CHAPTER ONE

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Overview

The research criticallyexplored teachers’ perceptions towards subject specialization by secondary

school teachers in few selected schools in Kasama district. This chapter provides the general
background information that sets the context of the research. The background is followed by the
statement of the problem under investigation, the purpose of the study, the significance of the
study, the research objectives and questions. The chapter also presents the theoretical framework
in which this study is situated followed by the definition of terms as they have been used in the
study.

1.2 Background

History of specialization traces its roots in England from where Zambia inherited teaching by
specialists’ teachers in both junior secondary and senior secondary schools. Previews of
researches were analyzed on comparative basis. The results from international surveys were
critically looked into. The basic question was ‘does subject specialist teaching have an impact on
the attainment of secondary school age children in Zambia Secondary schools?’

The Revised National Policy on Education for Zambia proposed that the society of Zambia needs
specialist subject teachers who are competent, knowledgeable and skilled to prepare learners
who are educated and informed who would face 21st century challenges without hesitation.
‘Subject specialist’ teaching has long featured in secondary education in many African countries
more specially Namibia and also in some European countries.

The practice tended to be in the form of the specialist teacher of art, music or physical education
taking a class for a period or so each week to supplement the teaching of the generic class
teacher, who was expected to cover all the ‘core’ subjects of the curriculum. These exceptions
were always in areas where, it was assumed, there was some innate ‘talent’ involved that some
teachers could not reasonably be expected to possess. (Planel et al: 1998).

1
Teachers themselves have been highly supportive of the assistance they receive from these types
of specialist (Planel et al: 1998).With the case of Zambia engaging specialist teachers depended
on the discretion by the school head in quest for better results and it was termed ‘semi
specialization’.

1.3 Statement of the Problem

This study will explore teachers’ perceptions towards subject specialization by secondary school
teachers in few selected schools in Kafue district.

1.4 Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this study is to get teachers’ views on subject of specialization in the secondary
school teachers. The researcher also intends to assess how knowledgeable teachers are in the
field of curricular subjects Moreover the study seeks to come up with suggestions that will help
teachers and other stakeholders to improve in the special subject deliver.

1.5 Research Objectives of the Study.

i. To examine the problem of subject specialization from the curriculum implementers.
ii. To establish the effects of subject specialization on learner performance.
iii. To find out the challenges and suggest solutions to subject specialization in primary
schools.
1.6 Research Questions
i. What is problem of subject specialization from the curriculum implementers?
ii. What are the effects of subject specialization on learner performance?
iii. What are challenges and solutions to subject specialization in primary schools?
1.7 Significance of the study

This study will help alert both the government, and citizens of Zambia on the development needs
of teaching by specialization towards the personal awareness level, intellectual and physical
development of the child.

Will also help the relevant policy makers on the evaluation of teacher education programmers
which will address issues of relevance and appropriateness to curriculum development and
delivery.

2
1.8 Limitation of the Study.

The study will be done in four Selected Schools in Kasama district hence results on this aspect
may not be generalized factors that may affect results.There were several limitations in the
execution of this study that prevented it from providing deeper analysis of the situation on the
ground.

The limiting factor was the scope of the study was confined to Secondary schools found in the
Geographical location of Kasama District. It was going to be more ideal if the study was carried
out at provincial or national level so as to include rural Public and Private secondary schools in
order to find out on the impact of issuing instructions in local language to pupils with the main
focus being advantages, challenges and opportunities.

Limited time in which the study was conducted became a challenge as it was done during the
time when the Researcher was working and preparing pupils for the final examination, which
required a lot of time to concentrate with the preparation thereby causing a tight schedule.

Lastly, Inadequate finances to cover the large costs which were encountered in the process of
developing instruments for collecting and analyzing data was another challenge the researcher
faced. In trying to address the problem of finances, the researcher had to twin schools that were
geographically positioned in order to achieve the limitation of transport, on the issue of meals
during collection of data and analyzing, she used to have packed meals in order to minimize on
food expenditures. However, the variance remained from food was used to cushion
accommodation and other logistics related to report writing.

1.9 Definition of Terms

Attitudes: A relatively stable cluster of feelings, beliefs, and behavioral predispositions that is
intentions towards some specific target

Generalisation: A state of being competent in several different disciplines, fields of study and or
activities.

3
Perception: The process of integrating and interpreting information about others so as to
accurately understand them.

Specialisation: Teaching that is limited to one or two subjects in the secondary school
curriculum opposed to teaching by one teacher of the entire subject in the timetable.

4
 CHAPTER TWO

LITERATURE REVIEW

2.0 Introduction

This chapter reviews the literature related to the perceptions of stakeholders towards subject
specialisation and also compile available information on challenges faced by teachers as
generalist in educating the learners. In particular the attitudes towards subject specialisms would
be investigated.

