History teachers’ pedagogical reasoning and the dynamics of classroom implementation in Ghana

Introduction

Over the last few decades, there has been a growing acceptance that students should be positioned as the developers of their own knowledge and understanding (see, for example, Power et al., 2019; Sharan, 1990). This conception shifts teaching from teachers as transmitters of knowledge to a student-oriented, constructivist outlook in which students take an active role in their learning. Research suggests that best practice in history teaching involves encouraging students to progress in their search for historical knowledge in order to attain understanding of concepts and acquire useful intellectual and practical dispositions (Wineburg, 2001). To this end, researchers have made repeated calls for history teachers to involve students in activities and processes that allow for active engagement with the discipline (Lee, 2011). Given the crucial roles that history teachers play in interpreting and implementing education policies and curricula, it is important that they possess strong foundational knowledge of pedagogy and translate such understandings into their decisions and activities to encourage students’ understanding of history. Hence, teachers’ reasoning about their teaching, their decision making and instructional reflections – that is, their pedagogical reasoning, as well as their pedagogical practices – present valuable opportunities for ongoing research. This paper explores how secondary history teachers in Ghana reason about their pedagogy and implement their classroom practices, and evaluates the extent to which these resonate with the constructivist-oriented recommendations in Ghanaian history curriculum documents.

Positioning Ghana’s senior secondary history curriculum within constructivism

The educational theory of constructivism regards knowledge as developmental, subjective and internally built, and socially and culturally negotiated (Fosnot, 1996). Constructivist teachers organize content and purposeful learning activities, and provide direction and support to enhance knowledge construction. The theory of constructivism is applicable to a range of school subjects; its relevance to history is well documented (see, for example, Knupfer, 2013). For instance, studies show that small group discussions, classroom debates and brainstorming present students with opportunities to use historical vocabulary and concepts, attain higher levels of reasoning and develop historical empathy (Perrotta, 2018; Van Boxtel and Van Drie, 2009).

In Ghana, history has been a fringe subject over the last three decades following the 1987 educational reforms, which saw history lose its privileged position as a core subject in schools. The current secondary history curriculum, which has been in operation since September 2010, covers a set of chronologically sequenced themes that reflect multiple perspectives on Ghana and Africa from prehistoric times to 1991. The curriculum encourages teachers to aim at enhancing students’ understanding of the relevance of their learning. Emphasis is placed on discipline-specific skills such as sourcing, corroboration, and context-based analyses and interpretation of evidence (Ministry of Education, 2010). Teachers are encouraged to guide students to locate, analyse and interpret multiple sources of historical evidence through activities such as projects, role play, class discussion, experiments, investigative study and field trips (ibid.).

Consequently, the training and assessment of history teachers are based on a range of criteria, including source analysis and interpretation, which are aimed at building their self-efficacy to implement constructivist practices in schools.

This paper reports on the following research questions:

1. How do history teachers reason about their pedagogy?

2. Do teacher practices align with constructivist principles?

3. What is the relationship between these teachers’ stated pedagogical reasoning and classroom practices?

Conceptual framework

Debates on the sources and forms of teacher knowledge have raged for a long time, centring on issues such as the nature of knowledge, its mode of acquisition and growth, forms of representation, and the theory–practice divide in educational practice (Barton and Levstik, 2004). Shulman (1987) argues that pedagogical content knowledge is a model of pedagogical reasoning for teaching that embraces a dynamic amalgam of content, procedural and pedagogical dispositions on which teachers’ practices must be based. Underlying this model of pedagogical reasoning is the idea that teaching starts with a reason, a process of reasoning, and climaxes in the performance of activities and a rethinking of the process (Shulman, 1987). This means that teachers grasp an idea, probe further to understand the idea, and transform it into a form that is intelligible to students.

Early application of the pedagogical reasoning and action model to history showed that wise practitioners in history drew knowledge from a range of sources, alternated between different models of teaching, and exhibited a deep understanding of their professional practices (Wineburg and Wilson, 1991). Several other researchers have subsequently sought to delineate frameworks on teacher knowledge and competence in history (see Heuer et al., 2017; Husbands et al., 2003). For instance, Heuer et al.’s (2017) recent Heidelberg Model for Competence in History Teaching emphasizes the importance of the intersection of knowledge and expertise for effective history teaching. Husbands et al. (2003) identify three forms of knowledge bases that are deployed by history teachers: knowledge about history; knowledge about students; and knowledge of practices, resources, and activities that facilitate learning. A common thread in these various approaches to teacher knowledge is that expert practitioners possess strong disciplinary and pedagogical frames with which to transform knowledge and engage students in interesting and meaningful ways.

