The results of this study revealed that some of the barriers that impinged on the mathematics teachers’ effective use of their knowledge of students’ learning styles were related to the curriculum. This section reports on the curriculum related barriers that were found in this study.
7.7.1 Data obtained from face to face interviews
Table 7.4 gives a summary of the curriculum related barriers to the mathematics teachers’ use of their knowledge of students’ learning styles and how the barriers affected the teachers’ use of their knowledge in mathematics teaching.
Table 7.4 Curriculum related barriers and how they affected the mathematics teachers’
use of their knowledge of students’ learning styles.
Curriculum related barriers
How they affected the teachers’ use of students’ learning styles
Frequency Percentage
Long syllabus The teachers rushed to cover the syllabus within the required time frame
6 40%
Number of written exercises expected by policy
Teachers became biased towards written exercises even when practical tasks were appropriate
8 53.33%
168
Frequent changes More time was taken to adjust to the new policies than to the teaching of mathematics concepts
7 46.67%
Dictated curriculum
Activities set in the intended syllabi did not match the learning styles of the students
5 33.33%
Long syllabus
Six of the mathematics teachers complained that they were failing to teach their students according to the students’ preferred learning styles because they needed to cover long syllabuses within given time. Information shared by the mathematics teachers was that the mathematics syllabus they were following was too long to be covered during the time stipulated by the syllabus. According to them, they needed enough time to cover all the compulsory topics in the syllabus. As a result of this, they failed to get enough time to individualise their instruction in order to cater for their students with varying learning styles.
Ms BT1 explained this point by saying:
“Time required for us to cover the mathematics syllabus makes it difficult for us to teach each and every student according to his or her learning style. It is only possible for us to individualise our teaching instruction to suit the learning styles of our students when we have enough time to do so. In most cases we use lecture method not because it is the best method of teaching but because we need to cover large ground within a short space of time. We expect the students to assist each other after lessons or to seek more help from other sources.”(Ms BT1, pers.comm.).
Policy on number of written exercises to be given to students per week
The mathematics teachers who took part in this study pointed out that a policy that stipulated the number of written exercises to be done by students per week was also a form of barrier to their use of their knowledge of students’ learning styles in mathematics teaching. The teachers said that the policy stipulated that they were supposed to give one written exercise per day to their students from Monday to Friday. On top of these exercises, a revision exercise was expected per every fortnight. According to the teachers, the policy indirectly
169
forced them to avoid practical exercises and maintain a bias on written exercises in order for them to meet the standard required on written work. The teachers explained that although they maintained a bias towards written exercises, they were fully aware that they were doing a disservice to some of their students who preferred practical tasks to written exercises. The following was a sentiment from one of the mathematics teachers:
“A circular on written exercises states that I should give a written exercise each day from Monday to Friday. That means when my supervisor inspects my books he expects to see five written exercises in each week. Failure to meet the required standard means I may be deemed incompetent. As a result I give more written exercises than practical exercises so that I safeguard myself and my job.”(Mr ET1, pers.comm.).
Frequent changes on policies
Seven of the mathematics teachers (46.67%) who participated in this study felt that frequent changes in education regulations, policies and curricula contributed towards creating mismatches between their teaching styles and the learning styles of their students. One of the teachers said:
“While adjustments to the curriculum help schools to keep pace with the fast changing world, they need to be done properly and within reasonable time. If not done well it causes confusion to the learners and their teachers. More time is wasted by the teachers and their students studying the new syllabi or curriculum than in the actual learning of the students.”(Ms BT2, pers.comm.).
The interviewer probed Ms BT2 to give examples of the policies that she thought were imposed on them without considering the time factor. The following was her response to the interviewer’s question.
“For instance we recently received a written instruction that the curriculum has changed with immediate effect. Students are now expected to do practical projects during the secondary school ordinary level course as part of their examination requirements. Personally I feel that it needs time for students and teachers to adjust to these requirements before the policy comes into effect.
170
Abrupt changes are normally associated with problems.”(Ms BT2, pers.comm.).
Dictated syllabuses
Five mathematics teachers blamed the syllabus they were following for their failure to utilize their knowledge of students’ learning styles. The teachers felt that the mathematics syllabus was imposed on them without them making an input. They also felt that the syllabus was compiled without carrying out thorough research on how students learn. The teachers thought that the ideas that were used to compile the syllabus came for non practising teachers who had lost touch on the modern trends in mathematics education. Some of the mathematics teachers even suggested that in future curriculum developers should comprise teachers in the field of teaching and not those who retired from work or those who were promoted to other duties other than teaching. The following points were shared by two of the mathematics teachers during interview sessions.
“Syllabuses that are developed by people who are no longer teaching mathematics have problems in terms of fully assisting the students to learn. The tasks that are set in the syllabus that we are using right now have bias towards certain classes of learners. The tasks were supposed to be balanced so that students of varying talents and interests are kept challenged. In fact, serious consultation should be done before coming up with such documents.”(Mr FT1, pers.comm.).
“Some students are good at solving non-routine problems. However, most of the activities stated in the current mathematics syllabi do not give the students an opportunity to practise solving non-routine problems. It is the same to the use of research in mathematics. Modern learning should be done through research. The syllabus does not emphasis on use of research in mathematics learning.” (Mr CT1, pers.comm.).
7.7.2 Data obtained from observation
Data obtained through observation revealed that the mathematics teachers had a newly introduced curriculum framework which had been produced by the Ministry of Primary and Secondary Education in Zimbabwe. This was the framework that some of the mathematics
171
teachers thought had brought more problems than solutions to them. They complained that the government through its Ministry of Primary and Secondary Education developed the curriculum framework without consulting them. They felt they were an indispensable stakeholder and had better knowledge of how students learn than the people who developed the framework they were following. According to them, the concepts and the assessment criterion set in the mathematics syllabi under this framework did not consider the diverse nature of their students. They thought that the assessment criterion was not varied enough to challenge students of different learning styles. The teachers also complained that tasks suitable for students with certain learning styles were omitted.
As pointed out earlier in this report, data obtained through observation revealed that the mathematics teachers who participated in this study overused the lecture method. The use of lecture method and other rote methods of teaching was caused by the mathematics teachers’
need to rush through their syllabus since they needed to complete it within specified timeframe. The researcher observed that the mathematics teachers used teacher centred strategies in order for them to cover as many concepts as they could within short space of time. This was however done at the expense of some of the students in the teachers’ classes.
In other words, the teachers concentrated more on covering the syllabus than on ensuring that their students understood the concepts they taught.
7.8 Sub question 4: Socio-economic barriers to the mathematics teachers’ effective use