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.