From the discussions about the sources and models of teacher knowledge, it is argued that effective practice in history involves an interplay of three factors. These are disciplinary reasoning (deep understanding of the subject, its foundations and purposes), pedagogical reasoning (purposeful and reflective mental and physical planning, instructional goals, purposes and decisions) and pedagogical activities (implementation and mediation of activities and tasks in the classroom). While disciplinary reasoning is widely recognized as fundamental to history teaching, this study focuses on teachers’ pedagogical reasoning and classroom practice. Findings relating to aspects of participants’ disciplinary reasoning have been published elsewhere (see Boadu, 2020). Figure 1 proposes how pedagogical reasoning and classroom practice interact to enhance understanding.

Figure 1:

Hypothetical interaction between teacher reasoning and practice

Pedagogical reasoning is employed in this study to explain how teachers think and rethink their teaching and make important decisions about their lessons. It is conceptualized as the middle ground of the pedagogical process and the centre of the nexus between meaning and practice. The hypothesized relationship, as shown in Figure 1, is that teachers’ pedagogical reasoning could influence their pedagogical practice and that pedagogical practice can impact on students’ understanding. However, this interaction between reasoning and practice may not be linear, owing to the impact of mediating factors including curriculum structures, context and teacher orientation to pedagogy. Neither can it be argued that the relationship would ensure optimal levels of understanding in all cases. Nevertheless, based on previous research (see, for example, Bennett, 2014), it is assumed that this interaction can result in positive learning experiences and outcomes.

Lesson planning and decision making

Research shows that expert teachers exhibit the trait of effective and organized planning as it offers the opportunity to analyse how goals and teacher competence are articulated and activated (Farrell, 2013). In history education, planning is argued to be a complex task that requires teachers to balance content and its significance, depth and outline, approaches to enquiry, and learning activities (Byrom and Riley, 2003).

Notwithstanding the importance of lesson planning, strict adherence to highly structured lesson plans could constrain creativity and flexibility to accommodate unplanned and unexpected situations in the classroom (Byrom and Riley, 2003). Research shows that experienced teachers reject strict lesson plan requirements as unproductive, forceful and dishonest; instead, they favour the use of flexible formats (Shaw, 2017). Hence, making room for adjustments in response to classroom realities is an important consideration when planning and implementing lesson plans. Nevertheless, the difference between planned lessons and classroom reality could constrain planning efforts. Studies show that teachers spend less time on physical lesson planning, or give up physical lesson planning at some stage in their careers, because their actual classroom practices often differ from planned activities. However, they hardly approach lessons without some form of mental planning (Farrell, 2002, 2013). Given the unpredictable elements of classroom teaching, it is reasonable to consider lesson plans as records of teacher–student interaction and not a final action plan.

Methods

Findings

Discussion

Planning, teaching and reflection on teaching are inextricably interconnected and essential for professional practice evaluation for improvement. Participants’ pedagogical reasoning highlighted their recognition of the importance of planning in determining what students can achieve in history. Their use of the curriculum as a planning guide for instructional purposes was not unexpected, as teachers’ practices have been noted to be influenced by curriculum standards that are often determined by state or central governments (Grant, 2003). The adaptive interpretation of the curriculum is representative of an explanatory theory that is suited to Burston’s (1954) topic method approach to teaching history. Loyalist participants who adopted an exclusivist approach to topics orient towards a uniqueness approach to history by which events are treated without connecting them to other events or topics (Evans, 1994). Even though this study did not investigate the practical benefits of any approach to curriculum use, adaptivist participants indicated that the approach helped to achieve student understanding. Therefore, it can be argued that adapting the curriculum makes it possible to contextualize teaching and learning by considering prevailing instructional variables. Kingsford, for instance, stated: ‘The syllabus may recommend that some topics come first, but per the level of the students, it may be necessary to bring it second or third.’

This finding highlights the situatedness of teaching. That is, even though teachers are expected to implement the curriculum as designed, these participating teachers felt empowered to modify the curriculum to suit their classroom conditions and students’ needs. However, the limited attempts in the classroom at curriculum modification show that even though perspectives on the approach to curriculum interpretation and use differed among participants, the majority of them taught the curriculum topics as designed and were, consequently, conformist in practice. Their conformist approach to the curriculum was further limited as most of them did not implement the recommended constructivist practices. This could be connected to the highly structured nature of school education in Ghana, and to the possible fear of not meeting accountability and high-stakes examination requirements. Teaching that is closely aligned to the prescripts of the curriculum topics is indicative of participants’ sense of accountability to educational stakeholders for curriculum delivery, an approach that Barton and Levstik (2004) observe as being common in history education.

