ORF and
CHAPTER 6: DIRECT OBSERVATION IN THE CLASSROOM
L: Everybody knows he is HIV positive
My argument is not founded on the learner's answer, but from this extract that one can see that the learners did not have any limit to answer teacher's question. He could have said more than he did. The lesson L2BP can be coded F+ because of learners reacted freely to teacher's questions. The teacher accepted learner's questions about homosexuality and antiretroviral, but he decided himself to answer aiming to gain time.
Through the questioning-answer approach that the teacher used, learners had a little control over the pacing of instructional knowledge. Learners were freely allowed to ask questions. Here is an example.
T: Do you have another question? (Silence). If there is no one question, I am going to ask some questions about what we were saying.
In school PBV, there was also variation in pacing from the same teacher. I coded the lesson L1BV F+. In L1BV the pacing was very strong at the beginning of the lesson and at the end. At the beginning learners were not motivated and the teacher had to use a technique to wake them up. Allez ...Allez (go on...go on). During discussions, students worked at their own pace during the 10 minutes. Very strong pacing was shown in students' reports "Any question or comment? Okay. Just one question to pass to the last group because we do not have enough time ...don't waste our time") and through the following example:
T: Pass t o g roup t hree. Be brief, the time i s short. Two m inutes t o go. T ry t o summarize.
However, the students in their discussion were given most of the time allowed for the lesson. Even during learners' discussions the teacher responded to any learners' enquiries without formal control. I coded this lesson F+. In the lesson L2BV the teacher
orchestrated every activity through questioning- answer method, and instructed learners on appropriate personal attitudes. In term of pacing I coded L2BV F++.
It emerges from these lessons that the pacing differs only from teachers' methods. For example, in the case of expository method, as for example LI BO, the pacing was very strong. But in the case of group discussions the pacing became weaker, for example in L1BV.
6.2.2.2 Hierarchical rules
Two categories of hierarchical rules can be distinguished. The first category is the extent to which both teacher and learners have control over the order, character and manner.
The second is the extent to which learners have control over each other in terms of conduct and relationships. As we saw above, spaces between teacher- learners were demarcated in the classrooms.
The teacher's place most of the time was on the platform, e xcept one case from six lessons (L1BV) in which group discussions were used and some cases when learners were invited to go to the blackboard.
Teacher-learner relations
Teacher's positional control marked teacher-learners' relationships. The Rwandan social structure, consciously or unconsciously, creates a certain distance between adult and child. This cultural mentality has repercussions on school structure. For this reason, all six lessons I observed were coded F+. Indeed, in those lessons, only in one case where the learners managed their books, all learners performed certain routines and disciplinary norms (F~). The teachers did not interact physically with learners (F++) and learners did things in the classroom in response to instructions from the teacher (F+).
Learner-learner relations
In the three schools, students did not move from their seats. In the way in which learners interacted with one another, they were never given directions from the teacher on how to behave towards one another (F~), except for the one case that the teacher recommended
learners to avoid laughing at peer's incorrect answers (L2BO) or to answer when a particular student was questioned. The combination of F++ and F - - results in F+.
From the above description of the 6 lessons, one can conclude that the LI BO, L2BO, LIBP and L2BP had relatively weak external framing. The lessons LIBV and L2BV were more or less internally weakly framed. The lesson L2BV was mostly internally weakly framed only during the evaluation (Fi+) while the LIBV was so during nearly the entire lesson (+/-Fi-).
Table 6.3: Coded summary of the framing of the 6 lessons
Catego ries F r a m .
Rules
Disc, r u l e s
H i e r . r u l e s
C o n t r . over Select.
Seque.
P a c i n g T e a c h - l e a r n . L e a r n - l e a r n .
L 1 B O
F4+
F++
F++
F ^
F +
L 2 B O
F++
F++
F+
F++
F+
L I B P
F++
F++
F - F++
F+
L 2 B P
F+
F++
F+
F++
F+
L I B V
F+
F - F+
F++
F+
L2BV
F+
F+
F++
F++
F+
The above table shows us that the lessons of LI BO, L2BO and L2BP are very strongly framed. The lessons LIBP and L2BV were relatively strongly framed. The lesson LIBV is comparatively weaker than other lessons.