2.1 The Meaning of “Subject Specialisation”

Before commencing a study of specialisation, it is necessary to establish in what context the

word "specialisation" and its derivatives will be used within this-paper. "Specialisation" has
often been used to denote a substantial concentration of activity within a particular field of
practice. Alternatively and more significantly, it has been used to indicate competence or
expertise within the field. Concentration alone is not a satisfactory indicator of specialisation as
it does not necessarily produce competence or expertise, although this is the usual result. For
example, a teacher may devote a great deal of time to a particular area of teaching, yet still be
less proficient than another teacher who spends relatively little time in the same area.

The problem of arriving at a suitable definition is a difficult one, but rather than becoming
embroiled in a complex discussion of terminology, "subject specialisation" in this paper will be
used as a general term to include both concentration and expertise in terms of competency in the
subject matter. At the same time, individual work rhythms have been neglected and
psychological and pedagogical knowledge in the field of learning possibilities has been ignored
This segmentation can often only be bridged with great difficulty by the nevertheless necessary
mechanism of interdisciplinary. Of course, subject specialisation need not lead to ‘segmentation’
and ‘atomisation’ but it would be an ever-present success as the review would show.

2.2. Views about Specialisation

Policy on Education of 1994, make quite strong arguments against very strict
compartmentalization of subjects. Tabulawa (Gazette paper:18/03/2008) urges that; “subject

5
specialisation and compactalisation of subject should be avoided and every effort should be
made to establish linkages between the subjects in a holistic way. The argument is clear as the
move has been made to alter the curriculum in fundamental way, especially in the direction of
integration. The Ministry of Education is introducing specialised teaching in the secondary
level. The 1993 National Commission on education went around the country collecting views
from the general public on education issues. This culminated to the Report of the National
Commission on Education (1993).

Teachers and the general public are concerned about the quality of teaching and learning. This
concern emanates from unsatisfactory pass rate in Secondary school Leaving Examinations
which customers /stake holders to judge performance of Zambia secondary schools. Section
4.8.35 of this report reads, “One factor that both teachers and the general public consider to
affect the quality of teaching and learning at secondary level is the generalist teacher”.
According to the report this issue generated two views. One view favored specialization in
teachers ‘areas of greatest proficiency. The proponents of this view argued that this would
promote the quality of teaching critical areas like mathematics, Science and Practical subjects.
This appeared to enjoy the majority of the general public.

The second view was opposed to specialization and favored generalist teaching. The arguments
that supported this view were that specialization at secondary level could harm socialization and
progress of learners .They submitted that secondary school pupils needed to know and identity
with their teachers and who in turn should ensure that they progress through the curriculum.
Therefore in coming up with recommendation, the commissioners recommended that teachers be
allowed to specialize in subjects of their greatest proficiency and from the second view, the
commissioners considered the idea of pupils knowing and identifying with teachers. The other
view to this issue favoured generalist teaching. People who subscribed to this view questioned
the wisdom introducing of specialization at a formative stage of pupils’ learning. They argued
that the move could harm pupils’ socialization and progress. They further submitted that
secondary school children need to know and identify with their teachers and who in turn has to
ensure that they progress through an integrated curriculum rather than fragmented subjects taught
by different teachers.

6
As the custodian of secondary education, the Department of secondary education took charged
with the portfolio responsibility to implement this policy recommendation. The department
adopted the recommendation as one of its initiatives for improving quality of education in
secondary schools .The department of secondary education as a department charge with the
responsibility of quality assurance in secondary schools, concurs with the move that subject
specialization be introduced in secondary schools.

The department is convinced that if teachers specialize in their subjects of greatest proficiency,
there is a high probability of improving the quality of teaching and learning. Based on this
reasoning the Department of Secondary Education decided to take up the recommendation for
implementation. The department then deliberately came up with implementations of subjects’
specialization as one of its initiatives under the objective, “achieve quality of presecondary and
secondary education”.

2.3. Subject Specialists in England

The first official endorsement of more subject specialist teaching in secondary schools is found
in 1978 in Secondary Education in England through a Survey by Her Majesty's Inspectors of
Schools, (DES, 1978). This pre-dates the Education Reform Act (ERA) of 1988 by ten years.
However, it was this act, with its introduction of a National Curriculum in England and Wales,
which provoked further discussion of the deployment of subject specialists (Campbell, 1992)
which resulted from ERA when that the teacher was faced with teaching 'nine or ten National
Curriculum subjects. To differentiate teaching accordingly, and to cover the detailed curriculum
specifications embodied in the attainment targets for each subject and level, Campbell proposed
that a solution to this 'nightmare' was an increase in teaching by specialist teachers.

By the time that Campbell coined his memorable phrase (teaching by specialist teachers), the
idea of increased deployment of subject specialists had already been officially aired. Alexander
et al, 1992, introduced the classification of secondary teachers' roles as 'generalist class teacher',
'generalist / consultant', 'semi specialist ‘and 'specialist'. It recognised that the National
Curriculum made great demands on the subject knowledge of teachers. While it did not
recommend anyone model, it clearly implied that greater attention needed to be given to subject

7
specialism’s than had been the case previously. Almost immediately teacher education
institutions in England began to prepare students as subject’ consultants’ (Edwards, 1992).

