
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.
TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS TOWARDS SUBJECT SPECIALISATION BY PRIMARY SCHOOL TEACHERS 34
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
Percent Cumulative Percent
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.
TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS TOWARDS SUBJECT SPECIALISATION BY PRIMARY SCHOOL TEACHERS 35
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
Percent Cumulative Percent
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.
TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS TOWARDS SUBJECT SPECIALISATION BY PRIMARY SCHOOL TEACHERS 36
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
Percent Cumulative Percent
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.
TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS TOWARDS SUBJECT SPECIALISATION BY PRIMARY SCHOOL TEACHERS 37
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
presented in table 16.
Table 16: Infrastructure in Primary schools.
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
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.
TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS TOWARDS SUBJECT SPECIALISATION BY PRIMARY SCHOOL TEACHERS 38
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
Percent Cumulative Percent
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.
TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS TOWARDS SUBJECT SPECIALISATION BY PRIMARY SCHOOL TEACHERS 39
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
Percent Cumulative Percent
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.
TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS TOWARDS SUBJECT SPECIALISATION BY PRIMARY SCHOOL TEACHERS 40
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
TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS TOWARDS SUBJECT SPECIALISATION BY PRIMARY SCHOOL TEACHERS 41
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
TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS TOWARDS SUBJECT SPECIALISATION BY PRIMARY SCHOOL TEACHERS 42
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
TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS TOWARDS SUBJECT SPECIALISATION BY PRIMARY SCHOOL TEACHERS 43
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
TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS TOWARDS SUBJECT SPECIALISATION BY PRIMARY SCHOOL TEACHERS 44
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.
TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS TOWARDS SUBJECT SPECIALISATION BY PRIMARY SCHOOL TEACHERS 45
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
TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS TOWARDS SUBJECT SPECIALISATION BY PRIMARY SCHOOL TEACHERS 46
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
TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS TOWARDS SUBJECT SPECIALISATION BY PRIMARY SCHOOL TEACHERS 47
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
TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS TOWARDS SUBJECT SPECIALISATION BY PRIMARY SCHOOL TEACHERS 48
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.
TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS TOWARDS SUBJECT SPECIALISATION BY PRIMARY SCHOOL TEACHERS 49
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
TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS TOWARDS SUBJECT SPECIALISATION BY PRIMARY SCHOOL TEACHERS 50
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) -------------------------------------------------------------
TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS TOWARDS SUBJECT SPECIALISATION BY PRIMARY SCHOOL TEACHERS 51
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
attainment of primary school age children
3)Generalist teaching has an advantage on the
attainment of primary school age children
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
TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS TOWARDS SUBJECT SPECIALISATION BY PRIMARY SCHOOL TEACHERS 52
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)
TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS TOWARDS SUBJECT SPECIALISATION BY PRIMARY SCHOOL TEACHERS 53
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
attainment of primary school age children
2)Specialist teaching has an disadvantage on the
attainment of primary school age children
3)Generalist teaching has an advantage on the
attainment of primary school age children
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
TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS TOWARDS SUBJECT SPECIALISATION BY PRIMARY SCHOOL TEACHERS 54
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
………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………
TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS TOWARDS SUBJECT SPECIALISATION BY PRIMARY SCHOOL TEACHERS 55
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
Final Research Proposal 2 copies @P3.00 X 65 Pages P195.00
2 letters for seeking permission to conduct a study P4.00
Budget Letter P 4.00
Sub Total P383.00
Binding charges
Final Research Proposal 3 copies @P3.00 X 60 Pages P180.00
Final Research Proposal 3 copies @P3.00 X 65 Pages P195.00
Binding 3 copies @P10.00 X 3 Copies P30.00
Sub Total P425.00
TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS TOWARDS SUBJECT SPECIALISATION BY PRIMARY SCHOOL TEACHERS 56
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
Top Related