Schematically, comparative analysis shows that the lessons were taught differently. For example L2BO and LIBV, reveal that one is very strong while the other is weak.
Schematically, they can be represented as follows if in L2BO, F++ = 58%, F+ = 27%, F-
= 12.5% and F-- =12.5% and in LIBV F++ = 23%, F++ = 27%, F- =16% and F-- = 34%.
Figure 6.4: Framing of Lesson L2BO
60 50 40 30 20 10 0
n
;|-
—1
i
,n ,n ...
F++ F+ F- F--
Figure 6.5: Framing of lesson LIBV
35-rt 30 + 25 20 15 10-H
5
F++ F--
The lessons L2BP and LIBV had similar theme: 'Strategies of HIV/AIDS prevention', but their framings differ. In L2BP the F++ =46%, F+ = 25%, F- = 14%and F-- = 15%.
Schematically L2BP is represented like this:
Figure 6.6: Lesson L2BP
F++ F+ F-
The lesson LIBV is represented above (Figure 6.5)
Discussion
A general picture of the six lessons that I observed presents strong framing in terms of selection and sequencing. Teachers taught what they had read in the few available documents they possessed from the NGOs. Nevertheless, in one lesson that the teacher has conducted through discussion as its teaching method, the framing was weak.
As we saw, the Rwandan official pedagogic discourse is conceived in terms of discussions and synthesis, but most of the lessons did not follow that suggested approach. Different hypotheses that one can offer are the lack of teachers' training, teachers' habits in teaching Biology, and teachers' and learners' customary relations.
When analyzing different methodological indications that are contained in Chapter 3 of the Biology program (p. 36-38), where HIV/AIDS is incorporated into (Mineduc, 1996:37), the fact is that the teacher's role is to explain, illustrate, demonstrate, schematize and describe in the teaching/learning process. The students' role is also defined. At the end of the lesson the students should be able to explain, name, describe and to establish a comparison between ..., to name a few. It is in the same way that most of the lessons that I observed were taught in terms of very strong classification a nd framing.
To me very strong classification and framing of the diverse lessons I observed depended on teachers' methodological approaches and students' grouping in terms of gender.
From the six lessons that I observed, I firstly noticed two main methodological approaches: questions-answers and chalk- talk.
All teachers used questions- answers as a method to tackle different themes, except in the lesson L1BV where the teacher used group discussions. In my opinion, it is very important that teacher be equipped with various methods in HIV/AIDS teaching. Those methods can be role-play, games, brainstorming, mind mapping, discussions, case studies, field visits, group work, video and presentation by guest speakers. This list of methods has to be more or less strongly learner-centred to ensure that learners not only acquire knowledge but also transfer that knowledge to action.
The questions-answers method cannot on its own satisfy the three Ts' objectives of teaching: transmission, transaction and transformation. By transmission, understand that the teacher is a source of information as regards learners who are expected to get that information. Transaction implies a self-discovery method with the teacher acting as a guide to what is to be achieved. By transformation, I mean learners initiate their own learning activities to develop their attitudes and solutions to a given issue. In this situation the teacher becomes a facilitator.
My argument is that the questions-answers strategy is not sufficient to teach HIV/AIDS.
The reason is that the teacher plays a dominant role when the question and answer method is used. For instance the teacher sets the questions and the students directly answer those questions (Fraser, 1 990:157). The solution to the issue can b e found in Bernstein (1971). He argues that with the integrated code, there is a shift from content closure to content openness, from strong to markedly reduced framing. From the lessons that I observed, I found that teachers asked closed questions in what Fraser (p. 181) calls
"vertical discussions". Below are examples in extracts from the lessons L1BP and L2BV.
Example 1
T: D o you regularly see infected people? [...] How did the victim of HIV/AIDS