The discussion paper provoked both responses (e.g. Thomas, 1992; Watkinson, 1992) and further
exposition of the ideas contained in it (Richards, 1994). The four OFSTED reports of 1993, 1994
and 1997) made it clear that using subject specialists in some way or other is now the ‘official’
practice which secondary schools in England are expected to adopt. There is very little analysis
of the problem and the proposed solution, and no independent research evidence to point to the
relative effectiveness of generic class teachers and subject specialists. The subject-based
National Curriculum was not to be argued with (Ball, 1995) and the problems which stemmed
from it were to be solved by following further the logic of a subject based curriculum.

Furthermore, In September 1998 the Universities Council for the Education of Teachers (UCET)
published their occasional paper on Subject Specialists -Secondary schools (Thornton, 1998)
which sets out to ‘give an insight into the nature of subject specialism’s in secondary schools; the
way in which the concept has developed over time; the ways in which it is understood and
interpreted by key players and the educational arguments for and against its adoption.

2.4. Views on Generalists Teachers

The review quotes Alexander et al’s (1992) classification of the secondary teacher’s role
(generalist class teacher; generalist / consultant; semi-specialist; specialist) and points out that
the image of the generalist class teacher teaching a fully-integrated curriculum is far from the
reality in most schools where teaching tends to be organised around subjects.

Nevertheless the advantages claimed for the generalist teacher were that she (or he) gets to know
the pupils well, and can maintain a proper overview of the whole educational experience of the
pupils, thus ensuring coherence and balance. The teacher as generalist /consultant appears to
work effectively for a great number of schools (Thornton: 1998).The debate about the
effectiveness of subject specialist teaching remains inconclusive. Thornton quotes official
pronouncements about the superiority of specialist teaching but points out that no evidence is
produced to support these assertions. It is by no means clear that subject knowledge and higher
quality teaching are more likely to come from subject specialists than from generalist class
teachers (or from those class teachers with either an Secondary low certificate

8
holders ,Secondary high certificate holders, degree holders There is a need to establish where
the differences lie, the underlying causes of the ‘good teaching’ cited and to relate them to the
level and source(s) of teacher knowledge before claims for subject specialist teaching can be
established. Hard evidence is needed, not assumption or assertion, (Thornton; 1998)

Thornton goes on to examine the implications of the debate for teacher status, initial teacher
education and deployment of staff. Her conclusion is that: The case against generalist class
teaching has not been satisfactorily made, and the evidence of the greater effectiveness of
proposed alternatives has been more asserted than presented. Poor or ineffective teaching is no
less, or more, likely to occur in subject specialist teaching than in generalist class-teaching and
what really matters is the quality of the teaching as a whole (Thornton: 1998).

There are two final issues regarding the staffing of secondary schools that invites discussion
and demand clear thinking-the question of specialisation and the duties of a teacher other than
that of actually teaching. (a) specialisation-it is almost everywhere accepted that the secondary
school teacher should be capable of imparting to his pupils all the skills, knowledge, and
attitudes which they are expected to learn and acquire. This is not because his work with his
pupils is so easy that one person can cover all aspects of it. On the contrary, as already argued,
his work calls for a higher degree of professionalism than in any other sector of the educational
system. The reason is the stage of maturity which his pupils have reached. The infants 6-8 years
are not yet ready for the division of knowledge taught separately by specialist teachers as is the
secondary schools. I have no doubt that from 9-12 years they can fully cope with teaching by
specialists, (Nwangu, 1978, p.87).

Truly secondary school pupils must be treated as whole persons; and their day-today personal
relations with a familiar (and hopefully liked and respected) teacher are crucial to their
development. This is why frequent changes of secondary school staff are so harmful. This
integrated approach through the medium of one teacher is much more important in the secondary
school than in the secondary school .Recently even in secondary schools, through the
introduction of integrated studies and team teaching, the integrated approach is gaining greater
recognition, (Musaazi, 1982).

2.5.Views on Specialists Teachers

9
The main advantage of specialist (or semi-specialist) teaching is that the subject specialist brings
a high level of subject knowledge to their teaching, and it is the lack of such subject knowledge
which is the main weakness of the generalist class teacher. Thornton (1998, p.364), points out in
passing that, the deployment of specialist teachers is that it is ‘extremely rare for secondary
schools to have sufficient teachers to cover, individually and with special expertise in the
National Curriculum subject.

We are therefore dealing with variations on a theme (or set of themes).Variations include the
length of the training, the amount of teaching practice demanded, the status of trainees
(employees or students) and the locus of control of the teacher education system. As we shall
see, it is only rarely that differences between systems of teacher education include subject
specialisation at secondary education level. The Revised National Policy on Education)
Republic of Zambia : 1994), may have argued that ‘teacher education in Europe offers a
fascinating natural laboratory for educational researchers to explore different ideas and
programmes, and the effects of different forms of training’, but in this instance the differences
may not really be so great.

