Teachers' Voice in Zambia

Jianhua Luo,Gift Muyunda

doi:10.46966/ijae.v2i3.164

Abstract

Curriculum Development in Zambia is highly centralized, with the Curriculum Development Center (CDC) being charged with developing the curriculum through consultative and participatory approaches through the course and subject panels where teachers are engaged. Nevertheless, there has been no empirical evidence to show how teachers are actively involved in the development process. This study aimed to investigate the phenomenon of teachers' involvement in the curriculum development process in Zambia. This study was qualitative and used a case study design approach. Data was collected using a semi-structured interview guide from secondary school teachers and headteachers. Raw data were collected through semi-structured interview forms from secondary school teachers and headteachers. The researcher analyzed the data using MAXQDA qualitative software to identify initial codes and generate emerging themes quickly. The results showed that secondary school teachers were dissatisfied with the present way of curriculum development, which insignificantly neglects them, and also, the majority of them have never participated in the development of the curriculum. Further, the results revealed that most of the secondary school teachers in Lusaka were willing to participate at any stage of the curriculum development in Zambia. This study concludes by arguing that secondary school teachers are significantly neglected to participate in the curriculum development in Zambia and recommends that the Ministry of General Education (MoGE) broaden the scope of secondary school teachers' participation in the curriculum developed through the Curriculum Development Center (CDC).

Highlights

Any curriculum designed becomes real when it is adapted to the classroom
This study concludes by arguing that secondary school teachers are significantly neglected to participate in the curriculum development in Zambia and recommends that the Ministry of General Education (MoGE) broaden the scope of secondary school teachers' participation in the curriculum developed through the Curriculum Development Center (CDC)
T1, highlight that; The Curriculum Development Center (CDC) does not involve the public at the grassroots; the development is done from the top, and teachers are only told what to do, and implementation becomes difficult sometimes because teachers were involved in the development process

Summary

Introduction

Any curriculum designed becomes real when it is adapted to the classroom. teachers need to interpret the curriculum correctly to succeed (Kubitskey & Fishman, 2006). Alsubaie (2016) emphasized that teachers' active participation in curriculum planning is limited, and teachers are regarded as curriculum implementers whose role is to adapt the official curriculum to their classroom. Teachers are the primary practitioners in developing curriculum (Munazza, 2004) It is not clear if teachers in Zambia are provided with enough opportunities to contribute or to fully participate in the curriculum development process because curriculum development in Zambia is highly centralized, with Curriculum Development Centre (CDC) being the central government institution charged with the responsibility of developing the curriculum through the course and subject panels. The study aimed to explore teacher involvement in the curriculum development in Zambia through the following specific research questions; (1) to what extent were secondary school teachers involved in secondary school curriculum development? (2) What were the challenges that secondary school teachers encountered when implementing the curriculum with or without their involvement in the development process? Based on the literature above, this study was guided by the theoretical framework based on the curriculum development and diffusion theory which highlights that for any curriculum development model to become practical, and the teacher has to be at the center of the model irrespective of their limitations (Lawton, 1973)

Objectives

Methods

Results

Conclusion