Text Possession and Teachers’ Pedagogical Practices in the Teaching of Prose Literature-in-English in Some Schools in Ibadan
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Performance in school examinations has remained one of the reliable indices of the quality of education in manycountries. For over two decades in Nigeria, students’ performance in most subjects on the school curriculumincluding Literature-in-English has been persistently declining. A number of explanations are offered for thisunsatisfactory situation. Many students experience frustration in their efforts to study Literature due to poorproficiency in the English language as well as non-facilitative methods and strategies adopted by teachers. Studies onthe teaching of Literature further revealed that the focus of research was on such issues as methods, strategies andproblems of teaching Literature in the secondary school. Only a few studies centered on text possession while littleor none seem available on whether the teacher’s methods and pedagogical practices were sensitive to students’ extentof text possession. The study, therefore, investigated the extent of prescribed text possession by Literature-in-Englishstudents as well as whether the level of text possession by students influenced the teacher’s methods and pedagogicalpractices. The descriptive survey research design was adopted in the study. Participants in the study comprised 100Senior Secondary School II teachers of Literature-in-English and their 500 students in Ibadan metropolis. Theparticipants were selected using purposive random sampling techniques. Three instruments used for the collection ofdata were: Questionnaire on Students’ Possession of Prescribed Prose Literature Texts (r= .76), Questionnaire onTeachers’ Organization of the Teaching of Literature (r= .75) and Classroom Observation Schedule for the Teachingof Prose Literature (r= .84). Four research questions were answered. Data analysis involved the use of frequencycounts and percentages. Results revealed that a majority of the students do not possess the prescribed Literature texts(60.2% and 65.5%) for African and non- African novels respectively. Teachers generally adopted the read aloud andexplain method of teaching Literature (61%).This is followed by the teacher assigning chapters to be read from homeand discussed in class (37%). There is also the use of the lecture method (27.18%). Results further indicate that whena majority or all the students possessed the prescribed texts, teachers used read aloud and explain method (43.1%) aswell as the lecture method (25.8%) and discussion method (1.8%). Similarly, when either a few or none of thestudents possessed the prescribed texts, teachers used read aloud and explain methods (36.4%) followed by thelecture method (28%). It was concluded that lack of text possession by the students and teachers’ inflexible use ofmethods in spite of varying contexts of teaching and learning are strong pointers to students declining performance inprose Literature. Government and parents should take realistic measures to provide prescribed texts for studentswhile teachers should be encouraged to use innovative methods that are consistent with the teaching and learningcontexts.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,007 | 0,003 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,003 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».