10
 CHAPTER THREE

METHODOLOGY

3.1 Overview

This section described the methodology that was used in conducting the study. The chapter
comprised the following subheadings: research design, study sites, population, and sample
selection, research instruments, data collection procedures, and last but not the least data analysis

3.2 Research Design

A research design is a plan for conducting research which is implemented to attempt to find
answers to the researcher’s questions and, therefore, a response to a series of decisions about
how best to answer focused questions (Gall, Borg & Gall, 2003). The study incorporated a
descriptive design where both qualitative and quantitative techniques where engaged. The
descriptive design was used because the researcher wanted information about the respondent’s
perceptions, as well as attitude, views and habits .This was employed in order to make the
examination of data collected easy during analyzing process. The methodology adopted in this
research is a descriptive survey design which is a combination of quantitative and qualitative
approaches to investigate on the impact of issuing instructions in local language to pupils with
the main focus being advantages, challenges and opportunities, in Kasama District of Eastern
Province.
This approach was conducive because the collection of data was done at a minimal cost and
within the stipulated time.

3.3 Target Population

Target population is a group of potential participants to whom the researcher wants to generalize
the results of a study. The target populations for the study will be sixty (60) respondents
consisting of teachers, heads of departments and head teachers that will be drawn from four (3)
secondary schools from four (3) zones in Kasama District. Each school among the four (3) will
be randomly selected. The schools include; Kasama Boys secondary, Kasama Girls secondary,
Ituna secondary and MubangaChipoya secondary school.

11
3.4 Sample Size

The sample size will comprise of a total of twenty (20) respondents from each of the secondary
schools. That will give a total of sixty (60) respondents for the whole study. A probability
sampling method will be used to draw up twenty (20) members of the entire target population
from a randomly selected school and area in a given Zone in Kasama district so as to pretest the
research instruments

3.5Sampling Procedure

This is the method to be used to sample the people who would be responsible. Schools will be
sampled conveniently. Purposive sampling will be applied to the teachers. Purposive sampling
technique is a surrounding technique where by a researcher is interested in (Best and khan,
2006). Purposive sampling procedure will be used because these respondents have information
have that the researcher is looking for.

3.6 Research Instruments

3.6.1

Questionnaires

The researcher used composite questionnaires. The questionnaires had two sections: section A
had questions based on personal details and section B had questions based on professional
details.

A questionnaire was drafted, which served as a tool to carry out the research. The reason for
choosing the questionnaire method was because it had been generally considered as a reliable
tool to gather data from a diverse, scattered and varied group of people.

Obtaining information from a cross-section of people was an important objective and by using
the questionnaire, it rendered more possibilities in accomplishing this purpose. The design of the
questionnaire comprised of four closed ended questions. The design was incorporated because it
helped in achieving a greater uniformity of data. It was also important to ensure that
questionnaires were well planned and circumspectly constructed and this resulted in a high
response rate and aide in the summarization and analysis of data in better fashion.

12
The selection criteria for the questions posed to the respondents was driven by the four different
objectives identified for this study.

3.6.2 Focus group Interviews

A personal interview was used to collect secondary information from the selected sample. Data
collection was conducted through face-to-face interviews. There was open-ended questions to
which the selected sample was responding to. This allowed them to give their responses in
whatever format they chose. The researcher used the unstructured interview as it had the
advantage of being reasonably objective while still permitting a more thorough understanding of
the respondent’s opinions and the reasons behind them.

However, the secondary data was also included in the research which comprised of the research
literature, books, journals and many more, pertaining to the research area. The secondary data
was believed to help in analyzing the research topic from varied and critical viewpoints.

3.7 Procedure to Data Collection

The researcher will get permission from the university and from the school. The researcher will
further conduct face to face instructional interviews with the respondents from the two schools.
Interviews are verbal method of obtaining data. Ghosh (2011) defines interviews as a systematic
way by which a researcher enters imaginatively into a life of comparative stranger who has the
data that the researcher requires. Through this method the researcher gets direct and reliable data
from the source. The questionnaires will be administered to two schools: the head teachers,
teachers and learners.

3.8 Data Analysis

The study used a qualitative technique which refers to the case study method to successfully
explain the phenomenon under investigation .Quantitative analysis technique to analyze data
which involves using tables of frequencies and percentages (Struwig& Stead, 2007). Data were
analyzed quantitatively using tables of frequencies and percentages. On the other hand, closed-
ended items of data from the questionnaires were also analyzed quantitatively while the open-
ended items were done qualitatively.
3.9 Ethical considerations

13
The researcher employed the following research ethnics during data collection from the
respondents; this was cardinal as it helped the researcher to create good rapport during research
the process these include;

• The researcher respected the participants in that they were not being exploited. This
entails that, people were not used simply as a means to achieve research objectives but valuing
the participants through being given an opportunity to choose time when the researcher would go
to and collect the questionnaires.

• Justice was another principle the researcher used during the research process, there was
fair distribution of risks and benefits resulting from research to those who took an active role in
the research were the ones who shared the benefits of the knowledge obtained.

• The researcher also acknowledged the beneficence principle of research that required a
sense of commitment to minimizing the risks associated with research and maximizing benefits
that accrue to research participants.

• The researcher further respected the communities’ values and interest; this was done
through confidentiality portrayed by the researcher during the research process.

