Three conditions the new curriculum must fulfil to succeed

The proposed education curriculum is intended to lay emphasis on originality and practicality.

Learners are expected “to think for themselves, solve problems, (and) enjoy learning.” (Daily Nation, March 31).

It must be understood that an education system (structure) such as 8-4-4 has little to do with how children learn.

The way children are taught depends significantly on the curriculum content and the examination system.

Every experienced teacher knows an examination system that requires facts, facts, facts (like in Charles Dickens’ Hard Times), quickly shapes the type of learning and teaching that takes place in the school system.

In general, teachers and learners use national exams to interpret the spirit of a given curriculum.

Education historians will hopefully acknowledge that the 8-4-4 system had more or less the same spirit as the proposed one (encouraging originality and practical education) but was derailed by examinations and requirements for exam preparations.

As we heap all the blame on the 8-4-4 system for our failures to implement its curriculum as per the intentions of its developers, let us assume the intended examinations will reflect the true spirit of the new curriculum.

Let us even hope that the intended continual (they say ‘continuous’) assessment system will take place in a corruption-free Kenya.

CHALLENGES

Let us, for now, focus on the challenges emanating from the conceptualisation of the curriculum content and especially the learning activities.

Every curriculum has implications for how the learners are to be taught, and every teaching method has time implications. A teacher is essentially a facilitator of learning.

Left alone, human beings can observe what goes on around them and learn something.

Indeed, much of what we regard as knowledge in our education system (Archimedes principle, law of gravitation, theory of evolution, etc.) has come from discoveries made in situations where observations are not teacher-aided.

However, this form of learning takes a lot of time, sometimes decades, even centuries.

In a classroom situation, teachers facilitate this kind of learning by organising lesson activities so as to lead the learners to discover (usually rediscover) targeted principles in a much shorter time (the duration of a lesson) than would happen in a natural setting.

This definitely creates a semblance of original thinking in classroom learning activities.

In principle, the discovery method (usually equated to the Socratic method – in honour of Socrates, the Greek philosopher who popularised it) is a great teaching method for preparing independent thinkers.

However, it is very time consuming. If, for example, a mathematics teacher (using appropriate practical activities) tries to guide learners to rediscover the Pythagoras theorem (involving the relations between the sides of a right-angled triangle), they must be prepared to deal with a situation in which the learners do not see it (the idea that the square on the hypotenuse equals the sum of the squares on the two shorter sides) within the duration (usually 40 minutes) of one lesson.

TELLING METHOD

To avoid this problem, many teachers use the telling method (derogatorily called the banking method) to shorten this procedure.

The telling method encourages memory, with little room for originality, but saves time.

This is the first challenge the developers of the new curriculum must address. Since teachers must complete the curriculum in a given time, how will they handle the uncertainties arising from the flexibility required in using the discovery method to promote original thinking?

The second challenge is related to the practical orientation of the proposed curriculum.

Practical work in classroom settings usually requires tools or equipment that the learners use to carry out a wide range of classroom activities.

For example, practical work in science subjects requires laboratory tools to be used for conducting experiments.

Even the simplest experiments will require equipment which most of our schools, especially at the primary school level, do not have.

At the moment, science education in most of our primary schools is all about remembering definitions of terms (e.g. photosynthesis) and properties of natural phenomena (e.g. the rainbow) and basic principles of physical and chemical processes.

It is all about saying and writing, not doing anything in the real world of science.

Needless to say, most of our primary schools would be completely stranded if science lessons required doing something practical.

Moreover, practical work in areas such as art and craft usually requires fairly expensive tools (hammers, saws, chisels, knitting needles, etc.).

This is the kind of challenge that created big problems for the 8-4-4 system.

LACK OF FACILITIES

It was not uncommon for children to go buying ready-made items (stools, sweaters, pottery, etc.) from experienced artisans to present as their own work.

This happened largely because many schools did not have the facilities to make art and craft a serious educational undertaking.

In the majority of cases, they did not even have rooms set aside for the practical activities required to make this kind of education meaningful.

God knows what we should expect in the area of agriculture since most of our schools have no space even for sports, let alone farming.

If we remain positive, and assume that by some magic the planners will provide the necessary time and tools, we still have to deal with the all-important question of how our teachers will be prepared for the new curriculum.

All our practising teachers were trained with the existing curriculum in mind.

They were not trained to encourage original thinking in the learners and did not themselves get a practical orientation in the way the subjects are learnt and taught.

Whatever beautiful ideas we have for the new curriculum, it must be remembered that the success of its delivery relies squarely on the shoulders of teachers.

One hopes there are plans and adequate resources for the in-servicing training of our teachers as an important part of preparation for the implementation of the proposed curriculum.

Whatever made the 8-4-4 system unworkable, a significant proportion of the problem is attributable to the fact that it was implemented in a hurry, without adequate regard to its requirements in relation to time, tools, and teachers. We cannot afford to make the same mistake again.

Prof Okombo teaches at the University of Nairobi [email protected]