review-of-the-literature-on-basic-education-in-nigeria-june-2014-3-1

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Review <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>literature</strong> on basic education in Nigeria4.3.5 Teachers’ and parents’ views on <strong>the</strong> medium <strong>of</strong> instructionThe evidence on teacher and parental preference, which is more extensive, is more mixed. Ejieh’s (2004)study <strong>of</strong> second- and third-year student-teacher attitudes in a predominantly Yoruba-speaking college <strong>of</strong>education in Osun State noted how, although <strong>the</strong> majority recognised that teachers could express<strong>the</strong>mselves better in <strong>the</strong>ir mo<strong>the</strong>r tongue and pupils could understand better and would find lessonsmore interesting, <strong>the</strong> vast majority (85%) were adamant <strong>the</strong>y would not engage in mo<strong>the</strong>r-tongueteaching after finishing <strong>the</strong>ir training, even though almost half said <strong>the</strong>y were willing to undergo trainingthat would enable <strong>the</strong>m to do so. Most respondents also displayed popular misconceptions aboutmo<strong>the</strong>r-tongue teaching, believing that it negatively affects pupils’ ability to learn English, and that <strong>the</strong>irsubject could not be taught through a Nigerian language (see also Salami 2008). Tellingly, over 60%thought that mo<strong>the</strong>r-tongue teaching would degrade <strong>the</strong> teaching pr<strong>of</strong>ession.Ango et al.’s <strong>review</strong> (2003, cited in Akyeampong et al. 2009) also highlights teacher and parentalpreference for English-only tuition, even at pre-school level (see Ajayi 2008). In particular, Englishmediumteaching is associated with private schools (and by implication higher-quality teaching) andwith better socio-economic opportunities (Ejieh 2004; Osokoya 2004; Salami 2008) and higher prestige.In a study <strong>of</strong> parental preference in selected schools in <strong>the</strong> South West, Osokoya (2004) found that <strong>the</strong>majority <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> respondents (66.7%) preferred English, irrespective <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> language <strong>of</strong> interaction athome. One school inspector in Salami’s (2008) study explained that it was precisely because <strong>of</strong>competition for enrolments in English-medium private schools in <strong>the</strong> area that <strong>the</strong>y were actuallyencouraging teachers to teach in English from Primary 1, contrary to government policy. Additionally,Salami (ibid.) noted how <strong>the</strong> government <strong>of</strong>ficials interviewed were generally in favour <strong>of</strong> Englishmediumschooling.However, parental attitudes can vary. In Sunal et al.’s (2003) study <strong>of</strong> parental and teacher attitudes toschooling (taking 80 teachers and 80 parents from <strong>the</strong> South West, South East and <strong>the</strong> north), allparents thought children could learn better in <strong>the</strong>ir home language. Similarly, in Amadi’s (2012) study inurban Enugu, <strong>the</strong> majority <strong>of</strong> both teachers and parents (all ‘educated’) chose a bi-literate systeminvolving code-switching and code-mixing over mo<strong>the</strong>r-tongue teaching and English as <strong>the</strong> MOI(although <strong>the</strong> latter came a close second with parents), ahead <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> current transitional bilingual policy.A large-scale survey <strong>of</strong> 1,500 literate parents and 1,000 primary teachers randomly sampled from across<strong>the</strong> country were asked about <strong>the</strong>ir perceptions <strong>of</strong> mo<strong>the</strong>r-tongue teaching, while <strong>the</strong> teachers werealso given a short questionnaire on <strong>the</strong> practical constraints <strong>of</strong> teaching in <strong>the</strong> mo<strong>the</strong>r tongue (Iyamuand Ogiegbaen 2007). Over 70% <strong>of</strong> parents and teachers agreed with <strong>the</strong> statements that mo<strong>the</strong>rtongueteaching helped bridge <strong>the</strong> home and school experiences <strong>of</strong> young children and that it allowedilliterate parents to better