14
 CHAPTER 4

4.0 DATA PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS

This chapter presents the results of the study. The results include presentation of the respondents’
bio-data-information and the results of the study. It also analyses research questions and their
responses. The results are presented in tables separately and followed by the research questions
analysis.

4.1 ANALYSIS OF RESULTS FROM TEACHERS

4.1.1 Research question 1: Specialist teachers have an advantage on the attainment of

content by secondary school age children. The answers to this question are presented in
table

1. Table 1: Advantages of content attainment among pupils

Frequency Percent Valid percent Cumulative percent

Valid Strongly 3 4.68 4.68 4.69

Disagree 7 10.93 10.93 15.94

Neither 6 9.37 9.37 24.98

agree or disagree

Agree
29 43.31 43.31 68.29

Agree strongly
19 29.68 29.68 100

Don’t know
0 0.0 0.0 00.00

15
Total 64 100 100 100

Table 1 shows that 72.99% of the respondents are of the opinion that specialist’ teachers have an
advantage in content attainment by secondary school children. On the contrarily 15.61% are f the
feeling that specialist teachers do not have an advantage on content attainment by pupils while
9.37% are neutral about the concept of specialization. The results hereby suggest that specialist
teachers have an advantage on attainment of content by secondary school pupils.

4.1.2 Research question 2: Subject Specialist teaching has a disadvantage on the content
attainment of secondary school age children. The answers to this question are presented in
table 2.

Table 2: Disadvantages of content attainment among pupils

Frequency Percent Valid percent Cumulative percent

16
Valid Strongly 16 25.00 25.00 25.00

Disagree 26 40.62 40.62 65.62

Neither 3 4.68 4.68 70.30

agree or disagree

Agree
14 21.87 21.87 92.17

Agree strongly
3 4.68 4.68 96.85

Don’t know
2 3.12 3.12 100.00

Total
64 100.00 100.00 100.00

The results reveal that 65.62% of the respondents do not see specialists’ teachers being a
disadvantage on content attainment by secondary school pupils. On the hand 26.55% feel that
subject specialisation teaching disadvantages content attainment by pupils, whereas only 7.2%
are neutral. Therefore the results depicts that subject specialisation is viewed as disadvantaging
pupils in content attainment.

4.1.3 Research question 3: Subject Generalist teachers have an advantage on the content
attainment of secondary school age children. The answers to this question are presented in
table 3.

Table 3: Advantage by Generalist teachers

17
 Frequency Percent Valid percent Cumulative percent

Valid Strongly 7 10.93 10.93 10.93

Disagree 17 26.56 26.56 37.49

Neither 14 21.87 21.87 59.37

agree or disagree

Agree
20 31.25 31.25 90.61

Agree strongly
6 9.37 9.37 100.00

Don’t know
0 0.00 0.00 100.00

Total
64 100 100 100.00

Table 3 shows that 40.62% of the respondents indicate that subject generalists’ teachers have an
advantage on content attainment by pupils whereas 21.87% of the respondents neither agree nor
disagree. On the other hand 37.49 of the respondents disagree with the fact that generalists’
teachers have an advantage on attainment of content by secondary schools pupils. The results
hereby suggest.

4.1.4 Research question 4: Generalist teaching has disadvantages on the content attainment
secondary school age children. The answers to this question are presented in table 4.

18
Table 4: Disadvantage by Generalist teachers on pupils

Frequency Percent Valid percent Cumulative percent

Valid Strongly 4 6.25 6.25 6.25

Disagree 12 18.75 18.75 25.00

Neither 8 12.50 12.50 37.50

agree or disagree

Agree
17 26.56 26.56 64.06

Agree strongly
20 31.25 31.25 95.31

Don’t know
3 4.68 4.68 99.99

Total
64 100 100 100.00

Table 4 results reveal that 57.81% of the respondents are of the opinion that generalist teachers
have disadvantages on content attainment by secondary school pupils. However 25% disagree
with the notion that generalist teachers contribute to poor content attainment by pupils while
12.5% are neutral in their perceptions. The results therefore indicate that generalist teaching is
perceived as contributing positively to content attainment by pupils.

19
4.1.5 Research question 6: A subject specialist teacher gets to know the academic growth of
pupils well. The answers to this question are presented in table 5.

Table 5: Knowledge by specialists’ teachers on academic growth

Frequency Percent Valid percent Cumulative percent

Valid Strongly 4 6.25 6.25 6.25

Disagree 14 26.56 26.56 32.81

Neither 11 17.18 17.18 49.99

agree or disagree

Agree
23 35.93 35.93 85.92

Agree strongly
9 14.06 14.06 99.99

Don’t know
0 0.00 0.00 100.00

Total
64 100.00 100.00 100.00

Table 6 shows that 49.99%are of the perception that subject specialisations have an overview on
the academic growth of pupils.32.81% are counter reacting having a perception that specialists
also have an impact on the academic growth of the learners. However 17.8% of the respondents
neither agree nor disagree with the idea that specialised teachers have an upper hand in the

20
knowledge of pupils’ academic growth. Therefore the majority of teachers are of the notion that
subject specialisations have an overview on the academic growth of pupils.