Even though participants mentioned that they prepared lesson plans, it was surprising that not all of them undertook written lesson planning, as teachers in Ghana are professionally required to have written lesson plans for every lesson they teach. This raises concerns about participants’ commitment to this important professional requirement for teaching in Ghana. The absence of written lesson plans by most participants perhaps suggests that since participants were experienced history teachers (with an average of six years of teaching experience) they operated using a tacit form of understanding of what was needed in their teaching as a result of theoretical and practical expertise acquired from years of practice. For example, some participants noted that they did not prepare lesson plans because they had been teaching the same content for several years. This revelation aligns with the observation that as teachers gain expertise, they draw practical knowledge from their experience and work with mental forms of planning (Farrell, 2002). Research also shows that teachers did not worry about planning lessons because the actual classroom teaching tended to diverge from their planned lessons (Farrell, 2013). The few cases where participants implemented unplanned activities support the finding that teachers drew from experience and tacit knowledge, indicating that unplanned pedagogy could become useful in the classroom. The few participants who prepared lesson plans and schemes of work did not implement their plans in the classroom. This indicates that the few cases of lesson planning were aimed at addressing school and professional demands rather than improving classroom practice. Rene, for instance, confessed during the in-depth interview: ‘It is just for formality sake. They come and inspect it.’ Perhaps the strict requirements for lesson planning compelled these participants to present something for the records. This is similar to the finding that strict requirements for planning led to teachers falsifying their lesson plans in order to satisfy the demands of education administrators (Shaw, 2017). Incomplete, inconsistent and inaccurate planning decisions and record keeping mean that the conduct and progress of history teaching are not accurately represented to school authorities and supervisory bodies. The result is a lack of alignment between educational innovation and classroom reality – since information about practice often informs policy priorities and decisions made by teachers, school administrators and curriculum planners.

Participants acknowledged students’ existing world views of history, and recognized that participatory methods such as group discussions, class presentations, source analysis and visits to historic sites are desirable in history teaching, yet only a few utilized such methods in their teaching. Perhaps the few participants who used participatory approaches drew from the curriculum, which recommends the use of such constructivist methods. However, the generally content-focused nature of lessons among participants contradicted their interview responses that they frequently employed a variety of student-centred, enquiry-based teaching strategies. Some participants indicated support for using narrative methods to introduce unfamiliar topics. Yet, given that most of the topics taught by participants during the lesson observations concerned issues to which students could relate – such as the traditional economy, social and political organization, social developments and independence issues – the use of narrative approaches undermines such an explanation. Despite the argument that acquisition of substantive knowledge is fundamental to domain-specific conceptual understanding, and should therefore be introduced first before procedural concepts (Lee, 2011), participants’ emphasis on content, with little focus on associated activities and skills, hinders the attainment of discipline-specific dispositions. Even though elements of constructivism existed so far as taking into account students’ experiences was concerned, there was a lack of clear, consistent adoption of a disciplinary structure or constructivist orientation in the way participants planned and carried out their teaching of history. Perhaps, through their narrative approach to history, participants sought to teach the best stories as grand narratives to enhance the collective memory, as some researchers have observed (Ahonen, 2017).

The foregoing discussion reveals that participants’ perception of history teaching differed significantly from their actual approach to teaching the subject. Factors accounting for this gap – aside from the role of experience and tacit knowledge, which have already been discussed – are mainly related to limited logistical provisions, the overcrowded nature of the history curriculum, and accountability requirements. In terms of logistical provisions, there were not sufficient resources for the teaching of history. Paucity of resources such as internet, maps, charts, computers and overhead projectors in the participating schools suggests lack of access to materials of historical and pedagogical utility to support teaching. The majority of participants indicated their willingness to use such resources, if they were available. For instance, Rene said she could use her personal projector, if there was electricity connection in the classroom: ‘If we had access to electricity in the classroom, I could bring some projectors to class.’ It is therefore highly likely that the absence of these teaching resources informed the widely used didactic approach to the teaching of history. As Albert noted: ‘I am not happy to be using the lecture method all the time. There are many things we need in order to teach well.’