support <strong>the</strong>ir children’s learning at home. A similarly high percentage <strong>of</strong>parents thought that early learning in mo<strong>the</strong>r-tongue education can make learning less traumatic forchildren, whereas only around half <strong>of</strong> teachers were <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> same view. Crucially, however, only 54.3% <strong>of</strong>teachers and 41.5% <strong>of</strong> parents thought that children learned better in <strong>the</strong>ir mo<strong>the</strong>r tongue. Yet <strong>the</strong>separental views were ra<strong>the</strong>r at odds with <strong>the</strong>ir views on <strong>the</strong> later statement that early use <strong>of</strong> English as<strong>the</strong> MOI posed learning difficulties for pupils; 80.2% <strong>of</strong> parents agreed with this whereas a moreconsistent 40.5% was posted for teachers. More nuanced qualitative research might help unravelpeople’s <strong>of</strong>ten contradictory feelings toward <strong>the</strong> MOI. Finally, as regards teachers’ views on <strong>the</strong> possibleconstraints <strong>of</strong> mo<strong>the</strong>r-tongue teaching, <strong>the</strong>y agreed with eight out <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> 10 items with <strong>the</strong> highest level<strong>of</strong> agreement (just under 80%) accorded to <strong>the</strong> statements about <strong>the</strong> lack <strong>of</strong> necessary teachers trainedin mo<strong>the</strong>r-tongue teaching and <strong>the</strong> lack <strong>of</strong> instructional materials in Nigerian languages.EDOREN – Education Data, Research and Evaluation in Nigeria 39
Review <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>literature</strong> on basic education in Nigeria4.3.6 ‘Mo<strong>the</strong>r-tongue’ teaching for marginalised groupsIn contrast, <strong>the</strong> case for mo<strong>the</strong>r-tongue teaching is more widely requested and accepted in relation to<strong>the</strong> inclusive education <strong>of</strong> minority and/or marginalised ethnic groups (Usman 2006; Coinco 2012; Littleand Lewis 2012), as evidenced in <strong>the</strong> large-scale implementation <strong>of</strong> nomadic schools for Hausa-Fulaninomadic pastoralists in nor<strong>the</strong>rn Nigeria. Greater parental commitment to formal schooling has beendemonstrated when learning and teaching materials are in Fulfulde (see McCaffery et al. 2006; Usman2006).O<strong>the</strong>r studies have also reported positive reactions for minority ethno-linguistic groups when a teacherhas been employed who speaks <strong>the</strong>ir language(s) (Little and Lewis 2012), although in <strong>the</strong> case <strong>of</strong> Hausa-Fulani children learning in a separate class with a Fulani teacher in standard government schools <strong>the</strong>yalso caution against reinforcing <strong>the</strong> group’s isolation from o<strong>the</strong>r cultures and languages. In Sunal et al.’s(2003) study half <strong>the</strong> parents and all <strong>the</strong> teachers noted that children from ethno-linguistic minoritieswere discouraged from completing school because <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> lack <strong>of</strong> opportunity to learn in <strong>the</strong>ir firstlanguage. A few parents from minority linguistic groups involved in <strong>the</strong> study confirmed that <strong>the</strong>y hadnot enrolled <strong>the</strong>ir children in school because <strong>the</strong> exclusion <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>ir language made <strong>the</strong>m feeldisconnected from <strong>the</strong>ir culture. In ESSPIN-supported states, SBMC and o<strong>the</strong>r community membershave shown some awareness <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> need for fur<strong>the</strong>r recruitment <strong>of</strong> minority-language speakers in orderto improve excluded minorities’ participation in schooling (Little and Lewis 2012; Pinnock 2012).However, <strong>the</strong> same authors note <strong>the</strong> general absence <strong>of</strong> discussion among SBMC members aboutEnglish as <strong>the</strong> MOI being a barrier to learning more generally, speculating that it may be because <strong>the</strong>ysee it as being outside <strong>the</strong>ir remit (ibid.), although it