4.1.6 Research question 6: The subject specialist teacher brings the high level of subject
knowledge to their teaching. The answers to this question are presented in table 6.

Table 6: Specialist teachers’ subject knowledge

Frequency Percent Valid percent Cumulative percent

Valid Strongly 4 6.25 6.25 6.25

Disagree 0 0.00 0.00 6.25

Neither 3 4.68 4.68 10.93

agree or disagree

Agree
16 25.00 25.00 35.93

Agree strongly
41 64.06 64.06 99.99

Don’t know
0 0.00 0.00 100.00

Total
64 100.00 100.00 100.00

Table 6 shows that 17.18% of the respondents are neutral in their perception to the specialist
teachers subject knowledge and mastery. The result there by suggests that specialists’ teachers

21
are perceived as having good subject knowledge thereby contributing to high level content
mastery by pupils.

4.1.7 Research question 10: Subject knowledge and higher quality teaching are more likely
to come from specialist than generalist teachers. The answers to this question are presented
in table 7.

Table 7: Quality teaching by Specialist teachers

Frequency Percent Valid percent Cumulative percent

Valid Strongly 2 3.12 3.12 3.12

Disagree 3 4.68 4.68 7.80

Neither 4 6.25 6.25 14.05

agree or disagree

Agree
22 34.37 34.37 48.42

Agree strongly
33 51.56 51.56 99.98

Don’t know
0 0.00 0.00 100.00

Total
64 100.00 100.00 100.00

22
Table 7 results reveal that 7.8% of the respondents do not perceive specialist teachers as being in
a position to deliver higher quality. On the contrary 85.93% are of the perception that specialists
teachers are in a better position to provide high quality teaching.62.5% could not agree or
disagree with the ideas. The result therefore suggests respondents feel that higher quality
teaching can be provided by generalists’ teachers than specialists’ teachers.

4.1.8 Research question 8: Are teachers in secondary school teachers trained as specialist
subject teaching than generalists teaching. The answers to this question are presented in
table 8.

Table 8: Trained teachers

Frequency Percent Valid percent Cumulative percent

Valid Strongly 5 7.81 7.81 7.81

Disagree 5 7.81 7.81 15.62

Neither 6 9.37 9.37 24.99

agree or disagree

Agree
22 34.37 34.37 59.36

Agree strongly
22 34.37 34.37 93.73

Don’t know
4 6.27 6.27 100.00

23
Total 64 100.00 100.00 100.00

Table 8 shows that 68.74% are of the perception that most Secondary school teachers are not
subject specialists. On the other hand 15.62% are certain that Secondary school teachers are
more trained in subject generalization.6.27% is doubtful while 9.37% are neutral. The result
hereby implies that there are few secondary school teachers trained for subject specialists
teaching.

CHAPTER FIVE

DISCUSION OF FINDINGS

5.0 INTRODUCTION

This chapter discusses the findings of the study, as well as conclusion and recommendations
based on the findings of the study The focus was to: find out the perceptions of secondary school
teachers towards subject specialisation; Investigate on problems faced by secondary school
teachers, in the teaching of newly introduced curricular subjects and finally examine challenges
faced by secondary school teachers in the teaching of all subjects.

5.1 DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS

The major finding was that specialist subject knowledge was a stronger influence (for the better)
on teaching performance in subject than the specialist curriculum courses they had to follow.
This relationship was not apparent for either generalist subject teaching specialists or specialist
subject teaching where the influence of their training course outweighed that of their existing
subject knowledge. Some Namibian research has also looked at the impact of training versus
experience

The interesting finding came in the comparison of the specialist subject teachers and the
generalist subject teachers - there was only a ‘weak difference between subject specialist’s
teachers and generalist class teachers. Bressoux (1996), comments that ‘pupils ‘suffer’ from
having generalists teachers, particularly in Creative and Performing Arts’. The implication of this

24
is that the training they have received is at least as much of a factor in their effectiveness as their
subject knowledge. Of course, subject knowledge is not the only factor involved.

There is also teacher confidence. This has been investigated in the area of the expressive arts by
Duck (1990) in a study of Secondary school provision for teaching the arts in Australia. This
confirmed that most teachers have little experience of the arts in their own education and are not
confident in teaching them. Teachers in that study also saw the arts as less important than ‘basic’
areas of the curriculum. This contributes to a ‘cycle of neglect’ which leads to arts being under-
valued. One possible solution to this problem which Duck (1990) proposed is the use of subject
specialist teachers in which the Zambia government has proposed. The Revised National Policy
on Education of 1994; REC.24 [paragraph; 4.8.36], on teacher management and teacher
development, points out that: “from standard four onwards pupils should gradually be introduced
to teaching by specialists teachers,” (Republic of Zambia 1994, p.20

Similar research in the United Kingdom was conducted by Mills (1989) on Creative and
Performing Arts teaching. This described the experiences of forty nonspecialised Diploma
secondary teaching students. Initially most had little confidence in their ability to teach Creative
and performing arts. As their course progressed fewer and fewer taught any Creative and
Performing Arts related subject. Mills (1989) described a cycle in which ‘student teachers were
having negative perceptions about Creative and performing arts and did not teach it because
teachers with similar negative perceptions often do not teach it’. However, problems of
confidence are not confined to expressive arts subjects only in the Zambian situation. In
Teaching Service Management, Secondary school inspectoral report (2005) identified similar
problems among secondary teachers who teach science, mathematics, English, Performance and
Creative Arts as part of the prescribed curriculum (Chipeta and Mannathoko, 1996).