The overcrowded nature of the history curriculum and formal accountability requirements provide further explanation for the reasoning–practice gap. There were indications that the curriculum was overloaded with topics (the history curriculum outlines 22 units to be completed within a three-year period), which compelled teachers to seek quick curriculum coverage through didactic methods, rather than implementing activities that could enhance enquiry and understanding. The detail expected from these units made constructivist teaching of these topics within the allotted period problematic for participants. Evidence from the in-depth interviews attests to this difficulty; Jake, for example, stated: ‘I do not think any history teacher can complete the syllabus within three years. I am often compelled to talk to students, sometimes using the lecture method.’ This finding suggests that unlike traditional methods, constructivist pedagogy is time-consuming and does not facilitate quick curriculum coverage. Further, because there were high expectations regarding teacher accountability, measured by high student achievement, the most straightforward way around this dilemma for participants was to attend to content coverage. Boniface indicated: ‘If they [students] acquire only the skills in history and they do not finish the syllabus, and hence, they are not able to pass well, … I, the teacher, will be questioned.’ Other factors could also contribute to the disparity between teacher reasoning and classroom practice; the possible explanations provided by other variables in analysing the approach taken to history teaching by participants could be the object of a further research undertaking.

Results-based refinement of the reasoning–practice relationship

Based on the sources and forms of teacher knowledge, it was hypothesized that teachers’ reasoning about their pedagogy may influence how they implement their classroom practices (see Figure 1). The study found a lack of consonance between pedagogical reasoning and classroom practices. Despite the different interpretations of the curriculum, most participants were loyalist in implementing the curriculum topics, even though their teaching approaches deviated from the constructivist recommendations of the curriculum. Indications of the importance of lesson planning, and recognition of the applicability of active, participatory teaching methods to history, reflected constructivist theory, but were found not to be widely used. Evidence from this study suggests that the teachers’ reliance on experience and tacit knowledge, the need to cover a vast curriculum in a limited time, and the pressure to achieve high student performance in high-stakes examinations were key to this discrepancy. Following the findings of this study, an adjustment to the initial construct is presented in Figure 2.

Figure 2:

Revised relationship between teacher reasoning and practice

Generally, the results of this study do not support earlier findings that teacher conceptions influence their approach to teaching (Bennett, 2014; Wineburg and Wilson, 1991). The revised construct therefore redefines the relationship between teacher reasoning and practice.

Conclusion

This study has explored Ghanaian history teachers’ reasoning about their pedagogy, their teaching practices and whether they were consistent with constructivist principles, and the relationship between their reasoning and practice. Findings demonstrate that theory and rhetoric do not always translate into actual practice in classrooms. The classroom community of enquiry is built around the dynamics of knowledge of students, and knowledge of the subject and its pedagogical applications and representations (Shulman, 1987). Teachers’ possession of this body of knowledge is the necessary prerequisite for meaningful classroom experiences for students in history. Participants demonstrated an understanding of constructivist history pedagogy. However, the generally didactic approach to classroom practice implies that they could not transform such understandings into meaningful structures for students’ understanding, as a result of constraints imposed by curricular and accountability demands, resource limitations, and tacit knowledge and experience. In effect, the enduring understanding that results from the empowerment of students to construct meaning for themselves could become elusive. Teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge (Shulman, 1987) is therefore an important area to develop, since it could determine how they mediate the curriculum, approach their teaching and influence students’ understanding. Further, addressing the factors that account for the gap between teacher reasoning and practice is essential to improving history teaching in Ghanaian schools. For history teaching in Ghana to achieve meaningful ends for students, teachers need workable systems, favourable conditions, and a clear educational direction to be developed and operationalized at the national policy level, as well as at the school and classroom level.

Notes on the contributors

Gideon Boadu recently completed his doctoral studies in education at the University of Newcastle, Australia. Dr Boadu’s research applies constructivist epistemology to teaching, dwelling particularly on the nexus between teacher understandings, classroom practice, professional development and curriculum specifications. Gideon is currently a research assistant in the School of Education at the University of Newcastle.

Debra Donnelly is a senior lecturer in history education in the School of Education at the University of Newcastle, Australia. Dr Donnelly’s research interests centre on the role of the visual and media in the development of historical consciousness in an age of ever-increasing access through modern technology. She is a founding member of the HERMES (Historical Experience, Representation, Media, Education and Society) research group and an editor of its journal, Historical Encounters.

Heather Sharp is an associate professor in the Faculty of Education and Arts at the University of Newcastle, Australia. Her research investigates historical representations, particularly about topics of significance to a nation’s history. Heather is a founding member of the HERMES research group. She is convener of the History Network for Teachers and Researchers (HNTR) and the special issues editor of the journal Historical Encounters. Heather is currently a recipient of a Swedish Research Council grant with Ammert, Edling and Löfström that investigates the intersections of historical consciousness and moral consciousness.