may also be because <strong>the</strong>y believe that learning inEnglish necessarily equates with better learning <strong>of</strong> English.4.4 Teaching methodsThe interaction between teachers and learners lies at <strong>the</strong> heart <strong>of</strong> educational quality. Put ano<strong>the</strong>r way:What teachers do, or do not do, are able or not able to do, are willing, or not willing to do, what <strong>the</strong>y doproperly or poorly determines, to a great extent, <strong>the</strong> effective curriculum (what pupils learn) (FME 2011a:60).Improvements to infrastructural facilities are almost meaningless without good-quality teaching, whichdepends, to a large extent, on <strong>the</strong> quality <strong>of</strong> interaction between teacher and pupils. The national policyon education states that one <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> goals <strong>of</strong> primary education is to ‘lay a sound basis for scientific andreflective thinking’ and <strong>the</strong>refore to aim for teaching that uses ‘practical, exploratory and experimentalmethods’ (FME 2004a: 14–15). However, classroom observations overwhelmingly show that traditionaldidactic methods persist for a variety <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> reasons explored below.There are few available empirical studies that have focused on <strong>the</strong> quality <strong>of</strong> classroom teaching,although two large-scale, primarily quantitative classroom-based studies reveal similar patterns andcome to similar conclusions about pedagogy. Hardman et al. (2008) conducted a video-based analysis <strong>of</strong><strong>the</strong> classroom IRF (initiation–response–feedback) sequence in Primary 6 Maths, English and Sciencelessons, and a more detailed discourse analysis <strong>of</strong> some lessons accompanied by 59 teacherquestionnaires in a sample <strong>of</strong> 20 primary schools, from 10 states, mainly in <strong>the</strong> north. The baselinesurvey for classroom teaching and learning practices in <strong>the</strong> five ESSPIN states (Davison 2010) comprisedsystematic observations quantifying behaviours in over 1,000 Maths and English lessons in over 500public primary schools and JSSs. In addition, Adekola’s (2007) syn<strong>the</strong>sis report summarises findings fromclassroom observations from various national studies. The 2004 ESA also interviewed large numbers <strong>of</strong>teachers and pupils about teaching methods, although <strong>the</strong>re were no reports <strong>of</strong> observational studieswith which to compare <strong>the</strong> interview data (FME 2005).EDOREN – Education Data, Research and Evaluation in Nigeria 40
Page 1 and 2:
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ON BASICED
Page 3 and 4:
Review of
Page 5 and 6:
Review of
Page 7 and 8:
Review of
Page 9 and 10:
Review of
Page 11 and 12:
Review of
Page 13 and 14:
Review of
Page 15 and 16: Review of
Page 65: Review of
Page 117 and 118:
Review of
Page 119 and 120:
Review of
Page 121 and 122:
Review of
Page 123 and 124:
Review of
Page 125 and 126:
Review of
Page 127 and 128:
Review of
Page 129 and 130:
Review of
Page 131 and 132:
Review of
Page 133 and 134:
Review of
Page 135 and 136:
Review of
Page 137 and 138:
Review of
Page 139 and 140:
Review of
Page 141 and 142:
Review of
Page 143 and 144:
Review of
Page 145 and 146:
Review of
Page 147 and 148:
Review of
Page 149 and 150:
Review of
Page 151 and 152:
Review of
Page 153 and 154:
Review of
Page 155 and 156:
Review of
Page 157 and 158:
Review of
Page 159 and 160:
Review of
Page 161 and 162:
Review of
Page 163 and 164:
Review of
Page 165 and 166:
Review of
Page 167 and 168:
Review of
Page 169 and 170:
Review of
Page 171 and 172:
Review of
Page 173 and 174:
Review of
Page 175 and 176:
Review of
Page 177 and 178:
Review of
Page 179 and 180:
Review of
Page 181 and 182:
Review of
Page 183 and 184:
Review of
Page 185 and 186:
Review of
Page 187 and 188:
Review of
Page 189 and 190:
Review of
Page 191 and 192:
Review of
Page 193 and 194:
Review of
Page 195 and 196:
Review of
Page 197 and 198:
Review of
Page 199 and 200:
Review of
Page 201 and 202:
Review of
Page 203 and 204:
Review of
Page 205 and 206:
Review of
Page 207 and 208:
Review of
Page 209 and 210:
Review of
show all

review-of-the-literature-on-basic-education-in-nigeria-june-2014-3-1

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?