One final piece of research does not directly concern subject specialists but is worth noting and
pondering for its implications. From general comment by the respondents, Zambia colleges of
education are ill equipped in specialist teaching content. There are also a very large proportion of
teacher trainees who leave the colleges of education without any proper content because of
specialised subject knowledge and skills.. ‘Putting on an extra lense,’ this is more harm than
damage to the pupils as they would be taught by ‘half-baked teachers’ (Makhila, 1998).The
researcher in his investigation analysed the possible causes of poor performance inKasama

25
district of Zambia. One of the causes examined was ‘the characteristics of elementary education’
which are described thus: Since 1989, secondary or elementary education has been neglected.
The lack of thorough education on the existing and the potential future personality of the child
and the lack of thorough study of knowledge and skills have a logical consequence in the
performance of the secondary school learners.

CHAPTER SIX

6.0. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The tension between subject specialism and general classroom teaching will always be present to
some extent and is a reflection of the opposition between subject-centred and child-centred views
of education. What is remarkable is how little research evidence there is to support the arguments
on either side. The official literature is full of exhortation and assertions but these do not appear
to be built on sound evidential foundations. International data on education and training systems
does exist, but is not always in forms which allow any simple comparisons between countries,
far less to answer very specific questions about the impact of specialist teaching. Most studies
are relatively small scale and suggestive rather than conclusive. They suggest differences
between the attainments of pupil’s in different countries, but they are much less useful for
explaining the causes of those differences. The best the researcher can say from that data is that
the case for the effectiveness of subject specialist teaching at secondary level does not appear to
be supported as such a model of subject sharing appears to be favoured by the majority of upper
class teachers. There might be disagreements, however, about the best ways of doing it, and
when one considers the interests on non-specialists, other criteria must be thought of as well.
This will influence the way in which the subject is understood and used, but they are many
temptations to make neither elaborations nor comparisons of context and thus generates some
serious errors and blunders.

6. 1 RECOMMENDATIONS

26
 A model of subject sharing be implemented as specialization seems not suitable for all
classes and be rolled as well to special schools.
 To implement specialization there is need to review our policy Revised National Policy
Education so that we do not quote it ‘we walk the talk’. The other review is to look at
the Secondary Management Manual of (2000) which clearly states the Job Purpose of a
teacher as well as duties of specialists’ teachers (see page 26) Revised National Policy
Education supports specialization.
 The specialist subject teacher should be equipped with prerequisite skills (techniques,
behaviour problems and methodologies used at special class) so as to teach in a main
stream class.
 Having noted how much workload is realized with Languages, I think the Department
may consider either increasing the number of teachers for this area or exempting the
concerned Senior Teacher from teaching, thus bringing effective and efficient monitoring
of the exercise since he covers the entire school for these two subjects. Specialization in
languages be separated to a void workload for teachers at school level

27
 REFERENCES

Alexander, R., Rose, J. and Woodhead, C. (1992), Curriculum Organisation and Classroom
Practice in Secondary schools. London: Department of Education and Science.

Ball, S. (1995) ‘Education, Majorism and the “Curriculum of the Dead”’. In: Subject
Learning in the Secondary Curriculum.

Best, W.J., and Kahn, V.J. (2006). Research in Education (8th ed). Boston: Library of
Congress.

Bose, K., and Tsayang, G. (2005). ‘Availability and Utilization of information and a case of
Southern Region of Zambia ’- Pula Zambia journal of African Studies. Vol No. 19. Issue.
No. 32.

Broadfoot, P., Osborn, M. Planel, C. and Sharpe, K. (2000). Promoting Quality in Learning:
Does England Have the Answer? London:

Campbell, R.J. (1994). ‘Knowledge, Ignorance and Secondary Teaching’: an essay-review

of Learning to Teach’, Teaching and Teacher Education.

Cassell. Campbell, J. (1992). ‘Class teaching: the nightmare at Key Stage 2’, Junior
Education.

Chipeta, P.D.andMannathoko, C.E. (1996).Teaching Practice Evaluation. Macmillan:

Gaborone

28
Gay, L.R, .and Airasian, P. (2003), Educational Research Competencies for analysis and
Applications. New Jersey: Merrill Prentice-Hall.

Glaser, R. (1995) ‘Expert knowledge and the processes of thinking’. In: Subject Learning in
the Secondary Curriculum. (Murphy, P., Selinger, M., Bourne, J. and Briggs, M., eds.)
London; New York: Routledge.

