“TEACHER” AS A COMMONPLACE, II
If one is considering the introduction of a different way to teach something, be it in terms of content or how the content is taught, an initial question one should consider is: how willing is the affected teacher corps to cooperate with that change? That is: if those teachers are introduced to a new perspective or construct in the teaching of government and civics, will they “play” along with what is introduced?
Obviously, there would have to be a certain level of instruction – in the form of in-service training – which would introduce the construct and give teachers, in a non-threatening setting, a chance to work on the proposed changes by developing or adapting appropriate lessons. Generally, teachers should be given the opportunity to deal with the construct’s assumptions and elements.
A key element of the proposed construct, the liberated federalism model, would be its reliance on higher level thinking instruction – beyond recall and superficial application. This shift by itself can cause a significant challenge and yet there is more. With its call for a significant change of perspective in its content from a strong individual view to a communal one, this can be quite transformative.
There has been a long line of writers addressing this concern. For example, of recent efforts, Rahama Zayid Al-Yahyaie, et al. point out the elements of this challenge[1] and Joseph J. Onosko, back in 1991, gives his readers a good overview of it.[2] Onosko outlines a list of barriers that could make the adoption of the proposed model difficult.
The barriers are:
A prevailing view among teachers that teaching is basically narrowly defined by the practitioners as transmission of knowledge.
A perceived duty among teachers of most secondary courses is to cover the course content broadly and superficially (what this blogger sees as covering a course’s textbook).
A generally accepted estimation that students can meet only low expectations.
A belief that large numbers of students in a classroom make reflective teaching exceedingly difficult.
There is a prevailing lack of teacher planning time.
And a prevailing culture of teacher isolation that precludes collaborative efforts among teachers and which makes successful higher order thinking instruction initiatives have a limited effect on other teachers.
These negative characteristics can be crucial in attempting to institute the kind of fundamental change called for in this account. These are the same barriers, though, that would meet any attempt to reform curricular offerings in which the materials call for reflective thinking.
Such interaction is essential to learning, according to Zayid Al-Yahyaie, et al. But this does not lessen the burden, nor the obstacles, of trying to convince teachers that what is offered is viable and in their best interests and that of their students, their community, and their nation.
[1] Rahma Zayid Al-Yahyaie, Mohd Mokhtar Muhamad, and Hussain Ali Alkharusi, “Barriers to Teaching Higher Order Thinking Skills to EFL School Learners: A Systematic Review,” International Journal of Academic Research in Progressive Education and Development, 11, 2 (2022), 784-801.
[2] Joseph J. Onosko, “Barriers to the Promotion of Higher Order Thinking Social Studies,” Theory and Research in Social Education, 19 (1991), 341-366.