Lous, C.andManion, L. (1994). Research Methods in Education. London: Routledge.

Lous, C.andManion, L. (2000). Research Methods in Education. London: Routledge

Musaazi,J. C. S(1982). The theory and Practice of Educational Administration- Studies In

Nigerian Education. Lagos: Macmillan

Nwangwu, N. A. (1978). Secondary school Administration. London: Macmillan Publishers

Wiersma, W. and Jars, S. (2005). Research Methods in Education- an Introduction- 8th.

Boston: Pearson Education.

Polkinghorne, D. E. (2005). Language and meaning: Data collection in qualitative research.

Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52(2), 137-145

Shulman, L. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard

Educational Review, 57(1), 1-23.

29
 APPENDIX 1:

QUESTIONNAIRE FOR TEACHERS

You are kindly requested to take time to go over this questionnaire and respond to all questions.
Do not write your name on this questionnaire, the responses will be treated with utmost
confidentiality.

TOPIC: Teachers’ perceptions towards subject specialisation in ZambiaSecondary schools-The

case ofKasama district.

Respond by placing a tick where appropriate.

SECTION A NAME OF SCHOOL (optional). ------------------------

1. Male [ ] Female [ ]

2. Age group.

22-25 [ ]

26-30[ ]

30
31-35[ ]

36-40[ ]

3. Teaching Experience.

0-5years [ ]

6-10years [ ]

11-15yers [ ]

16-20years [ ]

21years and above [ ]

iv. Qualification.

Secondary Teachers’ Certificate [ ]

Diploma in Secondary Education [ ]

Bachelor of Education [ ]

Others (specify) -------------------------------------------------------------

31
 Appendix 2

Interview Questions

Thank you for agreeing to participate in this research study, and for making time to be
interviewed today. This research study aims to hear elementary teacher perspectives on the
relationship between subject-matter specialization and students’ learning experience and
academic. This interview will last approximately 45-60 minutes, and I will ask you a series
of questions focused on your background, experiences, beliefs, and challenges you face or
overcame. I want to remind you that you may refrain from answering any question, and you
have the right to withdraw your participation from the study at any time. As I explained in
the consent letter, this interview will be audio- recorded. Do you have any questions before
we begin?

Background Information

1. How long have you been working as a teacher?

2. What did you study before teaching?

a. Undergraduate studies? Major/Minor

32
b. Graduate studies?

3. What made you pursue a career in elementary teaching?

4. Where did you do your teacher certification? Were you enrolled in the Secondary /Junior
option?

5. (For teachers who are specialized in a specific subject area)

What made you decide to specialize in that specific subject area?

6. In your experience of teachers college, how were you prepared to teach a range of
curricular subject areas?

Did you supplement that experience with additional qualifications in any specific areas?

If yes, which ones?

7. What experiences contributed to developing your subject area expertise?

a. Personal experiences?

b. Educational experiences?

c. Professional experiences?

8. What was your favorite and your least favorite subjects during your own K-12 schooling
experience?

a. What, if anything, do you recall about your own teachers’ subject expertise in the
elementary grades?

9. What is your current teaching position?

a. What grades and/or subjects do you currently teach? And what did you previously teach?

b. Are you involved in any different roles in the school like coaching, advisor, or resource
teacher?

10. Can you tell me more about your school? (e.g. size, demographics, program priorities)

33
a. Who are the subject-specialists teachers in your school? What do they teach?

Teacher Perspectives/Beliefs

11. What does subject-matter knowledge mean to you?

What do you think contributes to teachers’ subject-matter knowledge?

12. What do you believe is the role of subject-matter knowledge in teaching?

13. What benefits do you think there are, for teachers and students, as a result of teachers’
subject-matter knowledge and expertise? *listen first and then probe re:

a. Teacher comfort level?

b. Teacher enthusiasm?

c. Student engagement?

d. Student academic achievement?

14. In your experience, what are some of the consequences of teacher’s limited subjectmatter
knowledge?

15. In your view, what are the disadvantages of generalized teaching in elementary schools?
16. What do think is the role of comfort level with subject-matter knowledge in teaching?

17. What do you think is the relationship between a teacher’s comfort level with their
subject-matter knowledge and the students’ engagement and achievement?

18. What do you think about the current Canadian system for elementary teaching and
learning in terms of the generalist model? Do you like this model or would you prefer to see
something different?

19. Why do you think elementary generalized teaching is the common system applied in
Canada?

34
Teacher Practices

20. In what ways did your subject-matter learning in your undergraduate study impact your
current professional practice?

21. What are your preferred subjects to teach and why?

22. How is your teaching experience different when you are teaching your most favored
subjects compared to your least favored ones and why?

23. How do you think your students’ learning experience in these subject areas is different as
a result?

Supports and Challenges

24. How do you feel when you have to teach a subject area that you are less confident in or
comfortable with in terms of subject-matter knowledge? What challenges do you experience?

25. What do you do to prepare yourself when this happens? What sources do you typically
consult and why? What resources help prepare you to teach subject areas that you are less
comfortable with?

35